They seem to have fit more whitespace in, which I think I like. But there’s still a heavy use of flash. Boo. Can an iPad user get some love?

When one lives in Washington, DC, it is an unfortunately common occurrence to find oneself in a political, philosophical, or otherwise worldview-oriented conversations. While I generally find these interesting and (if I may flatter myself) am able to in some small way hold my own, I have realized that I need a firmer grounding in the means of understanding.

I could, like Descartes, choose to lock myself in a room until I suddenly comprehend the world around me. Or I could not reinvent the wheel. I would also like a solution that involves you, dear reader.Thus, I propose to undertake the following endeavor: to read one Great book a month and report back to you. The rules are to be as follows:

1. I will purchase each book and do something I rarely do: mark in it as I read it.
2. Unless otherwise noted, I will have one month to read each book.
3. Upon completing the book, I will post a reflection of some variety on the blog. Exact content will be flexible.

Further guidelines will be:

• I will rotate through four main categories of books: Science, Economics or Philosophy, Literature, and Theology.
• Suggestions for future books will be solicited on the blog. (Please reply in the comments rather than directly to me, for the benefit of other readers.)

To begin, I shall finish The Origin of Species this month. After that, I will be moving to the next category. Contenders for the second book include:

• The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith
• The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
• Capital by Marx
• A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Please leave further suggestions below. I will need particular help when it comes to the Literature section. I have been careful to specifically include it, as I would tend not to read it. Beginning with one of Shakespeare’s plays that I have not yet read seems a good idea to me, but I am open to ideas.

In this means I hope to accomplish in some small fashion my tweet tonight (incidentally, Twitter is a wonderful way to learn to be concise in one’s writing): “The world must by synthesized.”

What I didn’t realize at the time is just how devoted the magazine is to its writing. I suppose that technically all publications are in some way devoted to good writing—even this humble blog attempts to produce at least a semblance of something readable—but The New Yorker takes it to an art.

It is probably more accurate to say, in fact, that The New Yorker is devoted to the art of writing rather than just to writing well. It does not just inform you about the subject, or persuade you, or entertain you. Instead, the authors seek to build a picture out of words for you. It may be true that a picture is worth a thousand words, but then how do we value a picture built from words?

This idea of pictures built from words occurred to me while I was reading Ian Frazier’s “Travels in Siberia“. As Frazier was describing the vast Russian hinterlands and the eclectic people whom he encountered along his “ultimate road trip”, I kept thinking that the trip would have been perfect fodder for one of those National Geographic articles filled with amazing pictures of foreign places and things. Then I realized that such pictures would be redundant; Frazier’s words were the images.

Not to say that pictures are unnecessary. National Geographic just wouldn’t be itself without its incredible images (though there has been a sad decline in the amount of informative writing accompanying them in recent years). But in this case the images would have hindered the telling of the tale.

Frazier paints with his words as a painter puts oil on a canvas. Or, from a different point of view, he uses them as a chisel like a sculptor; he begins with the stereotype of Siberia and whittles it away until all that remains is the essence of the land. Reading his account draws you into his travels as much as gazing at the horizon of the steppes in a picture could ever pull you in.

My attempts at painting a picture with words of Frazier’s picture with words, for that is what I am quickly falling into, will inevitably fail. So I’ll leave you with simply an emphatic recommendation that you read Travels in Siberia, parts one and two.

Somewhere in the gulf between America and the Muslim world there lies a deep misunderstanding.  This fact is well known to many Americans, who often use it as justification for American actions at home and abroad.  It seems fairly obvious, from the American point of view, that the Muslims who denounce America and its policy, people, or culture don’t understand what they are talking about.

