Book Review – “Dismantling America” by Thomas Sowell

I recently read Thomas Sowell’s “Dismantling America.”  This is the first book I’ve read by him, but I do read his columns as I’m able.  The book is a collection of some of Sowell’s syndicated columns during (mostly) the early years of the Obama presidency.  Each column is about three pages, which is nice because I can think of a column as a chapter and I like short chapters.  Note there were some multi-columns series, which made for a good change of pace, as well.

It’s a tough book to review because what you think of the book depends almost entirely on what you think of his columns.  If you like his columns, you’ll like the book.  If you hate his columns, you’ll hate the book.  It’s really that simple. 

Personally, I like his content and style.  I don’t always agree with the content and I do spot logical flaws from time to time, but on the whole, I think Sowell is one of the best mainstream, right-leaning columnists out there. 

The book explores economic, social, cultural, historical, and legal matters.  It also explores politics from both tactical and strategic perspectives, as well as taking a look at the reality behind the rhetoric.  There are a lot of great columns here.  The economic section is particularly strong, which makes sense given Sowell’s background as an economist. 

Beyond the “typical” right-wing line of thinking, there are some key takeaways.  Whether I/you agree/disagree with them is out of scope here.  I’m just highlighting them.

1.     There is no free lunch.  Said another way, the transfer of cost from one party to another is not the same as the elimination of cost.  Transferring cost from party A to party B does eliminate it from A’s expenses, but it does not eliminate it from the overall system.

2.    America has the best medical care system in the world.  This is not to be confused with healthcare.  Medical care starts upon arrival at the doctor/hospital, but healthcare includes lifestyle considerations.  Thus, the medical care system has very limited control over our overall healthcare.   

3.    There is a difference between attempting to “level the playing field” and equalize results. 

4.    The notion of “fairness” sounds easy and concrete at first glance, but it entails far more than meets the eye.

I think this book would be a better read for left-leaning people, to be honest.  It’s a relatively quick read that forces them to actually sit down and take in the arguments of the right versus ignoring and/or reflexively denying them based on source.  Similarly, people of a more neutral political orientation would benefit by reading this book because they would see the right-wing argument presented by a right-winger.  Right-leaning folks would gain out of it, as well, even if only to sharpen their positions.  I don’t know of an equivalent book by a left-leaning columnist on Sowell’s level, but if I did, I’d pick it up.

Note that this doesn’t automatically mean that someone on the left/right is always correct/wrong on an issue because sometimes both can be correct and sometimes both can be wrong, so don’t fall into that logical trap. 

So, the bottom line is it’s a worthwhile read. 

Occupy Wall Street versus Other Movements

I laid out a bunch of similarities between Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Tea Party (TP) in a previous post about OWS when I said, “Also, both movements were leaderless grassroots movements in their beginnings that were formed over the interwebs and stemmed from anger over America’s current condition and trajectory, and both appear to have the same goal of getting America back firing on all cylinders, though they clearly disagree on how to do that.” 

In that same post, I also asked, “Riddle me this.  How is OWS any different than the TP?”  None of those similarities have broken down, but I think I have some answers to my riddle, which I’ll detail here.  I don’t want to limit this to just OWS and the TP, so you’ll see some other comparisons crop up.

The first I see is lawlessness.  I don’t remember any TP incidents in which 700 people got arrested like this Brooklyn Bridge ordeal.  I don’t remember hearing about over 100 arrests like what happened in Boston.  I don’t even remember hearing about double-digit numbers of arrests at TP events, and I’ve heard a lot of those in the past few weeks regarding OWS.  This holds up even when we back out the Brooklyn Bridge incident and even when we consider the fact that the TP is a few years old while OWS is a few weeks old.  Admittedly, this is hard to track because defining an OWS/TP arrest isn’t exactly black and white, but I find this difference revealing.  Try doing quick searches of OWS and TP arrests and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

This lawlessness undercuts my original theory comparing OWS and the TP.  A more viable comparison in this sense thus may be the protests in London this year, as suggested to me by a lady on Twitter.  London’s were protesting youth unemployment and moved beyond protests into riots.  Youth unemployment, though still a major issue, isn’t as big of a problem in America, and OWS hasn’t yet crossed the line from protests to riots, so in those senses, it’s smaller on both scales than the incidents in London.  I hope OWS doesn’t cross that line, and I don’t think they will.

