Setting the Record Straight

african american history

Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White, Kindle edition. Written by David Barton. 190 print pages. Published in 2004.

In this short book chronicling the political history and trajectory of black citizens in America, David Barton sets out to do exactly as its title implies: set the record straight. While Barton, a lay history expert who is highly regarded in Christian circles, has composed a book filled with valuable and often unknown information, I think he falls a little short of his goal when it comes to offering anything revelatory in a general sense.

I enjoyed many aspects of this book, which began its journey in 1787 and concluded with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its political fallout. There were a few rabbit trails onto the subject of abortion, a foundational rail of democrat politics, and other religious conservative issues. These were distracting, but short enough as Barton seemed to quickly return to his primary subject matter. This is a good thing because there is a lot of unknown history relating to the numbers of black U.S. senators and representatives who were elected to Congress during Reconstruction. Many of the quotes from those men’s sermons and speeches are quite inspirational. I appreciated the thoroughly detailed sourcing Barton provided.

What bugged me as I read this book was an underlying assumption than ran through it from beginning to end.  Barton seems to be under the mistaken impression that most of his readers (regardless of race) are ignorant of the fact that up until the 1960s, most black Americans were registered Republicans although their votes were splitting nearly 50/50 from the time of the presidential election of FDR. Conversely, he seems to think most of his readers ignorant of the fact that the Democrat party, until the 1960s, was the party which supported slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.

I will offer this in the author’s defense. Given the staggering amount of revisionist history, twisted narratives and oversimplification of political arguments as presented by most American media, it’s probably not a stretch to assume that very few Americans who are millennials or younger are aware of this information. The problem with this book is that repeatedly pointing out for over 100 pages that every piece of legislation supporting or contributing to the oppression of black people was initiated by the democrat party will do little to change the hearts or minds of people living in the here and now.

As I read through the book, I was torn between my appreciation of its compilation of records, quotes, and sources documenting the accomplishments and milestones of black American politicians in this country and the nagging sense that the entire purpose of the book was to get me to *see* something that I already knew. I wanted to like it, and there were portions of it that I liked a great deal. I simply would have liked it a lot more if there were fewer attempts to contrast the “evil” Democrat party with the “righteous” Republican Party. If this is a hard sell for someone like me, and I have nothing good to say in defense of the Democrat party, I couldn’t help but wonder how it would come across when read by someone more inclined to view the Democrat party favorably, as most black Americans are.

Barton, a devout Christian, does take the occasional moment to remind his reader that true hope and liberty will never be found in any political party, and I genuinely appreciated the quotes he offered from various theologians and Christian politcos asserting the same. For instance, this quote from Noah Webster was offered as a reminder of principles over party:

In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect [party] of the candidate- look to his character…It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualification for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct [in Exodus 18:21] that rulers should be men “who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.”

The most glaring omission from the book is a needed exploration of how and why things changed so drastically in such a short period of time. Specifically, how we reached a point where black voters vote nearly monolithically, to the tune of 90% Democrat, despite the previously strong bond between the Republican party and black Americans in the fight for liberty and civil rights. Barton chooses to gloss over this by signaling LBJ’s signing the Civil Rights Act as the turning point, but the situation was far more complex, and longer in development than this seminal moment in 1964.

As is my custom, I decided I would interject a little bit of information here that would have been helpful had it been in this book. There is a relatively clear, if not necessarily clean path to view when trying to figure out the whys and wherefores of the black American exodus from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party. A very good exposition of the subject can be found at the blog Soul Therapy. In his post, How Blacks Became Democratic: The Myth of Republican Racism, “dathistoryguy” offers a much better understanding than most people are aware of. I highly recommend it for a more accurate, well-rounded perspective.

As for Setting the Record Straight? I’m rating it average for educational value, but only for those who can happily take in all the information and ignore the political demagoguery.

3 out of 5 stars

 

The Two-Income Trap

two income trap

The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers are Going Broke, by Elizabeth Waren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. Published in 2003. Hardcover, 272 pages.

Even though we began a discussion of this book in a recent Coming Attractions post, there is a lot more to unpack about this book than we covered a few weeks ago.

Despite my general disagreement with its conclusions, I liked that The Two-Income Trap was honest about a critical cause of the family economic crisis that was introduced when families switched from the one-income model to the two-income model. The authors struck a key note by undercutting the falsehood turned “truism” which was made popular by Betty Friedan. Namely, that a houswife’s job could by capably handled by a competent 8-year-old.

