Thinking Politician on the Right: David Cameron

David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in GB spoke at a recent TED talk in London: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_cameron.html. How refreshing! He didn't talk about cutting taxes or balancing the budget or socialized medicine. In other words, unlike most Republicans in the U.S., he didn't just repeat platitudes! (I understand that some Republicans undertook some serious thinking at the recent health care meeting with President Obama, but I assume that came about so that the President wouldn't show them up). Most of what comes out of the mouths of most Republicans amounts to tired campaign slogans. (Yes, Democrats do it, but right now, Democrats have to actually make laws and govern, even though they are only doing a mediocre job of it.) Cameron spoke about how to provide a more effective government and how to empower people. He cited (with photos!) the work of Cass Sunstein (whom crazies on the lunatic fringe demonize in his position as Obama's head of regulatory affairs), behavioral economist Richard Thaler, Sunstein's co-author of Nudge, Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Economics prize-winner who isn't an economist (Nasim Taleb even likes him!), and Robert Cialdini (Influence). Wow, someone on the Right (relatively speaking) who thinks! Of course on the American right we have some thinkers, but they have no influence now and virtually all of the thinking from Republicans seems really tired and behind the times. Anyway, something refreshing from across the pond.

Afterthoughts:

1. Does the fact that the Brits have parliamentary government and have to think about ruling more seriously make them better at transitions and providing better-considered alternatives?
   
2. Does the fact that leaders of the parties in GB have to stand up regularly in parliament and answer questions—tough questions—make them better thinkers and speakers? Could you imagine W at question hour? Even Obama, who thinks and speaks very carefully and rather slowly, would have a hard time in such an atmosphere. I used to on occasion watch Tony Blair at question hour (I don't recall what channel), and I found it quite entertaining and thoughtful. (Although I must say that I watched Gordon Brown's TED talk, and I don't know that I made it to the end.)

Thomas Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages

Thomas Cahill continues his "Hinges of History" volumes with Mysteries of the Middle Ages: And the Beginning of the Modern World (2008, 368p.). I listened to it a second time as a part of my medieval reading project, and yes, I enjoyed it a second time. Cahill is born storyteller, whose informal style, pithy asides, and trenchant observations make for listening (or reading) that provides both entertainment and insight. Cahill prefaces his book with a glimpse of the Alexandria of Late Antiquity. From there, Cahill bases his tour based primarily on a discussion of notable and noteworthy personages of the period, including saints like Hildegard of Bingen and St. Francis, thinkers like Abelard (including an account of this tragic love affair with Heloise), St. Thomas Aquinas (no dumb-ox he), and Roger the proto-scientist Bacon, and artists Giotto and Dante (my man!). Cahill also discusses the many lives of Eleanor of Aquitaine (think Kathryn Hepburn in Lion in Winter), whose marriages, affairs, and actions provide quite a story in themselves. Cahill provides a sympathetic perspective on these figures so far away in time, and he appreciates how they laid the groundwork for what came later. Of the attitudes one may take about the Middle Ages, from derision to romantic celebration, Cahill takes the role of one who appreciates its positive accomplishments but who also fully acknowledges all of the blemishes.

If you've no real acquaintance with the Middle Ages, I recommend this book as an excellent introduction. A reader will find it full of the lore that makes this period both intriguing and slightly terrifying. BTW, if you haven't read the first book in his "Hinges of History" series, How the Irish Saved Civilization, I highly recommend it as well. It provides the story of the bridge between Roman civilization and the Middle Ages often known as the Dark Ages, but now referred to among historians as Late Antiquity. Anyway, it's the story of the Irish and how their monasteries preserved learning at a time when learning in the West was deeply crippled.

Brooks on Elites and Gates on Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ref=opinion: David Brooks on our meritocracy and where it's gotten us. This type of big picture topic is what Brookes does better than other columnists do. He points out that we have wider access to the elite class, and a more industrious elite; yet, elites don't exercise the same influence that they once did. Think back to the 1950's and before. Of course, Brooks recognizes that these elites were all old white guys, but given that we now enjoy more diversity, why don't they command more respect and exercise more leadership? Brooks floats some ideas. Interesting.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html : Bill Gates on energy @ TED Talks. Bill Gates, perhaps the ultimate nerd, is now trying to make the world a better place through his charity. His work on vaccines and schools are well noted and I think quite worthwhile. However, in this informative talk, he reports that if he had one thing that he could provide the world, it would be cheap, clean, and abundant energy. Cheap energy, he suggests, makes our society. (See Thomas Homer-Dixon for confirmation of this perspective.) However, Gates says we have to get to zero CO2 growth—fast. No climate-denier he. Some amazing technologies hold promise, and he does an excellent job of getting his audience to buy into this possibility. Recommended.

Garry Wills with Charlie Rose & Steve Jobs @ Stanford

Charlie Rose interviews Garry Wills about "Bomb Power", Obama, and America in general: http://eztvlinks.com/charlie-rose-christina-romer-garry-wills/. Wills describes himself as "terribly" disappointed in what Obama has done, describing his appointments of Iraq war supporters, insiders on Wall Street, and insiders (AMA, big pharma, health insurance carriers) for health care. Wills suggests that Obama feels more constrained that he needed to be. Too much a lawyer, and not enough of a leader, suggested Rose. Wills counters—and I must agree—that a good lawyer gets people to do things. Wills thinks that Obama threw away a whole year with largely self-imposed constraints. Congress, nevertheless, remains "supine". Wills notes that the willingness of Congress to bow to the president is in part of the "cult" of the commander-in-chief. Wills notes that the presidency is not a military office, as established long ago by court cases. These are just a few quick notes that I took during the interview. It's not a thorough as the book, but for less than 30 minutes, you can get a solid, thoughtful overview, as well as his thoughts on Obama and more general topics.

 

Steve Jobs spoke at the 2005 Stanford graduation. In 15 minutes, he shares three stories from his life that prove quite thoughtful and enlightening. If you think that he's gotten all of the breaks, listen to it and consider. Worth your 15 minutes, I think you'll agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA.

My Current Thought on Climate Change

Thomas Friedman captures my current take on climate change. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ref=opinion. It's probably happening because of human activity (CO2 and the like), and even if current theories and predictions don't prove completely accurate, we still have other very compelling reasons to move forward.

Garry Wills: Bomb Power

It's always good news for me when Garry Wills publishes a new book, as the book inevitably casts new light on a worthwhile subject. I bought Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State (2010, 288p.) last Thursday, and I finished it today. In this book, Wills argues that the Manhattan Project and the Bomb that it produced created a new impetus toward an aggrandizement of presidential power and created a national security state to surround and support this increased power. As always, Wills sets forth his case with a mix of well-documented facts and pithy insights.

The Manhattan Project serves as the prototype of government secrecy. Once the Bomb became an established part of the American arsenal, the president gained new powers. When the Soviets joined the U.S. as a nuclear power, the president might have only a matter of minutes to take us into war. So much for the right of Congress—and only Congress—to declare war. Wills documents how the Cold War facilitated the growth of presidential prerogatives during the Truman administration. Indeed, Wills has interesting things to report on George Kennan (someone I've always admired). Kennan, it seems, helped let the genie out of the bottle with his "Long Telegram" and "X" article in Foreign Affairs, and Kennan spent a number of years later trying to get the genie back in the bottle. However, as Wills argues, the Truman administration was off to the races, and no president—even Obama it seems—wants to put the genie back into the bottle. Wills discusses how these developments effect more than just nuclear issues. The national security state allowed all manner of immoral and irresponsible behavior by the U.S. government. Ike toppled regimes surreptitiously in Iran and Guatemala (and Iran came back to haunt us). JFK, fueled by an infatuation with counter-intelligence and guerilla warfare, wondered into the Bay of Pigs, then the Cuban Missile Crisis, and this led to RFK's involvement in plots to assassinate Castro.