Next, the TP always had clear goals, even if their goals evolved with time.  Obamacare has always been in the TP’s crosshairs as one of their targets, for example.  The goal was originally to stop its passage, but now that it’s passed, the goal is to weaken and/or repeal it.  That’s focus.  It’s not their only focus because the TP also wants to oust Obama, among other things.  I’ve consistently asked what OWS’ goals are with regards to specific policies.  OWS has no shortage of things they’re protesting about, such as income inequality, corporate money in politics, and bailouts (common ground with the TP there), but they say they don’t really have any actual specific policy goals or haven’t really thought about it yet.  I also hear that it’s not their job to come up with those.  I’m not going to yet again go into how anger alone isn’t enough and you need to actually have a plan to improve things before you propose replacing the current system (yes, in the future, I will continue unapologetically pounding on this until I get answers because I can’t support or oppose a movement if I don’t understand not just what it wants to do, but how it wants to do it).  For now, all I’ll do is highlight that as a difference between the two and leave it at that.  This lack of clear goals again lends to the London rioters being the better comparison than the TP. 

Third, I’ve previously talked about OWS policy goals, but I haven’t yet touched on the movement’s overall goals.  This one flies counter to both the TP and London riots and introduces new comparisons.  With the TP, it was apparent to me pretty much even from the beginning that the TP, grassroots as it was at the start, was an insurrection or rebellion or even civil war within the GOP.  I never viewed the TP as seriously wanting to become its own political party.  The TP, in essence, aimed to reclaim (or hijack, depending on your perspective) the GOP.  The TP did not seriously want to form their own party when they could get their message out through an existing party.

OWS is different.  I don’t get the vibe that OWS is trying to reclaim/hijack the Democratic party.  After all, if we’re operating under the assumption that OWS formed on the left, then Obama is their guy and history shows that a schism within a party usually gives victory to the other party.  Look at the 1992 and 1996 elections involving Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, George Bush Sr., and Bob Dole for some recent examples.  Rather, I think OWS is more likely to try to form their own third party.  My theory stems from the history of the left wing in America.  Outside of a couple select times in American history, such as the early 1900’s with Eugene Debs’ Socialist party and the schism of the Democratic party during the 1968 presidential election, there really hasn’t been a powerful and overt far left-wing presence in American politics.  We can quibble about exactly how left-wing the modern Democratic party is, but it’s hard to argue that they’re further to the left than the Socialist party or 1968 Democrat party.  I’ve seen calls online for this and I’ve heard this in second-hand discussion with people participating in the protests and general assemblies.  It’s definitely something to watch.

In general, I’ve shied away from comparing OWS to the Arab Spring (AS), despite the fact that both formed heavily through social media.  There are monumental and insurmountable differences between the two.  For one, the AS protesters were attempting to establish a more democratic and less oppressive government with a more open economy, while the OWS protesters are railing against a democratic republic and capitalist economy that they feel has failed them.  Realistically speaking, the AS is starting from far more dire straits than OWS is.  Two, AS protesters were in far greater danger than OWS protesters are.  AS protesters knew that if they failed, they would probably be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually killed (very much like America’s Founding Fathers).  By contrast, an OWS protester would merely get arrested or sprayed, maybe whacked a couple times by a baton or brought down by a police dog or tazed or something like that.  Three, the AS had a clear goal.  In Egypt, it ended up demanding regime change, for instance.  As I’ve mentioned previously, OWS lacks a clear goal.

I also disagree with comparing OWS to other movements throughout US history, such as the civil rights movement and feminist movement of the mid to late 1900’s and the gay rights movement of today.  This is mainly because of the clear vision those movements had for goals.  They all knew they wanted equal rights for themselves, but they also knew specifically what rights they wanted and specifically what policies to target.  For example, the gay rights movement knows they want to be able to serve openly in the military and they know they want to be able to get legally married, thus they have already successfully had Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) repealed.  They can marry in several states and have civil unions or domestic partnerships in others.  They are even working to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may come to a vote soon in Congress.  OWS doesn’t have this clarity and, though they may eventually, they do not presently.  

While I’m on the topic of OWS, I want to take this opportunity to voice my condemnation for some of the blatantly anti-American stuff going on in their crowds.  It’s not the whole crowd, or even a majority of the crowd, and it’s probably not even a big portion of the crowd.  It’s a minority of the crowd, but it is still troubling.  It’s an example of a couple of fools ruining it for the rest.  The worst I’ve seen is a picture of a protester defecating on a burning American flag.  I will not be posting links to that image here, but you can easily find it on Google if you don’t believe me.  I’m not demonizing all of the OWS protesters because I do believe the overwhelming majority of them care about America, love it, and want to strengthen it (clearly, they differ with me regarding how to go about strengthening America), but such conduct is wholly unacceptable.  Everyone has their 1^st Amendment rights, as I’m exercising here and they’re exercising there, but conduct like the picture mentioned above is deplorable.  Really, the situation is a case of, “Can you?  Should you?”  Regarding these anti-American displays, they can do them from a 1^st Amendment perspective, but they should not.  I’m going to go out on a limb and say public defecation is probably illegal, so in that sense, they cannot do what they did.  Can anybody tell me how that kind of conduct adds value to the cause?  I didn’t think so.

Will OWS turn into a political force?  Will it burn out or fade away?  The answers to these questions depend on whether OWS can break away from similarity to the London riots and coalesce like the other movements I mentioned. 

What Black History Month Made Me Ponder

It was Black History Month in February in the USA. I didn’t post anything about it, but not from lack of effort. I actually have a two-parter about black voting history in the USA (they started as staunch Republicans, but gradually drifted towards the Democrats and have been a solid Democratic voting bloc since the mid 20th century), reasons why I think they’re heavily Democratic today, and why they should vote for the GOP instead. I decided to save that for next February because that’s an election year (total teaser, I know).

Race isn’t something I generally discuss here. It’s also generally not something I think much about beyond comedy (I sometimes enjoy racial humor). I figure it’s not fair to laugh at a crack about somebody else and then take offense when the comedian jokes about you (obviously, it’s ok to be offended when it’s malicious and/or can be reasonably interpreted as such). You have to be able to laugh at yourself. For example, I personify the stereotype that white men can’t dance and lack rhythm. My girlfriend mocks me relentlessly for it and jokes that she’s going to make me do Zumba with her (I hope she’s joking). So, my thoughts in this post exempt comedy and matters where individual traits like race and sex make legitimate statistical differences, such as insurance and profiling.

Black History Month made me think about why race isn’t very predominant in my mind. I think the main reason is the way I think of people. I think of individuals as individuals first rather than members of certain demographics. I see myself, for instance, as Tim, a person with certain (positive and negative) character traits who also happens to be a white male, rather than seeing myself as a white man named Tim who has certain (positive and negative) character traits. In essence, to me, the micro trumps the macro. It’s who the person is as an individual that defines a person in my eyes more than what groups they can be compartmentalized into.

Do things such as race and sex contribute to defining who a person is? Absolutely. But, is it fair to make assumptions about people and stereotype them based solely on these traits? I don’t think so because you don’t know the person yet. It’s that whole, “Don’t judge a book by its cover,” thing. You’ll get burned if you make assumptions about people based on their skin and sex. I thought the whole point of not being a racist was to avoid negatively stereotyping and making assumptions about individual people based on their skin and sex.

Here’s an example. I was called “privileged” simply because I’m a white male and told that it must’ve been nice to have done so well at the expense of everyone else. I’ve recently learned that this term is used in a sociological context, but my first reaction was to interpret it in an individual context, so a big contributing factor was miscommunication and misinterpretation. Still, there’s much more wrong than right about that statement and I found it insulting, responding rather scathingly that I really wouldn’t know.

To me, it implied that because I’m a white male, my family and I didn’t have to work hard and were handed everything. That’s nonsense. My grandparents came to America following World War 2 (he was a Polish soldier and she was an English nurse) and started a dairy farm. My dad had a choice of whether to stay on the farm or not. He couldn’t afford college, so it was either the military or farming. He chose the military, made his way through the Navy’s nuclear program (a program which only the smartest and most determined people survive), and built a career in commercial nuclear power. I went to college for engineering (which is a hard academic path, as demonstrated by the fact that engineering only has about a 33% graduation rate) and that’s my current job. That’s not exactly a “privileged” upbringing, now is it? Methinks not. Then again, what would I know? :-p

In my mind, we’re all humans first. I don’t care what skin color or sex people are. Those traits in and of themselves won’t determine my opinion of a person. That’s what the individual him/herself will do. Likewise, at the end of the day, in American political discussion, we’re all Americans, and that’s why I try not to attack people/groups. I try to attack/defend the idea, not the person/group.