Warren and her daughter, working mothers and committed feminists, openly acknowledging that the two-income trap burdens families in ways other than just economics was an intellectually honest, cross-partisan, breath of fresh air that we won’t hear anyone utter today except religious or conservative commentators. They note that the at home wife and mother was a family’s safety net, and here’s why. When hard times hit a family whose entire economic structure is based on two incomes, the family begins to sink almost immediately because its income and resources are all accounted for. Conversely, if the wife has to get a job temporarily to help things stay afloat while her husband looks for a new job or recovers from an injury, her income is an actual boost to help cover existing expenses.

All of the aforementioned economic considerations are only part of the equation, and astonishingly, Warren also acknowledges the importance of wives as cregivers to aging parents as well as children, and the boon this is to not only families but community life. Before you get too excited, Warren is in no way suggesting that women return home en masse from the work force. Instead, she explores what she thinks is the key econimic impetus behind the exponential rise in two-income families: the urgent need for parents to raise their children in the safest envirnonment with the best schools they can obtain.

With this as her foundation, she asserts that this urgent need for the best educational outcomes for kids effectively caused the parents to engage in a bidding war for homes in the best school districts, driving up suburban housing costs. Because a greater family income translates into approval for a bigger mortgage, Warren argues, the income produced by mothers is going directly toward monthly expenses rather than toward savings. Additionally, she goes to great pains to destroy the argument that middle-class families are over leveraged and hanging on due to overconsumption, but that they are in trouble because their already precarious situation offers little to no financial margin to handle the inevitable challenges of life such as deaths, illnesses, or income reductions that come in a volatile economic climate.

After laying the case for her proposed solutions using real families as examples, Warren begins to lay the groundwork for what she believes government can do to help solve the problem. She writes at length about predatory lending and regulating the banking and credit card industries. In fact, she spends a lot of time on those two issues, sounding a lot like the Elizabeth Warren we have known and loved (or loathed) in the years since she entered the political arena. There was one particular solution she proposed that no one could have convinced me she ever believed; the issue of school choice. The biggest shocker was a pretty strong advocation of vouchers, with emphasis on parental choice:

Short of buying a new home, parents currently have only one way to escape a failing public school: Send the kids to private school. But there is another alternative, one that would keep much-needed tax dollars inside the public school system while still reaping the advantages offered by a voucher program. Local governments could enact meaningful reform by enabling parents to choose from among all the public schools in a locale, with no presumptive assignment based on neighborhood. Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick schools for their children—and to choose which schools would get their children’s vouchers.

Obviously, her proposed voucher program wouldn’t support private or religious schools, but it still opens public schools up to the forces of competition and the related accountability. The far left and teacher’s unions hate that idea. So in the wake of her increasingly high ambitions for public office, Warren decided that parental choice isn’t the be all end all anymore, but in 2003 when she wrote her book, she said:

any policy [which] loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happened to lie within the boundaries of a desirable school district.

Gotta love politics.

Overall, this book is a mixed bag. It’s better than most  progressive manifestos you’ll read because whatever it’s failings, it at least parks alongside the truth sometimes. The title alone is shocking from the likes of Warren.

At the end of the day, it’s mostly a treatise on how government can save us from ourselves and what policies can be enacted so that the two-income family becomes as viable an entity as the one-income family once was. Without the sacrifices to Mom’s autonomy.

When I didn’t hate it, I liked it.

3 out of 5 stars.

 

 

 

 

 

A Preview of Coming Attractions: The Two-Income Trap

Due to my haphazard style of reading several books at once, it often takes me longer to finish a book than it would if I’d just pick a book and stick through it already. My reading is much more targeted when I read fiction, and especially so if I am enjoying the characters and plot. With nonfiction, however, it may  take as long as two months to finish a book as I pivot from one volume to the next depending on the topic I’m in the mood to read about.

I’m currently moving -albeit glacially- through Elizabeth Warren’s The Two-Income Trap, which I’ve been reading for a few weeks. I should finish by May’s end, as I’m more than halfway through it at this point. However, in the interest of keeping my personal commitment to write more and post installments here with greater regularity, I decided to preview the forthcoming review with a rather profound insight from Mrs. Warren, found on page 67 of her book:

So how did families get sucked into the Two-Income Trap? The answer is unexpectedly simple: No one saw it coming.

The politics that surrounded women’s collective decision to integrate into the workforce are a study in misdirection. On the left, the women’s movement was battling for equal pay and equal opportunity, and any suggestion that the family might be better off with Mother at home was discounted as reactionary chauvinism. On the right, conservative commentators accused working mothers of everything from child abandonment to defying the laws of nature. The atmosphere was far too charged for any rational assessment of the financial consequences of sending both spouses into the workforce.