The list goes on, but, of course, the culmination lies in the presidency of George W. Bush (with plenty of warm-up during his father's and Reagan's administrations). During the Bush years we had the "dual administration" of Bush and Cheney, with Cheney and his cohorts straining every possible limit on executive prerogatives for action and deception. Interestingly, John Yoo has just published another book, and Wills takes on the crackpot legal arguments made by Yoo and his ilk (and rejected by true conservatives like Jack Goldsmith). Wills, as a major contributor to works on the Declaration and the Constitution, gives no ground on the words of the Founders and their intent.

In all, this is an important book. Wills breaks no new ground by way of revelations. Anyone who follows post-WWII American history and reads the papers knows this history. What Wills does provide is an indictment. Like a lawyer setting forth his case, he lays out the charges before us. We, the people, and those whom we entrust with the conduct of our government, have allowed our constitutional protections to erode in the face of a perceived imperative made plausible by the Bomb. Now, we the people must face the consequences of this course of conduct. No one professes optimism; however, Wills' closing words bear repeating:

"On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales signed a memo written by David Addington [Cheney's legal advisor] that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete". Perhaps in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete. . . . Nonetheless, some of us entertain a fondness for the quaint old Constitution. It may be too late to return to its ideals, but the effort should be made. As Cyrano said, "One fights not only in the hope of winning."" (240-241). Amen.

Quick Take: Robert Shiller on Economic Mood

In my never-ending quest to make economics into something more real, I find another ally. Robert Shiller writes of how "mood" affects an economy in his recent NYT article. Shiller notes how recessions and (yes, we must talk about them) depressions gain steam; indeed, one might summarize his argument by saying that depression (personal) creates depressions (economic). He cites an upcoming work by George Akerlof that "self-esteem" and "identify" affect economics. My goodness! What heresy! Not just money, money, money? (Of course, you're right, some do respond that way: many of our friends on Wall Street seem confirm this trait.) Schiller also cites a recent talk by Samuel Bowles ("Machiavelli's Mistake"—not sure that this is an appropriate title for Bowles to have chosen) suggesting that self-interest alone could fuel a high performance economy. All of this makes sense to me. Precedents? Start with Thucydides.

Cassidy: How Markets Fail

I recently completed How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities (2009, 400 p.) by John Cassidy. Last March I recommended Neil Fergusson's The Ascent of Money as the book to read to understand the Great Crash of 2008. Not to take anything away from Fergusson's excellent book, but I now nominate this book for the task.

The crux of Cassidy's argument lies in his distinction between "utopian economics" and "reality-based economics". The Utopians believe strongly in the myth of homo economicus: rational, economic man. Calculating, analyzing, utility maximizing. Based on this model, economics built structures of beautiful mathematical models of how the world works. Some theorists, following the lead of Frederick Hayek, assumed the markets distributed information in the most efficient and rational way. Indeed, in the 1960s and beyond, the idea of "efficient markets" came to the fore, and eventually Allan Greenspan, as head of the Fed, came to think that "the market" would self-correct for anything like greed, myopia, ignorance, and other such imperfections.

It didn't.

Cassidy, after having taken readers through and quick and very informative history of classical and neo-classical economics, and more recent developments in financial theory (once the forgotten relative of economics), then takes us on a history of what he terms "reality-based economics". In this group, we find those who see the imperfections of markets and human behavior, men like Arthur Pigou, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert Simon, and Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. These individuals saw the limits of human behavior, which often proves economically irrational, and the limits of markets, which have their own paradoxes. For instance, Keynes addressed the "rational irrationality" of depressions and recessions. When the economy takes a downturn, people spend less and save more. However, when the economy goes south, someone needs to spend more to get it going again. Hence, for Keynes, we need government spending and intervention. Sound familiar? No wonder Keynes has made a comeback on economics circles (members of the Chicago School thought him a complete has-been). Cassidy addresses this history very deftly and succinctly, without seeming to leave out anything. (I might note here that Cassidy writes for the New Yorker, so you can assume his ability as a writer and expositor.)

In last portion of the book, Cassidy writes in detail about the events of 2007 and 2008, and the proximate causes of the crash. In sum, Wall Street had perverse incentives that in retrospect were certain to lead them to crash and turn our financial bus. For instance, financial risk that was supposed to have been ameliorated by spreading risk around to different holders. However, it turns out to have been only a spreading of ignorance and responsibility. Meanwhile, before the House of Cards fell, Wall Street rewarded itself for its "innovation". Thus the obscene bonuses.

I fear my humble review doesn't do justice to this outstanding book. If you know some economics it helps, but even if you don't, Cassidy is such a fine teacher that I don't think that you'd get lost. In fact, I hope that every member of our national leadership will read this book. (They won't, don't worry.) Cassidy certainly points the way to how we can do better, and how we must recognize where we will continue to fail and need to plan for that failure. Understand this: Cassidy isn't "anti-market" or anti-free enterprise. I deign to think that, like me, he appreciates markets as the primary template for decision-making, since its decentralized process allows for the best flow of information (hats off to Hayek here); however, it's not infallible, and it does not constitute a perpetual motion machine that doesn't need government guidance (not to mention governmental prerequisites). I highly recommend this book.

Hadot: The Present Alone is Our Happiness

2008 publication. A gem. 

I have finished re-reading Pierre Hadot's The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson.(2008 216 p.)--again. This is my third reading. The first time in a hurry to take in this new delight, a second reading with highlighting to absorb his wisdom, and this time to savor the pleasure of his company. This book, interviews of the eminent French scholar of ancient philosophy and philosopher in his own right, gives me the experience of listening to a man who is genuinely interested in wisdom and learning. Hadot became a Catholic priest at an early age (during WWII), but his main interest seems to have been in philosophy and mysticism. Differences with the Church and the development of a love life lead him away from the priesthood, but not away from his philosophical and scholarly pursuits. After the first couple of chapters recounting personal history, the rest of the book addresses his scholarly and philosophical work, which includes works on Plotinus and Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps Hadot's greatest contribution to me comes from his teaching that ancient philosophy addresses the issue of how one lives and holds little concern for systems of thought. Ancient philosophy, starting with the paradigmatic Socrates, emphasized oral teaching about how one should conduct one's life. Ancient philosophers cared little for systematic consistency. Hadot thus instructs us about how to read Marcus Aurelius's Meditations and others like him (especially the Stoic and Epicurean traditions). Hadot, however, does not limit himself to the Ancients, as he reports his appreciation of Montaigne, Goethe, Bergson, and Wittgenstein, among others. (Goethe provides the quote for the title.) I could go on at some length praising Hadot's work and my enjoyment of it, but I suggest that instead, we spend our time reading his work. (My previously posted comment on Hadot is here (item #23).

Colvin: Talent Is Overrated

Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else
by Geoff Colvin (2008, 206 p.) provides a nice compliment to The Talent Code (item #6). In sum, both books argue that talent comes from deliberate practice. Effort, in terms of meaningful practice, much more that genes, creates skillful performers. Colvin, like Coyle, focuses on some of the most skillful performers. Colvin describes NFL receiver Jerry Rice and Tiger Woods. (Note the publication date of 2008. We're talking strictly golf). He also discusses Mozart, among others. The overriding point: the amount of time spent in dedicated practice, even for a supposed prodigy like Mozart, provides the key to ultimate success in a field of performance. Colvin talks about all of the tangents of this issue: how to raise kids, applications of business, whether old people can still learn and perform (yes). He notes that Arthur Rubenstein, the great pianist who performed into his 89^th year, slowed down in many areas, but last of all in his piano-playing skill. In fact, Rubenstein began to perform some sections slower in order to give the perception of increased speed in following sections when he couldn't perform them as fast as he used to. Old folks can be clever! Overall, a quick, entertaining read. The lesson of this books and Coyle's book may be summed up in the old Beatnik joke: How do you get to Carnegie Hall? "Practice, man, practice." A book for teachers, coaches, and parents to share with students.