Unfortunately for Americans this deep misunderstanding is in reality a mutual problem.  In fact, in all likelihood it is Americans who know less about the Muslim world than vice versa.*

It is this mutual misunderstanding that John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed seek to address in their book Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.  What is most interesting about the book, however, is not the subject but the data used for the research.  The study is based on the latest Gallup World Poll, which looked at survey data from more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 countries.  The authors’ goal is to address many of the questions about the relationship between the West and Islam using more than just rhetoric.  As they say at the end of their Introduction: “Let the data lead the discourse” (xv).

The chapter titles of Who Speaks for Islam? indicate that the book seeks to tackle a number of very weighty questions:

1. Who Are Muslims?
2. Democracy or Theocracy?
3. What makes a Radical?
4. What do Women Want?
5. Clash or Coexistence?

The degree to which each chapter is successful varies, and in the end the book does not offer a definite answer to the question its title poses.  Yet Who Speaks for Islam? is still a must-read for anyone who truly wants to understand the current tensions between the Muslim World and the West.  It will be impossible to ever address these tensions until we understand the factors behind them and this book shatters numerous all-too-common stereotypes about those factors.

Destroying Monoliths (and Recreating Them)

Astute readers may already have noticed a flaw in my blog post: I begin by referencing the “Muslim world” as a monolithic entity.  This is the first notion that Esposito and Mogahed set out to disprove.  They point out that in reality the 1.3 billion Muslims are spread across 57 countries on every country, two major religious divisions, and the entire socio-economic spectrum, generating countless different opinions on subjects large and small.  To many Americans this comes as a surprise, despite the fact that these same Americans would protest vehemently about being lumped together with Europe in “the West.”

After this plunge into the diversity of the Muslim world, the book seeks to outline what it means to be a Muslim.  Unfortunately the very diversity the book reveals in its opening makes this a daunting task.  The first chapter thus tends to oversimplify certain aspects of the Islamic faith, but at least succeeds in laying a groundwork for later use.  (For those who seek a better understanding of Islam I recommend Malise Ruthven’s Islam: A Very Short Introduction.)

Not Mutually Exclusive

Large portions of the book are dedicated to proving that various ideas are not mutually exclusive.  While this might seem an unnecessary endeavor at first, it is in reality absolutely essential.  I have heard my own friends voice the opinion that true democracy in Muslim majority countries is an impossibility, because Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Esposito and Mogahed martial the statistical data against such stereotypes.  They point out that “substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech” (47).  It is important, however, to remember that democracy in the Muslim world would not look exactly like democracy in the West (and we shouldn’t want it to).  Majorities in most countries favor democracy advised by Sharia.

The word Sharia, of course, scares most Americans.  Yet when understood properly as a compass for deriving law from religious principles, Sharia is far different from the Western stereotypes of it.  That Muslims wish their sacred text and traditions to advise their laws is not different from Americans:

Ironically, we don’t have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law.  In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

• Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be “a” source, and 9% believe it should be the “only” source of legislation.
• Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no roll at all.  These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran. (49)

This and other examples throughout Who Speaks for Islam? demonstrate that Muslims and Americans are not that different at heart.  We all want our beliefs to inform our laws, want peace and rule of law, want good governance and the ability to speak freely.  We are all humans.  The belief that Muslims are somehow inherently different, twisted, or evil is not only wrong, it is destructive.

Myths about Muslims

The real meat of the book lies in the later chapters, particularly “What do Women Want?” and “Clash or Coexistence?”  The chapter on women and Islam is especially interesting in that it addresses one of the West’s biggest causes célèbres concerning Islam: that Muslim women are oppressed.  The data in this section surprised me, and support Esposito and Mogahed’s conclusion that Muslim women want freedom and rights, but on their own terms.  Along with the statistics, this chapter is sprinkled with personal accounts to hammer home that not all Muslim women are quiet and reserved.

In the final chapter, “Clash or Coexistence,” the book examines a number of popular myths about Islam:

• Islam is the problem
• Europe will become Muslim
• The Muslim world hates the West because of its freedom
• The Clash of Civilizations

It is unsurprising that Esposito and Mogahed oppose the Clash of Civilizations theory, especially with the data presented in the book.  When the current global tensions are seen through the lens of global polling it becomes clear that what separates people is not as much religion as human-manufactured political tensions.