The massive miscalculation ensued because both sides of the political spectrum discounted the financial value of the stay-at-home mother. [emphasis mine]

Despite my feelings about Elizabeth Warren the politician, this is very insightful commentary from the Elizabeth Warren of 16 years ago, the professor.

I look forward to reviewing this work in a fuller context sometimes next week.

 

Discrimination and Disparities

discrimination and disparities

Discrimination and Disparities, by Dr. Thomas Sowell, Kindle edition. Originally published March, 2018. 143 print pages.

Thomas Sowell, among the most brilliant economist and political commentators of our time, was the first voice that resonated with me as I began to formulate my own thoughts about how the world works. His work helped me to intelligently process which policy ideas were worthwhile  and which are actually destructive to society. For the first few years of my adult life, I had accepted a lot of things at face value which turned out, under closer scrutiny in the light of facts, to be fallacious at best, but mostly just ridiculous and dangerous.

This book is particularly exciting for me to share because it is exactly the book I would recommend to anyone who is unfamiliar with Dr. Sowell’s work. Having read many of his books, I can attest that his work is not light reading. You must approach it attentively and prepared to be confronted with boatloads of facts. Dr. Sowell bombards his readers with so much documented research that thinking is required to read his books.

The beauty of this book is that it is perfect for the stunted attention spans of 2019. In fact, if I had to describe it in a concise manner, I would characterize it as a comprehensive Cliff Notes version of Dr. Sowell’s accumulated research on the whys and wherefores of group and individual outcomes. If I had to pick one quote from this book that encapsulates its spirit, it would be this one from page 17:

What can we conclude from all these examples of highly skewed distributions of outcomes around the world? Neither in nature nor among human beings are either equal or randomly distributed outcomes automatic. On the contrary, grossly unequal distributions of outcomes are common, both in nature and among people, in circumstances where neither genes nor discrimination are involved.

What seems a tenable conclusion is that, as economic historian David S. Landes put it, “The world has never been a level playing field.” The idea that it would be a level playing field, if it were not for either genes or discrimination, is a preconception in defiance of both logic and facts.

You really need to read the entire book to fully appreciate the wealth of insight in that  quote. This is especially true in our world where people are so highly invested in their personal narratives of why the world is the way it is. Whether it is those who insist we can legislate our way to equal distribution of outcomes which are mostly a result of overt, hostile discrimination, or those whose haughty belief in their own superiority cause them to genuinely believe that entire races of people are inferior to other entire races of people, Sowell puts both assertions on the chopping block. Using solid facts and evidence as the ax, both erroneous assumptions lose their heads.

The cool thing about this book, besides its detached and factual approach to a sensitive subject, is that the notes section is extensive. In fact, a full 1/4 of the book is encompassed with notes and research references. In other words, Dr. Sowell doesn’t simply offer up  his clear belief that most inequality of outcomes can be easily directed to causes other than racial, sexual, or class discrimination. He backs it up with facts, then backs up those facts with even more facts.

If you’ve never read Sowell, or tried and gave up under the weight of his intellectual style and overwhelming factual record, this short book is an excellent read to get the gist of why this man is so well respected as a giant in the intersection of economics and political policy. Or why he is so hated by those who prefer that we just make decisions based on whatever makes us feel as if we’re good people.

5 out of 5 stars

 

Thomas Sowell Invites Us to Think.

I am currently reading Thomas Sowell’s latest release, Discrimination and Disparities. I feel completely comfortable saying that Dr. Sowell is one of the greatest economic and political commentators of the 21st century. He has an unrelenting commitment to the truth and his insistence on looking at the logical conclusion of ideas makes him a rare breed among commentators of the day.

The fact that a thing sounds good, compassionate, or helpful must -according to Sowell, and I agree- be held up against empirical, factual information to determine if it is indeed going to produce the results promised. Usually, utopian intentions turn out to be little more than a Super Highway to Hell (I ripped that from Sowell).

He recently sat down with Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report to do an interview discussing his life, life’s work, and this new book.  Below is the 46 minute interview in its entirety. He mentions the propensity of so many people to spout off with very little idea of what they are talking about. Good stuff, worth the 3/4 of an hour:

Have a great weekend!

Blogging through The Feminine Mystique

feminine mystique

The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan. Originally published in 1963. Hardcover. 592 pages.