James Fallows on American Decline

James Fallows has published an article in The Atlantic (Jan/Feb 2010) entitled "How America Can Rise Again". As usual, Fallows provides a thorough and considered report on the topic. He points out that concerns about American decline are as American as apple pie, and the tradition goes back to the founding of the republic. He dubs the attitude "declinism". He makes a number of salient points, most interestingly, about China. Fallows has been living and reporting from China for the last couple of years, so his insights bear some serious consideration. The short summary: the rise of China, in many ways inevitable, actually can work to America's interest (ditto India). In fact, in a point that I agree with him more and more, our greatest challenge lies in the failure of our political system. He believes, as I do, that it's not working at all well. Although he doesn't cite it, the health care problem is a prime example. We have a very clear majority of Congress who support some core reforms (badly needed), and yet it's fate languishes because a Cosmo-type centerfold dude has been elected senator from Massachusetts. It also languishes because of individuals like Joe Lieberman, who has made himself into a party of one. Congress remains stuck in a culture of rotten boroughs (corrupting, old, and unrepresentative political system) that would make the 19^th century blush. I recommend the article for the thoughtful consideration of the concerns and the not necessarily pessimistic conclusions that Fallows reaches.

Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto

I've finished Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto (2009, 175 p.). Yes, I read a whole book about the humble checklist. Yet, as one would expect from someone who is a regular New Yorker contributor, it's very well written. The basic premise is simple: with increasingly complex undertakings, no person can keep the necessary mental notes needed to do everything that must be done when it should be done. This includes surgeons and their staff, airline pilots, contractors, and yes, even lawyers. (I give myself credit for professional reading on this one.) Gawande gives us a tour of how something as complex as a skyscraper gets built, and built right. He takes us to Boeing to see how simple checklists operate airplanes and save lives. He also takes us into surgery with him and his peers to see how they deal with these problems. Many of his accounts, especially of surgical and airline emergencies, are fascinating and scary. His own challenges getting a working checklist into his OR makes for interesting reading as well. In sum, it's a short, fascinating account of how a simple, rather old-fashion device can do a lot of good. Cooks use them all the time: they call them recipes.

Taleb on Walking & the Paleo Life

A couple of my regular blog reads posted this from my man Nicholas Taleb, the author the The Black Swan, one of my favorite books. This particular link, from Taleb's website (http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/whyIwalk.pdf) appears to be a portion of an upcoming book. In any event, it's a peek into his current fitness regiment, which he credits Art Devany and Doug McGuff (Body By Science). Of course, I got into Devany after reading Taleb's Fooled By Randomness, where Devany got a shout-out not only for his economics work, but also for his fitness regiment, what Devany dubs as "evolutionary fitness". Since I came across this in 2007, I've read and followed Devany's line of thinking, and I've discovered other like-minded thinkers. (I've let my paid subscription to Devany lapse, but he's supposed to be publishing a book before too long.) So what's all this got to do with Taleb and his black (or gray) swans? Randomness, robustness, variation: all themes in Taleb's work are applied to fitness. In any event, read Taleb's piece and check out some of this information, as I think Taleb, Devany, McGuff, and their ilk are on to something.

Current Intake

Self-help books and advisors often suggest that you make your resolutions public in order to use the pressure of public scrutiny to accomplish your goals. Well, forget it, if you're looking for something interesting. However, I do hope this year to complete many works that I started, but for one reason or another, didn't complete. Also, I want to attempt to leave fewer uncompleted works lying around. Thus, an occasional update on what's been going into my head. The notes and comments will be short with the thought that fuller reviews will follow:

1. Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Very well written and informative. Amazing the difference something so simple as a checklist can make.
   
2. Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jean Carlier and Arnold Davidson. The great French scholar and philosopher tell of his life and shares his insights from a life time of considering issues arising primarily from his reading of ancient philosophy. I'm embarrassed to say that I read it last year, but forgot to put it on my "best of the year" list. I've decided to re-read it, so it will appear on this list for this year—and yes, it's worth the re-read—definitely!
   
3. John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Catastrophes. Listening to this one. A very careful yet accessible history of economic thought.
   
4. A lot of mags to catch-up on.

The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown

I finished Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 (1971)(203 p.). Brown writes wonderfully. The only drawback for me was the immensity of his knowledge & his topic. So much was happening! The rise of Christianity, the continuation and deterioration of Roman culture and political rule, the invasions of barbarians, the rise of Byzantium as a separate political entity and culture, and last, but not least, the rise of the Moslem rule and culture. Brown passes through these topics like a knowledgeable museum curator giving you the basic guided tour. Indeed, the book includes a number of illustrations of contemporary art works (love those mosaics!). In all, this work provides a very formidable and wide-ranging survey of this diverse and changing era. No longer will it simply be thought of as the era of the Decline and Fall, or as simply the Dark Ages (although I'm not convinced that this doesn't apply in Northern Europe from about 750-1000 CE). In any event, I'm eager to read more of Brown's work.

Brooks on Avatar

I've must say that I have a lot of sympathy with what Dave Brooks says here about "Avatar", James Cameron's new blockbuster. It does have a "white guys rule" sensibility, like its predecessors, such as "Dances With Wolves" (the film that I first thought of after having viewed "Avatar". Maybe its too much to have something more subtle in the problems & issues; bad guys maybe not quite so bad & good guys (and gals) not quite so good. Americans as a whole need to understand these issues with more nuance IMHO.

New Reading Project & New Infatuation

I'm now into a reading project centered on Late Antiquity. I didn't know the phrase existed until recently. Gibbon defined it as the era of the decline and fall of Rome; most know it as the Dark Ages. However, it seems that especially due to the researches and writing of Peter Brown, we now consider this era (c. 150-750) as Late Antiquity. I'll mention some of the titles that I've dipped into as a part of this project, but I think I may have a new author infatuation: Peter Brown. Commentators on this era all include Brown in their essential bibliographies, and a number mention his prose style. Well, I'm into his The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 (1971), and the reputation seems well-deserved indeed. I'm thinking more and more of diving into his very highly regarded biography of St. Augustine, perhaps the key figure of Late Antiquity (at least in the West). Other good prospects waiting in line:

1. Freeman, Charles, The
   Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason
   
2. Dodds, E.R., Pagan & Christian in an Age of Anxiety
   
3. Galsworthy, Adrian How Rome Fell
   
4. O'Donnell, James, The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History
   
5. More Brown
   

Suggestions?

Niebuhr: Children of Light & Children of Darkness

I completed by first book of the year, Niebuhr's Children of Light & Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy & a Critique of Its Traditional Defense (1944, 190 p.). This was a re-read, but well worth it. I could fill a post with quotes from this wonderfully insightful book. However, as you should read it yourself, I'll limit myself. An example: "There is freedom in history . . . But there is no absolute freedom in history; for every choice is limited by the stuff which nature and previous history present to the hour of decision." (54). Think about that thought not just in the light of nations and national leaders, but in your personal life. I'm all for "thinking outside the box", "possibility thinking", and so on; worthwhile exercises because we can become tired and stale, but in the end, we do face existential limitations from nature and history—personal as well as social history.

Okay, I can't help myself, another quote: "The ideal of the individual self-sufficiency, so exalted in our liberal culture, is recognized in Christian thought as one form of the primal sin. For self-love, which is the root of all sin, takes two social forms. One of them is the domination of other life by the self. The second is the sin of isolation." (55). Or as the dear one says: "The Big Self. Self-centered and self-righteous." Yup, she's Niebuhr to the core. Niebuhr meanwhile harkens back to Augustine's libido dominandi, while we thought that libido was just about the BVH.

Niebuhr touches on subjects such as anti-trust law, feminism, defense of property, social contract theory, issues of race, ethnicity, and religion, among others, making the breadth of his insights quite remarkable. He maintains a middle-way that is not a mushy center, but a perspective that avoids the pitfalls of the extremes.

I'll quit (promise) with one last quote: "[I]f only the proponents of various political theories have some decent and humble recognition of the fact that their theories are always partly the rationalization of their interests. A conservative class which makes "free enterprise" the final good of the community, and a radical class which mistakes some proximate solution of the economic problem for the ultimate solution of every issue of life, are equally perilous to the peace of the community and the preservation of democracy." (148-149). I hope for more Niebuhr to come.

Closing the Books on 2009: Best Books of the Year

It's time for my annual retrospective on the books of 2009. However, before plunging into that topic, a couple of points:

• More and more reading comes from the internet, via blogs primarily, but also on-line editorial pieces from "newspapers" and internet "magazines". These pieces tend to be short and to the point. To a very small extent I've posted some of those that I found pertinent, and one of the resolutions for the new year will be to post those short pieces as they arise.
  
• Magazine reading seems to be the big loser, as the articles are a bit longer than most internet pieces, but they don't provide the depth of a book.
  
• I start many books and become distracted. I will not count them unless I finished them, or at least got far enough to pass the test.
  
• I did some dipping into books that may not receive recognition. For instance, from John Lukacs's Remembered Past: John Lukacs on History, Historians, and Historical Knowledge (2005), an 894-page book Lukas's shorter writings, including some chapters from his books. Also, essays by Jacques Barzun, another cultural treasure. Michael Dirda, book reviewer par excellance. Anyway, those readings, which prove quite rewarding, don't score points on the "books read". Nevertheless, I still do pretty well, I think. (Curse you! Donna Harris!)
  

In no special order, the best books of the year:

1. A Thousand Hills: Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It

   (2008) by Stephen Kinzer. My youngest daughter recommended this book to me, and it was fascinating. Of course, if you're like most people, or me, you think Rwanda and genocide. It was a horror in the early 1990's. However, a lot happened before and after that hellish event. This book covers events leading to the genocide and the years that followed, primarily through the life of Rwanda's current president, Paul Kigame. This book addresses:
   

• Issues of colonialism and crackpot racial theories of Belgium missionaries that contributed (if not created) divisions between Hutu and Tootsie.
  

• The complicity of the French government in the genocide.
  

• The problems of corruption in African governments
  

• The failure—indeed cowardice—of the Clinton administration to address the genocide.
  

• The abject failure of the U.N. to address the problem, despite having forces on the ground (and it proves especially damning of Kofi Anan, who could have acted much more aggressively to avert the disaster and who fails to acknowledge this failure).
  

• The hope of Kigame to create an Asian miracle in Africa.
  

• The fact that Machiavellian considerations pervade politics.
  

• How Rwanda seeks to reestablish national unity after such a horrible experience, and the role of informal courts in attempting this feat.
  

• The conflict between those primarily concerned with African development and African human rights when viewing the Kigame regime.
  

 

I could continue at some length, but I trust you get the picture. Really quite a wide-ranging and intriguing book that deals with so many of the issues that African nations face, as well as western nations.

1. The Irony of American History (1950) by Reinhold Niebuhr. My consideration of Obama's Nobel Acceptance speech led me to this Niebuhr book, and I'm very glad that I did. I'm embarrassed that I haven't read it before. In sum, Niebuhr talks about the tragic and the ironic in politics. The ironic efforts are those that intend good but result in less than good results. In this book, Niebuhr addresses American naiveté, and how we think we're so all-fired good when in fact, we're not. Niebuhr is an Augustinian of the first order, and his appreciation of our national faults and virtues is unparalleled. I was astonished at how much is words, written shortly before I was born, still resonate so much in light of current and recent events. This man was a prophet, and the fact that Obama considers him a guiding light gives me a good deal of hope about Obama's leadership.
   
2. Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen (2009) by Christopher McDougall. Okay, time for some fun, and fun this book was. What a gas! It's about sore feet, bare feet, lost tribes, slightly crazy people, modern error, and human evolution. McDougall weaves a compelling narrative with digressions of teaching that make the book compelling listening (I listened). Whether you're a runner or not, I highly recommend this book for a fun, informative read.
   
3. When the Game Was Ours (2009) by Larry Bird and Earvin "Magic" Johnson, with Jackie MacMullan. This Christmas gift from my eldest daughter didn't sit in my reading queue for long, and for good reason. For those of you who are ignorant of basketball (I have to speak bluntly here), these two were great. I saw Magic play here at Iowa, and then I followed him and Bird throughout their careers. This book, based primarily on Bird and Johnson's reminisces, tells how these two intensively competitive and skilled individuals at first only eyed each other from a distance. Then, in 1985, while shooting a commercial for Converse in French Lick (and shame on you if you don't know about French Lick) and with ample helpings of Mrs. Bird's pie, these two rivals came to know each other and understand their common histories and experiences. In fact, while on the exterior they were different, warm and out-going Magic vs. taciturn Bird, Laker v. Celtic, white and black—you could go on—they were very much alike in their dedication and determination to succeed. In the end, they recognized this in one another, and although each would never back down from a competition, they developed a special bond. Who was the greatest player? The question still boggles my mind. An intriguing read.
   
4. War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2003) by Chris Hedges. This book (I listened) was extremely intense. Hedges reported from Central America, the Balkans, Africa, and Palestine for the New York Times. He lived in and reported from war zones. Don't let the title fool you. He understands war and its effect on lives better than anyone else that I can think of. Don't be fooled by the title! See my earlier post (7.21.09) for more in this incredible book and his Empire of Illusions (2009), in which he plays the role of prophet. Hedges is a writer that won't let you off the hook easily.
   
5. Inventing the Middle Ages by Norman Cantor. See my earlier post (12.09.09): great fun! Delightful. Intriguing.
   
6. The Talent Code: Talent Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How. (2009) by Daniel Coyle. This was my last completion of the year. This audio book explained new developments in the neurology of learning put into layman's terms. In short, the more we use nerves (the source of any human action or learning), the more myelin those nerves develop, giving them greater speed and bandwidth (i.e., effectiveness). Neural efficiency develops best with "deep practice", and to demonstrate this, Coyle visits a Russian tennis academy, Brazilian soccer history, a music academy in upstate New York (ever heard of Yo-Yo Ma?), and a basketball practice run by John Wooden (via a study done by 2 UCLA professors of education). For anyone interested in learning, teaching, coaching, or parenting (if these don't address you, Reader, then you're a space alien), I highly recommend this book.
   
7. Confessions of a Conservative (1979) by Garry Wills. See my post (11.20.09).
   
8. John Lukacs books: Last Rites (2009) (04.02.09); Confessions of an Original Sinner (1990) (10.23.09), Democracy and Populism (2005) (05.06.09)At the End of an Age (2002) (10.26.09, etc.). (Lots more bits and pieces of Lukacs, as I mentioned in the introduction.). Well, I've gone on at some length in the past about Lukacs, and as you can see, throughout the last year. I think that he's very perceptive, interesting, and challenging.
   
9. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
   (2008) and The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009) by Steig Larsson. These two thrillers were great fun. Contemporary Sweden seems not as utopian as one might think. The two characters provide an entertaining juxtaposition. Fast pacing with a plausible enough story line gets you involved, although the second one got a bit too convoluted, yet, I'm hooked. The third (and final) book in the series is due out this spring. It should prove fun.
   
10. Redbreast (2008) by Jo Nesbo. Another thriller from Scandinavia, this time from Norway. This book is a police procedural starring Harry Hole, the Oslo detective. However, it reaches back to the Eastern Front in WWII to provide much of the story. Another fast-paced, enjoyable read that gives a glimpse of demons still haunting a Scandinavian nation.
    
11. 
    The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (2006) by Thomas Homer Dixon. Dixon is a Canadian political scientist trained at MIT. This book weaves scholarly knowledge with boots-on-the-ground investigation and consideration of what makes societies work or fail. For more details on this outstanding book, check out my post.
    
12. 
    Mind in the Balance: Mediation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity (2009) by B. Alan Wallace. See post 05.26.09.
    
13. The Ascent of Money (2008) by Niall Fergusson. See post 03.01.09.
    
14. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008) by Jeffrey Sachs. See post 02.08.09.
    
15. 
    A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age by Daniel Pink (2005). See post 02.08.09.
    
16. Emotional Awareness (2008) by Dalai Lama & Paul Ekman. See post 01.18.09.
    
17. 
    Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World (2009) by Tyler Cowen. Thoughts of an economics professor, blogger (Marginal Revolution), and all-around interested guy, focusing a lot on autism and the internet, among other things. A worthwhile tour of some interesting ideas.
    
18. The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America (2009) by Steven Johnson. Joseph Priestly: a man who "discovered" (or invented) oxygen and who contributed to democracy in America and religious toleration. A mob burned down his house for his efforts. As usual, Johnson weaves narrative with scientific facts and history to provide an engaging account. We need more like Priestly.
    

 

Well, enough for now. There are a number of books that I need to finish. Perhaps, Reader, you'll find something that tickles your fancy. If so, go for it. Happy Reading for 2010.

Dionne on Obama & Realism

E.J. Dionne, on the website Truthdig (quite a good site, with Chris Hedges weekly) offers his take on the Obama speech and realism. Dionne makes some good points. Worth reading: "Squaring Idealism with Realism".

Ostrem Nobel Acceptance

The political scientist who shared the Nobel Prize for Economics this year was Eleanor Ostrem. I viewed her talk. What a gas! This lady sounds like (and probably is) someone's grandma. She seems jolly, nice, and very hard working. She does what anyone ought to do: think, test, and think some more! Unlike arm-chair economists, she apparently goes out into the field in search of real world examples of problems (the commons, property and resources) and sees how things really work. She then refines her theory. How novel! Well, anyway, I enjoyed her talk.

Obama’s Nobel Speech

If you have not done so, I highly recommend reading or viewing President Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. While reading Doonesbury that last couple of days, I get the sense that some found it shockingly bellicose, a paean in favor war and not a song of peace. (Of course, I suspect that Doonesbury mocks those thoughts, but in any event, some must hold them.) Didn't anyone pay attention to Obama during the campaign when he reported that Reinhold Niebuhr was a favorite "philosopher"? (BTW, John McCain said the same thing; however, having heard McCain, I have some doubt that he actually read Niebuhr, and certainly he did not grasp Niebuhr's message.) Obama obviously had read his Niebuhr, perhaps even some of the fountainhead of Niebuhr's Christian realism, St. Augustine. In any event, what Obama set forth seems very Niebuhr-esque to me.

To get a further sense of Obama's thinking, read David Brooks on Obama and Niebuhr. As usual, he has insightful things to say about the two. His most recent column on this subjec calls Obama's speech the most important of Obama's life. In an earlier column (in 2007), Brooks asked Obama if Obama had read Niebuhr, and Obama enthusiastically replied that Niebuhr "was one of his favorite philosophers." Brooks goes on to report that Obama provided a succinct summary of Niebuhr's thought that Brooks identified as pretty much the thesis of Niebuhr's The Irony of American History (1952). This sent me back to read this book, as I've owned it for years but I had never read it. Shame on me! It proved vintage Niebuhr, and given that Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932)is one of my favorites, this should not surprise me. I highly recommend both, and more to come on Irony.

Two quick points while doing some of the research for this post:

1. Brooks, and others, often mention George Kennan when discussing Niebuhr, and I see a strong connection. I also consider Kennan a hero.
   
2. The late John Patrick Diggins, one of my favorite historians, nearly had completed a work on Niebuhr before his death. I hope it gets published, as Diggins would prove as good a commentator on Niebuhr as anyone that I can imagine.

Churchill Quote

I came across this quote from WSC today doing some professional reading. It's about life as a journey:

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there may stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb."

Quoted in Zaltman & Zaltman, Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Mind of Consumers (2008), p. 94. (For anyone wondering how this amounts to "professional reading" by a lawyer, replace "consumers" with "jurors", and you'll see. The book was recommended by a continuing legal education speaker.)

Historians of the Middle Ages

Just before Thanksgiving, I finished Inventing the Middle Ages: The Lives, Works, and Ideas of the Great Medievalists of the Twentieth Century by Norman Cantor (1991). Why I pick up a particular book at some particular time quite often puzzles me, but this book, which I've owned since buying it second-hand in 2006, got its call in November, and it proved quite a fascinating read. I picked up my pace reading through it like in order to finish before Thanksgiving (it's hard cover and wouldn't travel easily). Now why on earth would I find such a work fascinating? Several reasons. First, Cantor writes well, and he's covering two topics at once: twentieth century writers, as well as medieval history. For instance, the English legal theorist Frederick Maitland was a member of the Bloomsbury group, consisting of such persons as Virginia Woolf and John Maynard Keynes. Interesting company for him (Maitland), as well as the reader. Cantor handles both subjects quite well. The intrigues, interests, biases, and obstacles of twentieth century historians of the medieval period prove quite interesting in themselves (there's more than just a little academic gossip here). Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of the books addresses how the needs and interests of the present effect researches into the past. For instance, two German scholars who began during the Weimar Period were interested in German leadership. One, Kantorwicz, a Jew, was forced to flee Germany because of a "strong" German leader, while the other, Schramm, was close to Hitler as historian of the Wehrmacht.

The two most famous medievalists considered made their names outside of their scholarly area, but their scholarly interest in the Middle Ages shown through much of the popular work. C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien allowed their sense of this lost world to shine through their very popular works.

These are only of few of the historians discussed, and even those whom we'd never heard of before become quite fascinating in Cantor's consideration. In addition, I realize that I was quite fortunate as an undergraduate to have been exposed to medieval and Renaissance history from some capable teachers. My first semester as an undergraduate, taking a course in Western Civ, introduced me to Phillip the Fair and Boniface VIII. A course in Medieval History from John Bell Henneman gave me a wide-ranging introduction to this strange world, and one can't appreciate the Renaissance without some sense of it roots.

I'm now casually working my way through Cantor's Civilization of the Middle Ages (1994), a comprehensive survey. Cantor provides good bibliographies and his book has prompted me to go back and explore some of these historians as well as this period. I've also started Huizinga's The Autumn of the Middle Ages. (Note: not The Waning of the Middle Ages—a different translation—but more on that later.)

Wills and Obama & Afghanistan

I just read a new NYRB blog entry by Garry Wills really laying into President Obama for Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/265874686/afghanistan-the-betrayal. The piece is painful to read. I fear greatly that Wills is correct in thinking that further efforts in Afghanistan will remain futile, wasting lives and resources. However, most troubling, is the sense of betrayal. To some extent I'm not sympathetic, in that Obama emphasized the need to take care of business in Afghanistan during the campaign. Yet, the situation only looks worse and worse. Worse yet, Wills reaction—and he's certainly not alone in this— looks like a reaction that could divide Obama supporters and give an opening to the Right—and the only Right remaining is the kooky right. Thoughts of LBJ and Viet Nam haunt me and many like me. This is not good. I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, hoping that my fears will not be realized and that we will be on track to leave sooner rather than later, with a minimal loss of life. At this point, I can only hope. I cannot pull the plug on supporting Obama, his intentions and abilities are not those of Bush, but I do fear. I do fear.

Wills: Confessions of a Conservative

A couple of weekends ago, on a lark, I picked up my copy of Garry Wills's Confessions of a Conservative (1979). As it turns out, the 30^th anniversary of its publication. It was, again, a delight to read. Wills talks about how Bill Buckley plucked him from obscurity and gave him a position at the relatively new National Review as a cultural and book reviewer. During this time, Wills also learned a lot about politics and reporting. Coming out of a Jesuit seminary, Wills described his politics as "distributist" (a la Chesterton) and appropriately Catholic anti-Communist. He'd only read Plato's Republic and St. Augustine's The City of God for reasons other than their political theories. He recounts reading in the traditional works of political theory under the tutelage of some of the NR staff. However, perhaps more interestingly—and he claims more significantly—he also received guidance in his political thinking from Samuel Johnson, Newman, Ruskin, and Chesterton, among others. This made for a very interesting (and heretical) conservative. His take on "conservative" offers a very different perspective on the topic. Indeed, it ended up with him thrown overboard from the NR world, but he expanded thereby to a much wider audience. 


The other fascinating thing about this book is his insight into the political process. His appreciation of politicians, bureaucrats, elites, prophets, elections, and other political phenomena truly enlightens. He quotes the likes of Duncan Black and Kenneth Arrow, who provide the formal analysis of what Wills apparently grasped intuitively: that elections don't give us "the best man" (or woman), and the compromise will inevitably result in our system. Thus, he critiques "liberal" political theory (or what I think is more a "good government" theory of politics). 


The final part of the book includes an appreciation of St. Augustine and Homer, reminding us that Wills brings a classicist's eye to his perspective on our political world today. 


Finally, a quote that reminds me of that "reactionary" that I've been reading, John Lukacs: 


    "Insofar as we steer rationally toward the future, we do so by our rear-view mirror. There is no windshield, because there is nothing to "see" up ahead. We go forward by seeing backward. By tracing the trajectory of past events we extrapolate to future positions. But if we trace only one trend, the chances of steering well are slim; too many other things will jostle and interact with the simple arc we are imagining. That is why so many simple reforms or five-year plans or platform pledges are bound to go awry, even with the best of wills. The best guides to the future are those whose knowledge of the past is broadest and deepest, who are the most cautions and aware of complexity, least confidant that they can "see" something up ahead." (216-217).


How absolutely true!

Lukacs Quoting William James & On History

The following quote could be broken in two, as I think that each could stand alone. However, I'm taking directly from Lukacs's text. This is a part of a larger argument that he is making. In this mode, Lukacs is a thinker who takes flight high above the landscape, and therefore can move his eagle eye from one point to the next with little need for transition. Also, I might note that he begins by quoting the great William James (The best book on James, IMHO, is by Lukacs's friend, Jacques Barzun: A Stroll with William James.)

William James wrote: "You can give humanistic value to almost anything by teaching it historically. Geology, economics, mechanics, are humanities when taught by reference to the successive achievements of the geniuses to whom these sciences woe their being. Not taught thus, literature remains grammar, art a catalogue, history a list of dates, and natural science a sheet of formulas and weights and measures" [William James, Memories and Studies, 1911, pp. 312-313]

    In sum, the history of anything amounts to that thinking itself. History is not a social science but an unavoidable form of thought. That "we live forward but we can only think backward" is true not only of the present (which is always a fleeting illusion) but of our entire view of the future: for even when we think of the future we do this by remembering it. But history cannot tell us anything about the future with certainty. Intelligent research, together with a measure of psychological understanding, may enable us to reconstruct something from the past; still it cannot help us predict the future. There are many reasons for this unpredictability (for believing Christians let me say that Providence is one); but another (God-ordained) element is that no two human beings have ever been the same. History is real; but it cannot be made to "work" because of its unpredictability.

At the End of an Age (2002), pp. 53-54.

I think another way to formulate Lukacs's insight comes from complexity theory: History (as the history of everything and everyone) is a very complex system in which sometimes seemingly trivial changes can have momentous effects. Society is not mechanical; it is complex. I think that Lukacs's interest in quantum physics should be updated by complexity theory. Thomas Homer-Dixon has written about his belief that ecology will replace physics as the master science. But in the end, the unpredictability of history (as the future) remains the same.

Lukacs Comparing Science & History

    All living beings have their own evolution and their own life-span. But human beings are the only living beings who know that they live while they live—who know, and not only instinctively feel, that they are going to die. Other living beings have an often extraordinary and accurate sense of time. But we have a sense of our history, which amounts to something else. "The question of scientific knowledge" is the title and subject of my next chapter; the presence of historical thinking is the title and subject of this one. Scientific knowledge, dependent as it is on scientific method, is by its nature open to question. The existence of historical knowledge, the inevitable presence of the past in our minds, is not. We are all historians by nature, while we are scientists only by choice.

At the End of an Age (2002), p. 50

Lukacs the “Reactionary”

I've just re-read John Lukac's Confessions of an Original Sinner (1990), his "auto-history". This second journey through his book and life proved as interesting—perhaps more interesting—than the first, simply because (slowly) I'm beginning to get a handle on this man. He thinks of himself first and foremost as "a writer", and I find his style, his voice, quite engaging. Of course, I don't know that I agree with all of his perspectives, but I know that whatever his perspective, it will prove interesting and thought-provoking, if not downright entertaining. Thus, when dealing with someone who writes so well, I think that the best thing to do is to quote him, and so here begins what I hope will be a series of quotes from Confessions.

    "A reactionary considers character but distrusts publicity; he is a patriot but not a nationalist; he favors conservation rather than conservatism; he defends the ancient blessings of the land and is dubious about the results of technology; he believes in history, not in Evolution. To be a reactionary in the second half of the twentieth century has every possible professional and social disadvantage. Yet it has a few advantages that are divine gifts during this dreary decline of Western civilization. A reactionary will recognize how, contrary to Victor Hugo's hoary nineteenth-century cliché, A Idea Whose Time Has Come may not be any good. This kind of skepticism is, of course, a reaction to the largely mechanical propagation of ideas in the twentieth century, to their management and marketing through the crude machinery of publicity." (3-4)

 

 

 

Garry Wills Noted, Along with More Ostrem

Garry Wills adds further voice to the anti-Obama phenomena. As usual, his sense of history provides much-needed perspective. Read it (and perhaps weep!). “The New American Hysteria”.

I wrote the following before the previous post:
On the award of the Nobel Prize for Economics today, I note that one of the co-recipients was a political scientist. Here’s a quick synopsis of her work from Marginal Revolution blog, “Elinor Ostrom and the well-governed commons”. Here’s Tyler Cowen’s take, also from Marginal Revolution, “What this Nobel prize means”. Finally, Robert Shiller’s comments in the NYT bear mentioning in their brief piece on the award.

The more that I think about this award, and learn what this lady has done, the more impressed I have become. She's working on one of the most vexing, and often ideologically charged issues: the commons. The management of the global commons, in my opinion, is the most important issue facing humans today. By this I mean primarily global climate change and pollution.

Elinor Ostrem, Nobel Prize winning political scientist

The more I read about Elinor Ostrem, the political science prof @ IU and winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, the more that I like her. This comment by Paul Romer, “Skyhooks versus Cranes: The Nobel Prize for Elinor Ostrom
and this talk by Professor Ostrem herself give me a good sense of her projects. Seems very earthy (and happily so) to me.

Back to the Archives: 2006 Reading Summary

History
    I didn't get a history major for nothing, and this year proved to be a good one. I began the year reading a fascinating and challenging historian on a seemingly inexhaustible subject. John Lukacs's Churchill: Historian, Visionary, Statesman. First, Lukacs: he writes in three modes, the particular, the panoramic, and the visionary. In this book, he displays his panoramic view. Later, I listened (again) to his Five Days in London: May 1940, where he describes Churchill's assent to power against the backdrop of those who in Britain who would have cut a deal with Hitler. This is Lukacs, who can write like a good novelist, showing his "particular" mode. You learn that history (as always) could have taken a very different turn. 

    Continuing a bit a Churchill theme taken up from last year (and that goes back to at least the 6^th grade), I listened to Dr. John Ramsden's Winston Churchill audio lectures presented by The Modern Scholar (trying to muscle-in on the well-established pioneer in this market, The Teaching Company). Here I give the nod to Ramsden's work over that of Rufus Jones for the Teaching Company that I listened to last year. Ramsden provides a good concise summary of Churchill's career and the issues it raises. 

    Another foray back into my past was to Lawrence Lafore's The Long Fuse. Professor Lafore was my professor for "Modern England: 1850-Present", but his forte was 20^th century diplomatic history, and The Long Fuse was assigned to me twice by another history prof as an undergraduate. As the coming of the First World War must be seen as a tragedy of the highest magnitude—at once inevitable and painfully wrong—it bears constant consideration and reconsideration, as indeed it has received. Interest in this topic led me to the excellent short consideration of the subject recently published by David Fromkin, Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War and Why? Fromkin does an excellent job of recounting the build-up to the Great War, how decisions, fears, alliances, and human fallibility created the slow motion train wreck of Western civilization that lasted—as some will argue—to the Treaty of Paris in 1991. 

    A regular on my reading list is Garry Wills. In the history category, I read his Henry Adams and the Making of America. The first section is a consideration of Henry Adams, one of our great earlier historians who has often been dismissed as "gloomy". Wills argues persuasively that this is not the case, at least not for this work (unlike his autobiography, written toward the end of his life). In the latter part of the book, Wills then takes his readers through Adams's great work of American history, A History of the United States During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Wills adds his insights to the glory of Adams work to show how dramatically the nation changed and formed in those 16 years from a rag-tag uncertainty to a solid national identity and government. Wills is a master of taking the familiar and finding the new or unusual take on a person or event. 

    While Wills has been a staple in my reading since 1976, when C and I read his Bare Ruined Choirs while commuting to Muscatine, and I read his brilliant portrait of Richard Nixon, Nixon Agonistes, there are happy new additions the favored historians list. One new historian on my high priority list is Niall Ferguson. Ferguson is a British historian who was at Oxford and now serves on the faculty at Harvard. Yeah, he's good. I read Colossus: The Price of America's Empire. Ferguson, who's written on the First World War (The Pity of War) and the British Empire, takes a look at American history in light of the British experience. Ranging over American forays into formal imperialism (e.g., the Philippines) and informal (U.S. domination of Latin America), Ferguson shows that the U.S. tries to evade the fact of our dominance and our quandary of how to square our anti-colonial heritage with the fact of our predominance on the world stage. This ambivalence complicates issues of how to engage in places like Viet Nam and Iraq. By the way, expect to see Ferguson on next year's list, as he's just published The War of World: The Descent of the West and the Rise of Asia, where he takes a panoramic look at our calamitous century. 

    To round out this History list for this year, Jon Meachum's audio of Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of a Friendship. I think that R read this. Two more complex and important men have rarely met in such a crucial time and under such amazing circumstances. Meachum does a fine job of mixing the human element seen in private with the public personas acting on the stage of world history. In the end, I think that Winston comes out as the more attractive figure, great as FDR was in the pantheon of American history. 

    As a sneak preview of next year, I've begun reading Churchill's The Gathering Storm, the first volume in his seven volume memoir of the Second World War. (The memoir starts about 1930, as Churchill picks up on the breakdown of the Versailles Treaty.) This is no chore: recall that Churchill won a Nobel Prize for literature. He claims that while the "cleverer boys" were learning Greek and Latin, he was forced to focus on the basic English sentence.

 
Fiction
    Anne chastised me earlier this year for not reading enough fiction, following a theme that C had trumpeted for many years without success. While this charge is not wholly fair, it has some truth to it, so I decided to take up some novels. 

    The first was a listen: P.D. James's The Murder Room. I cite this as Exhibit A, as I am a regular listener to P.D. James, the "Queen of Crime". She and her enduring character, Adam Dagleish, the poet-detective superintendent, make for great listening. James is not a drawing room mystery writer, as she is strong in her stationhouse rivalries and the forensics of the morgue, as well as in dealing with the complex motives of a host of suspects. Here she adds the spice of 1920's memorabilia to her tale. Good stuff. 

    Jeb Rudenfeld is a Yale law prof that I'd heard of, so I paid some early interest in his The Interpretation of Murder, an early 20^th century setting that uses Freud's only trip to America to allow sleuthing in New York. Digressions on Hamlet and the growing conflict with Jung (a travel companion at this time) makes of an interesting story. Not bad for a first try. 

    Ward Just's Forgetfulness proved an excellent choice. I'd earlier read his The American Ambassador (Exhibit B for Steve as fiction reader), so I gave this a try, as it was just published, and I'm glad that I did. Just's writing captures the surfaces of things in a way that says a lot by not commenting much. In this story, an American expatriate in France must deal with death and the rough ways of trying to reach some sense of justice. Excellent. 

    Quite independent of President Bush's choice of authors, I picked up Albert Camus's The Plague. Actually, I did so on the much stronger authority of recommendations from both daughters (and besides, I'd read The Stranger in both high school and college). The Plague was an excellent novel, and not just because Dr. Rieux is a lot more sympathetic character than Mersualt, although that doesn't hurt it any, for sure. The quiet way that Camus provides his account of the North African port city's growing peril and the efforts of residents to deal with it make for a compelling story.

 
Philosophy & Religion

    Garry Wills offered two new books this year that both provide succinct and insightful account of the two most important figures in Christianity: What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant. What Jesus Meant provides the more unique, yet quite orthodox, account. Both books provide new insights based on Biblical scholarship, but the emphasis in both is upon the meaning of their subjects. In both cases Wills seeks to scrub away the varnish of tradition and misunderstanding that has been coated both figures and led us to distorted perspectives. Wills rarely touches upon a subject without giving you a new and unforeseen perspective upon them, and these two books prove no exception.

    I delved this year into Paul Ricouer's The Symbolism of Evil, one of those books that have stared at me for years, begging to be read. I picked it up in part because Ricouer died this past year, and it seemed appropriate to explore. He is not an easy read—his erudition in Biblical, classical, and philosophical texts is mind-boggling. Here is explores the concepts of defilement, sin, and guilt. Fun, eh? Well worth if you're willing to swim into deep water. 

    Another lion of post-war European philosophy is Jurgen Habermas, and I read Jurgen Habermas: A Very Brief Introduction, one of a serious on a wide variety of topics published by Oxford University Press. Habermas is someone that I'd read in college, but coming out of the Frankfurt School and steeped in the German intellectual tradition, he's not easy. But this book made his thought seem easy. This guy is the living embodiment of the European Enlightenment tradition and the intellectual godfather of much of contemporary German political thinking. A well-done effort here gets to the essentials in a most effective manner.

    Thank goodness for the Teaching Company! They've helped make drives long and short, as well as mowing the lawn or time on the cardio machines go much faster. This year I listened to two programs by a favorite philosopher, Robert Solomon, who teaches at UT-Austin. The first, The Passions: Philosophy and the Intelligence of the Emotions picks up a favorite topic of his and mine: the emotions. Solomon argues that emotions are not simply feral reactions, but are—at least in part—cognitive strategies to deal with the environment. (For a contrary few, check out Columbia prof Jon Elster's Alchemies of the Mind. But I digress.) Solomon gives the listener a tour of the emotions and then reflects in the second half of the course upon various aspects of emotional life. Whether talking about Aristotle or Sartre (favorites of his), or contemporary practices, he's always makes sound arguments and astute observations. No bombast, just solid thinking. 

    The other Solomon course this year was The Will to Power: Nietzsche's Philosophy. Here Solomon is joined by his wife and Nietzsche scholar, Kathleen Higgins (UT-Austin) to discuss this most complex of philosophers. Nietzsche is unique in many ways, and Solomon and Higgins explore his work from a number of different angles, dispelling myths and providing perspective. Highly recommended. 

    Mathew Stewart's The Courier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World provided entertaining and enlightening. Spinoza has gained my attention and admiration over the last several years. I've been weak as a student of early modern history, but I see Spinoza, perhaps much more than his much more famous contemporary, Descartes, as a pivotal figure in modern thinking (although his Euclidian form of argument is off-putting). Spinoza's insights in the emotions rates very high with me, as he tracks, to some extent, Stoic thinking. However, in this book we learn about Leibniz, the eccentric and brilliant co-founder of calculus and the mondonology (that I've never been able to penetrate) and his meeting with the quiet Dutch heretic. Good reading laced with insight from these two great philosophers. 

    Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth proved to me again why I value her work. She traces the story of myth and myths from the earliest times to the present in this slim but valuable volume. She shows myth as historical construct and as world-informing narrative that provides meaning to lives (even if it shows a shattered world, such as found in Elliot's The Wasteland). Recommended. 

    I'm not sure where it belongs, but I'm going to put Alan de Botton's How Proust Can Change Your Life into this category. Not philosophy in a traditional sense, but an extended, thoughtful essay based upon an appreciation of one of the greatest and most eccentric writers in the 20^th century. Fun and thoughtful. 

    In a light, funny, but moving effort, Anne Lamot's Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith provided to be a fun read aloud for C and I. Lamont takes her own foibles, those of her teenage son, her family, and about everything else in reality, and looks at in a humorous and touching way. 

    Finally, in the fun and thoughtful mode, Richard Watson's The Philosopher's Diet. If, like me, you decide its time to shed some pounds, start with Watson as your guide. Food, running, sex, and death are among his subjects. This guy was born and raised and educated in Iowa (Bedford, Iowa State undergrad, Iowa grad school), so it's easy to tune into his references. He now teaches philosophy at Wash U in St. Louis and specializes in Cartesian studies. Trust him to lead you if you feel the urge to go for it in the weight control field.
    
Social Sciences
    
    First, a word in defense of reading social science. Too much of it can be dry as sawdust, but when it's good, it can be very good. Not beautiful prose, but if not gummed up with jargon, it can make us see things that are right before our eyes but that we can routinely miss. If you find the good stuff, it can be very good. 

Steven Johnson: Emergence, Mind Wide Open, and Everything Bad for You is Good for You. Johnson is a journalist of science and social science (where do we draw the line?) much like Malcolm Gladwell. In Emergence, Johnson traces the ways of ants, cities, and computers. Yes, you read that correctly, and he does so in a convincing manner. In Mind Wide Open, he explores the workings of the mind, using his own experiences as a guide. Finally, in Everything Bad for You is Good for You, he takes a counter-intuitive approach of video games and popular entertainment, suggesting that these games, whatever their violence or sexual innuendo, are very mentally challenging. Ditto with popular TV: plots and narrative are much more demanding than yesteryear. Good. Fun stuff. 

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki. This audio book made for great listening. It explains, among other things, the workings of the Iowa Electronic Markets, and a host of other phenomena. I argue that it shows the value of widespread and de-centralized decision-making. Of course, you will argue, if decentralized and mass decision-making are so good, then how do we account for the election of . . . .? Well, I think that raises some specifics that need addressing; however, the Iowa Electronic Markets are very good a predicting who will (fact) as opposed to who should win (value judgment). Indeed, your author addresses issues lie groupthink, as well. Very good.

 
An academic heavyweight this year for me was Jared Diamond. His Guns, Germs, and Steel (a Pulitzer Prize-winner) and Collapse, published in the last year or so, were both intriguing. How the Europeans got the jump on the rest of the world, and even more so, how Eurasia has developed so much more than Australia, the Americas, and other parts of the world is examined and considered in a very through and convincing manner, considering everything from plagues to the geographic axis of the continents (the Americas and Africa on a more north-south axis, Eurasia on an east-west axis). In Collapse, Diamond looks at societies that failed (including the Mayans, where we've been now several times). It's a sobering consideration of what happens when societies fail to adopt. 

    Butterfly Economics: A New General Theory of Social and Economic Behavior by Paul Omerod. How the dismal science can learn to overcome the many paradoxes the classical accounts fail to satisfactorily explain. In sum, Omerod argues that economic behaviors show the same patters that we see in chaos theory, the seeming randomness of behavior coalescing in patterns that ants exhibit in their seeming randomness. Ants for Omerod, like Steven Johnson, provide an amazing guide to how individual decisions create a social world. 

    Animals in Translation, by Terry Grandlin. Social science? Well, sort of. Grandlin is an autistic woman with a Ph.D. in animal behavior, and she's a bit of a savant of animal behavior. This is an intriguing account of the animal world and how we and they interact in a social world. Quite fascinating. 

    The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt is a psychologist of the Margin Seligman sort (Learned Helplessness). He investigates modern findings from psychology (and not just the pathological sorts that were the focus of so much older work) and compares them to ancient wisdom. Guess what? The ancients (Buddhists, Stoics, etc.) fair pretty darn well when issues of what makes us happy and how to avoid suffering are investigated by contemporary psychologists. A thoughtful use of social science at its best. Recommended. 

        Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea could have gone under philosophy, and perhaps under science, but as it addresses the development of life and society though the building blocks of Darwin, which is based on population, we'll call it social science. Dennett is an engaging writer, whether or not you agree with him. He argues that Darwin (and his successors in evolutionary thought) explain it all. He's quite thorough. In depth, but it never drags, and it doesn't go anywhere an interested reader can't follow. 

    Last but not least, in more humanistic essay than social science, I must include James Hillman's Kinds of Power and The Soul's Code. Hillman trained with C.G. Jung, and he's developed his own brand of psychology (archetypal). Regardless of whether you buy his whole scheme, he is an absolutely engaging writer, speaking with familiarity and command over Greek and Renaissance culture, as well as the contemporary world, throwing out insights left and right as he goes. He never fails to engage and provoke thought. His Kinds of Power is a meditation on power in all sorts of situations and manifestations. In The Soul's Code, he argues for an acorn theory of development. I'm not sure that I buy it all, but I love the sale's pitch.
    
Fun Stuff
    A couple of fun things. Mind Performance Hacks: Tips and Tools for Overclocking Your Brain, by Ron Hale –Evans. Fun things to do the keep the machine working at peak potential. How about learning short hand or Morris code? Number short-cuts? You name it, he's got an angle. Fun. 

    Similarly, The Owners Manual for the Brain: Everyday Applications from Mind-Brain Research by Pierce Howard. More a compendium than a do-it-yourself manual like Mind Performance Hacks, it's still fun and interesting. 

    Finally, I'm not done with it, but try a Raymond Smullyan book, like The Riddle of Scheherazade and Other Amazing Riddles. Smullyan is a professor of math and logic, and a man with a sense of humor and a love of paradox. He's great when you're in the mood to tackle a word problem!

 
    Enough for now. Other reads have gone un-noted. Too little time and patience. And many books get started and set aside for one reason or another. Since I haven't quite finished it, next year you can look forward to a fascinating—both terrifying and hopeful—book on juvenile justice courtesy of A2, and some great recent additions from Christmas. In fact, I'm so excited about what's sitting in front of me that I think it best to now close the books on this year and begin working on next year's list!