This leads the authors into their recommendations for U.S. policymakers, many of which feel somewhat undefined.  Despite this flaw, they repeatedly make the key point that U.S. policy does not currently match U.S. rhetoric.  There is no easier way to lose the world’s faith and trust than to say one thing and appear to do another.

Imperfect, but Necessary

Who Speaks for Islam? ends suddenly after the fifth chapter and it feels as if the authors should have been able to produce a more detailed portrait of the Muslim world.  In addition, the book lacks an appendix  containing any of the raw data, though I assume it is available online.

Even with these shortcomings, the book should be on the short reading list of any politically or culturally aware American.  In today’s world of sound-bytes, instant news, and ideologues it is far too easy to frame a debate or controversy without truly understanding the views of the participants.  Who Speaks for Islam? provides a fascinating look at the other side of the current global tensions.  Only when we seek to understand those who are not like us can we truly come to peace with them.

* My apologies to those American Muslims who read this post and wish to object that contrasting “Americans” and “Muslims” is a fallacy.  My differentiation is incorrect but necessary for simplification of the argument.

Obviously, I could not help being somewhat biased as I entered the showing, seeing my previous comments on the film.  I did, however, attempt to maintain as open a mind as possible to Expelled. Hopefully that will be apparent in this post.  Let us then begin.

The Presentation

A good place to start is my first impressions, which were less about the content of Expelled than about its filmmaking.  From the very beginning, it was obvious how well made the whole project was.  Make no mistake, this was no half-budget, slipshod operation.  While it didn’t quite achieve the indie feel that the opening sequence was clearly going for, the entire movie was enjoyable to watch.  (Though I personally don’t like the camera-bouncing-while-moving cinematography that was often employed.)

The order and flow of the documentary was great, guided along by Ben Stein’s narration of his investigation into the controversy.  He often says things such as, “this led me back to X to ask him about Y,” making it very easy to follow.

The one major problem I had with the filmmaking was the injection of short scenes, generally from older films or movies, into the narrative.  For example, while Stein is talking about how some scientists have been “expelled” for their views, it cuts to a clip of three men pushing another man around before hitting him.  By far the most common image, however, was film from the Berlin Wall.  The connection the producers were trying to make was to the “wall” that Darwinists have built to keep ID out.  There were also numerous images from the Nazi and Soviet states.

The problem with injecting such clips is that it detracts from the main argument that Expelled sought to convey.  Clips of the Soviets or Nazis are inherently emotional, designed to create a certain impression in the viewer.  While this emotional content may have succeeded in getting people worked up about the issue, the clips detracted from any potential academic or intellectual appeal the movie could have held.

(My roommate, correctly, points out that such emotional appeal is going to be inherent in the film medium.  In all likelihood a film created by atheistic evolutionists would have similar, though opposite, film clips.)

The Scientists

The film begins with stories about a number of scientists who have been “expelled” for their beliefs in Intelligent Design.  This section is well, and carefully, put together. If you just watch the film, it makes a very persuasive argument.  There is, however, more to each of these cases than was presented.  I’ll leave it up to Expelled Exposed to cover the facts here.

That doesn’t necessarily mean, of course, that Expelled is completely wrong in its assertion.  I would not be surprised at all if the scientists’ views on ID did have an effect on their situations.  In the end, this is just as much a problem created by the ID community itself in the way it has approached the situation as it is with the scientific community.

Facts, Evidence, and Definitions

One thing to remember about Expelled is that it does not present any evidence about whether Darwinism or ID is correct.  It is not a scientific film and should not be considered as such; never does it present a compelling argument from either side. This is somewhat ironic after the statement by one of the ID supporters that in the end the debate will be settled by the evidence. (In light of this, it is also somewhat unfair of the film to mock theories put forth by scientists about the origins of life.  Without examining the evidence and presenting opposing theories, such ideas can’t be adequately judged.)

Without presenting evidence, Expelled spent most of the time talking about the vaguely titled movements of “Darwinism” and “Intelligent Design.” There are two things to note here.  First, the term “Darwinism” is consistently used, with no reference to later developments in evolutionary theory.  While it is true that Darwin fathered the modern idea of evolution, there have been great strides in scientific knowledge since his time.  The term “Darwinism” is a very powerful and very stereotyped reference to evolutionists.

Second, the film never defines exactly what Intelligent Design means, other than what can be inferred from those two words.  Interviews throughout the film speak of how ID is very broad, including many ideas.  What isn’t stated is that one of those ideas can be the acceptance of biological evolution.  For example, many ID proponents may have no problem with most of “Darwinism,” while believing that a designer intervened at some point to move the process along.

This becomes very important when the film speaks of Darwinism as causing a devaluation of human life.  What of ID proponents who still believe in evolution?  Unless such ID beliefs also devalue human life, not something the producers would want to say, then the problem isn’t with evolution.  Instead, the problem is with atheism, and that is a completely different fight.

I find it puzzling that the producers spend so much time distinguishing between ID and creationism and yet still don’t mention that ID proponents may accept many of the ideas of evolution.

Christians and Evolution

At one point during the documentary, it is mentioned that one can be both religious and believe in Darwinism.  It proceeds, however, to say that this is less common than the Darwinists say it is.  Where they get that idea from, I don’t know.  I attend a Christian college that is by no means liberal and yet I know plenty of students who hold to the theory of evolution.  (Not to mention the entire Roman Catholic Church.)

Even the National Academy of Sciences, an institution demonized by anti-evolutionists, states clearly that religion and science are not at all incompatible.  The problem is that Expelled depends heavily on arguments from Richard Dawkins, who is not exactly the best example of a moderate.  In fact, as my friend pointed out, Dawkins is almost a straw man for the Darwinist viewpoint.

On the Nazi Connection

If there is one part of Expelled that I vehemently disagree with, it is the use of the Nazi example.  Clearly, the Nazi regime did embrace the idea of Social Darwinism (a term, coincidentally, never mentioned in the movie).  This does not mean, however, that Darwinism was the cause of the movement.  For the most part I will, again, leave the facts to Expelled Exposed.

Still, there are several things to note.  First is that, just as with the interjected film clips, the Hitler argument is not helping the film achieve any academic or intellectual superiority.  All it succeeds in doing is demonizing the opponents, while failing to address the topic of the “expelled” scientists.

Second, the assertion made in the film that Darwinism is a “necessary condition” for the atrocities is patently false.  I’m not denying that Darwism can be linked to Nazism through Social Darwinism and eugenics.  There are plenty of examples, however, of atrocities committed by religious people that had nothing to do with Darwinism (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, Rwanda, Darfur).   There are also plenty of examples of Darwinists who have not committed atrocities. The assertion of an inherent connection between Darwinism holds little value for the film and is in no way persuasive.

Science and Worldviews

With all that said, did the film have any good points?  It did, in fact.  One of the best points was made by a scientist Stein interviewed who expressed the view that both Darwinists and ID proponents bring their worldviews to the table before the data.  The Darwinists may tend to look for evidence that supports the worldview that their is no design evident in creation.  The ID proponents may look for design anywhere in science.  What is needed instead is a careful look at the data.

What About That Freedom?

Finally, the main assertion of the film is that freedom is being suppressed by the scientific community and this is damaging to our country.  Here Expelled fails to acknowledge several things.  First, no one is suppressing freedom in the Constitutional sense.  The ID proponents can (and are, as evidenced by the film) still speaking out.  Second, no one has guaranteed freedom of expression in the scientific journals.  They are private enterprises, allowed to choose what they publish, which they do by peer review in the scientific community.

At some point, the scientific community has to decide what will or will not be published.  If someone tried to publish an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, everyone would be outraged.  The argument that all scientific journals should publish ID ideas, without stating what those ideas are or whether they are even valid, is not compelling.  It lies in the scientific communities hands to decide what qualifies as science and should be published, which it does through a variety of means.  If it decides that ID is not to be published, we can hardly accuse it of suppressing freedom.

Conclusion

Where does Expelled leave us, then?  Nowhere, really.  The movie makes no compelling case one way or another. It only succeeds in making the scientific community angry at ID proponents and the ID proponents angry at the scientific community.  In addition to this, it makes several misleading connections between Darwinism and world problems which most definitely get us nowhere.

Your reaction to Expelled will probably depend on your views on ID before the movie. If you consider ID to be a valid approach, you will be horrified at what the film “reveals.”  If you are skeptical, or worse, about ID then you will find little value in Expelled. In the end , the movie accomplishes very little.

First, Obsession begins and ends with short segments promoting the idea of Islam as a peaceful religion hijacked by radicals.  It then goes on to list radical violence around the world, from 9/11 to the London bombings to Muslim violence in Thailand, and connects the dots with one single strand: Islam.  Combined with statements made by those interviewed in the film, it becomes hard for me to give credence to Obsession’s claim that its arguments are not about Islam as a whole.  The film seems to be at loggerheads with itself about whether or not it wishes to indict Islam.

Stemming from this use of Islam as a common link between terrorist incidents around the world comes a second critique.  From a political science perspective, Obsession fails because it does not acknowledge any other sociological, economic, political, or geographic motivations behind extremist violence around the world.  Equating violence in Chechnya, which has distinct nationalistic roots, with the Shia extremism of Hezbollah or the Sunni insurgency in Iraq simply ignores reality.  Many of the Islamic groups the film links together via radical Islam would consider each other to lie beyond the pale of Islam.  Though many have adopted Islamic ideological stances or ideas from one another, citing Islam as the single motivating factor behind them all will not stand up to academic investigation.  Each group has a number of other motivating factors, all of which Obsession completely ignores.

Obsession spends almost half of its length attempting to draw a connection between the rise of radical Islam and the rise of Nazism in Germany.  While I must admit the similarities are intriguing, actually proving causality between the two would be very difficult.  Nazism rose within a well  structured political party in a state actor, as opposed to the disparate radical Islamic groups spread throughout the world.  That we should see traces of Nazi ideological fervor in radical Islam is not surprising, ideologies are constantly adopted by new groups.  This does not mean that radical Islam derives from Nazism, however.  Much academic work has traced the link between the rise of radical Islam in the past quarter century and the Communist ideology exported by the Soviet Union.  Yet Obsession doesn’t purport to connect radical Islam to Communism.  Ideologies are adopted, transformed, and manipulated for political advancement by any group seeking to advance its goals.

Radical Islam does undoubtedly pose a threat to the West.  This does not mean, however, that all radical Islamic groups are connected and jointly waging a carefully directed war against the West.  Nor does it mean that Islam alone lies at the heart of this problem, an incredibly simplistic assertion.  In the end, Obsession contributes little to any useful consideration of the problem of radical Islam.

Some of my analysis may be stretching the neo-Marxist definition. Still, it was an interesting and challenging critique to write. So, without further ado, here it is.

The Ideas That Conquered the World: A Neo-Marxist Critique

In his book The Ideas That Conquered the World, Michael Mandelbaum attempts to synthesize the current liberal stream of thought about the Western world’s rise to global power. This thought is liberal in the classic sense—it promotes liberty in the public sphere—and Mandelbaum focuses specifically on the ideas of peace, democracy, and free markets. He contends that the triumph of these three ideas provides a framework for interpreting the current international order: “peace as a method of organizing international relations, democracy as the optimal form of government, and the free market as a way of structuring economic life.”¹ The book leads up to what Mandelbaum calls “the liberal theory of history” by tracing its rise from earlier international frameworks through the emergence of “warlessness” and peace in the Western world.

Though Mandelbaum succeeds in providing an excellent description of the liberal stream of thought, he fails to fully pursue a number of its ideas to their logical conclusions. In particular, his theory of liberal dominance ignores the existence of competing ideas, his idea of the core and the periphery fails to extend to economics, and he disregards the actions of non-state actors in challenging the West. Mandelbaum sets the stage for a neo-Marxist critique of the global system in these three areas, but refuses to consider it. Instead he concludes by simply stating that peace, democracy, and free markets have led to the dominance of a new world order. This paper will continue with such a neo-Marxist critique where The Ideas That Conquered the World would not.

The Antithesis of Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets

Mandelbaum is correct to place his liberal framework of international order as a new theory in international relations rather than a modification or refinement of previous frameworks. In the first section of the book, entitled “The Cold War and its Legacy,” he outlines these previous frameworks and how the liberal theory of history differs from them. His analysis begins 200 years ago with the battle between liberal ideas and traditional means of political organization, including autocracy and war. By the end of the nineteenth century the new liberal ideas had emerged triumphant. But they soon found a new enemy in what Mandelbaum refers to as the “illiberalism” of fascism and communism. This new conflict set the stage for the twentieth century. As the United States and the Soviet Union battled for dominance in the world order, they spread their political ideas across the globe. Mandelbaum is again correct to recognize that the Cold War was inherently different from previous conflicts because it was a war of examples rather than force.

Where Mandelbaum fails is in his transition from the Cold War into the new liberal theory of history. Mandelbaum believes that the triumph of liberal ideas over illiberalism has left them alone in the world without a serious rival. This dominance sets the stage for his claim that they have conquered the world. A flaw exists in this reasoning, however. Like Marx’s lack of an appropriate antithesis to his final synthesis of communism, Mandelbaum ignores the current antithesis to modern liberal ideas: fundamentalist thought in political theory.²

Mandelbaum is comfortable with asserting the lack of structure in the alliance of peace, democracy, and free markets. Indeed, this very lack of structure gives the triad its powerful influence. But it also provides a clue to the triad’s antithesis. Illiberalism did not perish with communism, as Mandelbaum asserts, but also persists today in an unstructured form. Autocracy has transformed into the influence of fundamentalist leaders and conventional global wars have become guerilla wars waged by terrorist groups. Liberal ideas have found their antithesis in fundamentalism. The next century will not be an era of increasing peace as liberal ideas rule the world. Instead, the old battle between the thesis of liberalism and the antithesis of illiberalism will continue in a new and unstructured form.

The Core-Periphery Model: Explanation or Exploitation?

In the second section of The Ideas That Conquered the World, entitled “The Invention of Peace,” Mandelbaum develops his concept of the core-periphery model of international order. For Mandelbaum, the periphery is the portion of the world in which the three liberal ideas, especially peace, do not rule. This model has significant implications for the economic and political ideas of the liberal theory of history. Unfortunately, Mandelbaum ignores these implications and focuses on the core-periphery model as simply an explanation for the current disorder of the international system.

According to Mandelbaum, the end of the Cold War led to a collapse in the core-periphery system as the core states no longer had an interest in supporting the periphery. The resulting disorder in the periphery demonstrates the superiority of the core’s liberal system and the necessity of exporting it to the periphery. While there is validity to this view, it ignores a second aspect of the core-periphery system: the exploitation of the core by the periphery.

Peace, democracy, and free markets have brought unprecedented growth to the international system, allowing many countries in the periphery to achieve economic miracles. At the same time, however, this new liberal system has enabled the core to extract capital and labor from the periphery while contributing little to the periphery’s long term development. The implementation of the Washington Consensus—privatization, liberalization, and globalization—has often come at the detriment of periphery countries. The liberal triad has revolutionized the international economy, but it has also increased the exploitation of the periphery by the core. Mandelbaum would do well to recognize this exploitation in addition to his explanation of the model.

Non-State Actors as the Oppressor and Oppressed

A final critique of Mandelbaum’s book emerges from the first two critiques: Mandelbaum’s lack of attention to non-state actors. Both fundamentalism and core-periphery exploitation involve such actors: terrorist organizations are at the forefront of global fundamentalist movements and multi-national corporations enable the exploitation of the periphery. These non-state actors represent a new manifestation of the traditional Marxist oppressor and oppressed.

Mandelbaum correctly does not view the next century as the age of terrorism. This does not mean, however, that terrorist groups will have no impact on the international system. The failure of peace and democracy to contain terrorism, especially in the periphery states, will result in turmoil across the globe. Radical fundamentalist activism is a frightening reincarnation of the uprising of the oppressed in traditional Marxism. Able to inflict extensive damage through fear, even with scarce resources, fundamentalist activists of any nationality or religion see themselves as struggling against the established and oppressive West. Recognition of the relevance of terrorists as non-state actors would contribute greatly to Mandelbaum’s argument.

Similarly, multi-national corporations play an integral role in the exploitation of the periphery. Though arguably still instruments of the home state, MNCs have established strong ties between the core and the periphery. These ties enable MNCs to act as vehicles of exploitation from the periphery to the core. Like the oppressor in traditional Marxism, MNCs are capable of both technological innovation and extreme exploitation. Understanding this dual role of the MNCs created by the liberal economic order is integral to a proper conception of the world today. Mandelbaum’s analysis would gain validity by including such a critique.

Conclusion

The Ideas That Conquered the World lays a necessary foundation for understanding the current international order. Peace, democracy, and free markets have undoubtedly contributed significantly to the rise of the West and the pull of its example upon the rest of the world. In this area, Mandelbaum’s synthesis is timely and appropriate.

Despite this successful analysis, however, Mandelbaum fails to completely engage the ideas he raises. By recognizing the neo-Marxist critique which the liberal triad sets the stage for, Mandelbaum could have extended and reinforced his argument. The ideas of peace, democracy, and free markets have changed revolutionized the world since the Cold War. Even so, they still face significant opposition in the form of fundamentalism, perpetuate an imbalance between the core and the periphery, and require the recognition of non-state actors. By addressing these areas, a neo-Marxist interpretation of The Ideas That Conquered the World succeeds where Mandelbaum could not.

1. Michael Mandelbaum, Michael, “The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-first Century,” The Open Forum, Washington, DC, 18 September 2002, 30 October 2007 <http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/15162.htm>.

2. Fundamentalism is here used as a strict adherence to basic concepts of belief and the forceful imposition of these concepts upon others, including but not limited to religious fundamental thought.

The answer is, of course, that the entire movie is a brilliant piece of Soviet propaganda.  Produced and released in 1938, the movie constantly emphasizes the threat of German invasion from the east and the need for the Russian people to rise up behind a strong leader and defend their homeland.  I wonder what that could be about?  What with the scenes of Russian solidarity, German knights being hit over the head and drowning in the frigid lakes, and the eventual Russian triumph, the Russians might as well have put the film in an envelope and mailed it to the Third Reich.  Perhaps they did.

All in all, it’s a classic film.  Wonderful old costumes, brilliant fight scenes, and amazing music.  Check your local library for Alexander Nevsky and enjoy the propaganda!  (And if you have trouble locating a copy, let me know and I can help you out.)

Murray defines “the Plan” as abolishing transfer and welfare programs and replacing them with a cash grant of $10,000 a year to every U.S. citizen age 21 or older. Readers will, of course, want to know exactly what programs get eliminated. Murray’s answer is pretty much all of them: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies; in short, any program involving a transfer of money is gone. Despite the initial shock at hearing such a drastic solution, readers will find that Murray provides a plausible and well documented argument for his Plan.
Especially convincing is Murray’s calculation that by the year 2011 his Plan, compared to the current welfare state, will actually save the government money. Whether or not one agrees with the libertarian ideas behind the Plan, In Our Hands is a precise and necessary indictment of government welfare today. Murray is correct in his assertion that a change is needed and will inevitably come about. As he puts it in his introduction, the current system is “within decades of financial and social bankruptcy.”

For the most part, however, Murray takes the superiority of his ideas for granted and only a small part of the book is dedicated to an actual defense of the Plan. The rest of In Our Hands is given to the positive societal effects of the Plan: the dramatic transformation it will unleash upon American culture. It seems that for Murray, $10,000 a year will generate incredible changes in the level of moral responsibility prevalent in this country. The Plan is liable to increase investing for retirement and health care, decrease poverty, convince young men in the underclass to work, lower the divorce rate, and revitalize the vast majority of our civic institutions. It is a panacea of an idea for a plethora of ills.

Perhaps my astute readers have caught the hint of skepticism in my tone above. It is not that I think Murray’s Plan would be unable to do any of his assertions, but that I doubt it will be able to accomplish them all. As appealing as the notion may be, simply giving everyone $10,000 a year will not have the dramatic effects Murray asserts. I contend that his reasoning throughout In Our Hands is often based on loose assumptions about human nature that will not hold in the real world; Murray is an academician and too often reduces human behavior to simple economic choices.

Let us take an example: Murray declares that the Plan will reduce births to single women, an outcome he considers desirable for society: “Under the Plan, the opportunity costs of having a baby will be obvious and alarming to low-income young women in the same way that they have always been obvious and alarming to middle-class and affluent young women.” Such a change will be due to the extra grant money available to the mother if she does not have a child. This assertion makes the assumption that many, if not most, single mothers have a child because of the economic incentives, or at least because they do not see major disincentives. But should we really reduce human behavior to such economic decisions? Many young women may become mothers because of social pressure, desire for a child, or simply an accidental pregnancy.

This example is but one of a hoard of assumptions made by Murray to predict the results of the Plan. The problem is, however, not only that Murray makes such assumptions, but that the assumptions tend to predict great success for the Plan. Such extreme optimism is one of the flaws of In Our Hands and gives rise to a sense of disbelief about the whole system. Only a handful of times does Murray suggest that his Plan could have negative effects, such as potentially increasing the divorce rate among couples where the marriage could be saved. Murray may be right that his Plan can hardly be worse than the current system, and it is something readers would do well to contemplate, but no one system will be quite this perfect.

In Our Hands takes on a necessary task: challenging America’s welfare state and suggesting an alternative solution. Murray’s problem, however, is his extensive focus on the more intangible results of his Plan at the expense of its financially solid benefits. In the end, Murray is using his welfare reforms as a proxy for the libertarian ideal of free markets creating a vibrant society. He would have done well, and been far more convincing in his appeal for the Plan, if he had spent more time on concrete benefits and less on speculation about the resulting changes in society.

All that said, Murray is in the vanguard of economic thought on welfare and reform, providing critiques of the current system that we would do well to listen to. Despite its flaws, I enthusiastically recommend In Our Hands to my readers, not as a perfect solution for America today but as a provocative commentary on the welfare system.

This was a book review written for my Public Policy economics class. The review was ostensibly for a newspaper, thus the particular style of my writing. In addition, as this was a “review” we were to be firm about our positions and my expressed ideas may be a little stronger than my actual ideas. Not my best piece of writing ever, by a long shot, but “that’ll do, Donkey, that’ll do.”Any way around, In Our Hands was a fascinating read and I do recommend it, and not just for economics majors. Now we’re one The White Man’s Burden by William Easterly and perhaps you will get a review of that on the Smidgin as well.