In an effort to be less inclined to have strong opinions about things I know little about yet have the ability to know more about, I have decided  there are a few books I should read for myself. These are the books that are referred to frequently by people for ideological reasons to promote their agendas. The kinds of books where the sum total of the view being presented is forever cemented in our minds based on the 10 well worn quotes that we’ve all read hundred of times over the years.

One book I decided to read -and blog through- is Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. I don’t expect reading it to alter my perspective, conviction, or beliefs regarding feminism. In fact, I am certain that it won’t. The results on the experiment of radical feminism are in, and they speak for themselves.

What I am most interested in is dichotomous experiences to the women Friedan references (in her first two chapters, for instance) when compared to women in less pampered circumstances. I also want to see if Friedan noted how the Industrial Revolution, whatever it added standard of living in aggregate, drastically changed the nature of the domestic sphere and the intrinsic value it added to the bottom line in the years when our economy was more agrarian.

In other words, I want a full picture of the alignment of family life and life for women in the 1950s leading up to the time of the publication of The Feminine Mystique. Even a cursory bit of research reveals that family life for most Americans was a far cry from the television portrayal of The Andersons and The Cleavers. This was especially true for my parents and grandparents, yet we are constantly presented that narrative of the 1950s as indicative of mainstream America.

I have reasons for this interest which may or may not be revealed in 2019, but let’s see if there are any unheralded surprises -at least surprises to me- to be found in The Feminine Mystique.

 

 

Hippies of the Religious Right

51u4gYwcpBL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Hippies of the Religious Right: From the counter-culture of Jerry Garcia to the Subculture of Jerry Falwell. By Preston Shires. Originally published in 2007. 287 pages.

You can tell an awful a lot about a man based solely on when he was born. Or at least, that’s what I read somewhere once, although I can’t tell you where even though I just spent 5 minutes clicking about trying to find it. Nevertheless, I believe there is a large grain of truth to the sentiment, and it strikes at the heart of what Preston Shires discusses in his book, Hippies of the Religious Right.

If I understand him correctly, Shires is exploring the culture and expression of belief in the young generation of the 1960s, many of whom became the devoutly religious and politically active in what was referred to from the late 1980s and onward as the “religious right”. That spirit of activism, coupled with the importance of the individual  are ideas of the 1960s with its rebellion from stilted, politically correct, hypocritical religious practices, gave way to a generation of Christians determined to be open, authentic, and inclusive in their faith.

It’s normal to be liberal when you’re young and grow increasingly conservative as you age. I read that somewhere also, but having lived it and witnessed in others, I can safely attest to the veracity of the statement. Given that, it makes sense that as the hippies of the 60s who never really abandoned faith in Christianity as the one true way grew up, they would return to the fold bringing with them what *worked* from 60s activist culture.

In a nutshell, Shires contends that:

Ever since the coming of the Jesus Freaks, born of the generation gap and rebellion against the technocratic establishment, evangelicalism has been injected with an activist fervor that encompasses the whole of life. That activism and commitment stimulated and nurtured the Christian Right. p.209

He continues the thoughts:

The greatest irony of the traditional interpretation of the Christian Right as a negative reaction to the sixties’ counterculture is that most evangelicals agreed with such a definition in the late 1970s ans still agree with it today. And with this understanding, they confidently stand dismissive of the sixties’ counterculture. But if it had not been for the counterculture, there may never have been a Christian Right, because the counter culture gave to evangelicalism the rebellious spirit, the youthful activists, and the committed voters it so needed. p.210

In other words, large swaths of the mainstream church were lukewarm (like Laodicea, I suppose), lacking any kind of real fervor or alternative to the greater corrupted society. Enter sixties’ radicalism.

I appreciated the pains Shires went to to present his arguments with as little ideological interjection or pontificating as possible. He made it clear early on the book that he would not be doing so, and he kept his oath. He leaves it to the reader to make their own decision about the rightness or wrongness of the conclusions he has drawn.

I am of two minds on the matter myself. On the one hand, I agree completely that the seeds of the religious right as we have come to know it were not only planted by the 60’s counterculture, but were nurtured and watered by the young people most influenced by that culture. What I’m not sure of is whether that was ultimately a good thing. The potholes along that roadway as a means of spreading the gospel have proven to be wide and deep, disabling the journeys of many earnest Christ seekers along the way.

Preston Shires definitely gives his readers a lot to think about. It’s a good book, although the tone is very academic and studious. If you’re interested in reading it, be warned that it’s not a quick conversational read. It really is written for those of us who are sincerely interested in the topic.

4 out of 5 Stars

Related: