Three Cheers for Big History, David Christian, and Bill Gates

Nerd fest. Love it.

The NYT published its education issue of the Magazine that included an article entitled “So Bill Gates Has This Idea for a History Class . . .” written by Andrew Ross Sorkin about Bill Gates and his promotion of “Big History”. The article details the Big History project that grew from the inquisitive mind of David Christian, an academic who started his teaching career as a Russian history specialist in Australia. Christian decided to widen the scope of history, and he developed a course that runs from the Big Bang to the present (and that even peers over the edge into the future). Bill Gates, like me, came across the Teaching Company course and really liked it. (Bill watched on his treadmill. I listened in my car.) Gates was taken with the concept and now actively promotes it. It’s heartening (in a small, silly sort of way) that the world’s richest nerd shares my enthusiasm. 

The article describes the genesis of the project, beginning with David Christian’s personal history, his initial course development, his “discovery” by the Teaching Company, and their release of the course in 2008. Gates (a fellow Teaching Company aficionado) not only became enthusiastic about the course, but he put his money where his mouth (and brain) is and began to promote it through his Foundation. Now the course is taught in more and more schools. 

Some of the article includes comments from those who carp about Gates and his involvement in education. Such comments are petty. He puts ideas to the test and backs up his enthusiasm with money, testing, and refinement. Business leaders who promote educational reform (even real change) aren’t going to lead us to the educational mountaintop, but they can help. Gates seems exemplary in this regard. At least he’s not out trying to buy elections for right-wing causes. Besides, he’s a rather likeable nerd, and he channels his nerdiness to good use. I’ll never share his income bracket, but I do share his enthusiasm for this and other topics. (He posts lists of books that he’s read that’s a treasure of serious, non-fiction reading.)

The other gripe in the article came from Stanford history professor Sam Wineburg, who complained that the course left out too much history (of the archives and texts variety) to focus on natural science. This misses the point of the course, which is—contrary to the organization of colleges and universities—truly multi-disciplinary. This should not be a turf war. We can view history through a telescope looking back into vast areas of time, space, or topic, or we can view it through a microscope, focusing on moment-to-moment events documented by texts in archives. Each has its place and irreplaceable value. No single perspective, large or small, distant or recent, can supplant all of the others. 

The best aspect of this article, however, is that it gives us pause to think about history and to asses its nature and value. What is history? History is the master discipline, the source of knowledge. Every thing has a history: the universe, you and me, civilizations, disciplines (math, science, literature, etc.). Every thing changes over time (although sometimes too slowly for us to appreciate). All knowledge is from the past. This idea isn’t my creation, but a gift that I received from John Lukacs. Lukacs calls on C.S. Lewis to help explicate the insight: 

The past in our minds is memory. Human beings cannot create, or even imagine, anything that is entirely new. (The Greek work for "truth, aletheia, also means "not forgetting")"There is not a vestige of real creativity de novo in us," C.S. Lewis once wrote. No one can even imagine an entirely new color; or an entirely new animal; or even a third sex. At best (or worst) one can imagine a new combination of already existing—that is, known to us—colors, or monsters, or sexes.

Lukacs, At the End of an Age, 52.

Lukacs goes on: 

In sum, the history of anything amounts to that thing 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. But history cannot tell us anything about the future with certainly. Intelligent research, together with a stab 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. 

Lukacs, At the End of an Age, 53-54

Strictly speaking, I would define history as the study of the recorded past (again following Lukacs). That has meant mostly documents, but it now includes a variety of other media as well. For more remote times, we get glimpses of life from the world of signs, symbols, and non-perishable tools. But in a larger sense, the “Big History” sense, we can understand history as the story of change. Thus, we move beyond (but do not discard) the story of politics, war, individuals (biography), social relations, or economics, among the more traditional subjects of history. We now encompass the natural world as well. The cutting edge of physics investigates the changing universe, while biology was revolutionized by its incorporation of history, which we label “evolution”. This appreciation of change is relatively new to the Western mind. It has a genesis going back to Heraclitus, but ideas about static Being and an unchanging God dominated for the greater part of Western history. With the likes of Hegel, Whitehead, and Eastern thinking (Daoist and Buddhist), we now enjoy a conceptual orientation that better appreciates the fundamental perspective of change and process. 

The other point to consider about the value of the Big History project comes from its value for bridging the two cultures. Since everything has a history, including every body of knowledge (as a field of study and in the “real world”), each subject can be taught through its history. I first received this idea from the late Neil Postman. (Sorry, I don’t have my library here to provide you the title in which he makes this point.) But as usual, John Lukacs has a pertinent quote, and from none other than the greatest American philosopher, 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 owe their being. Not taught thus, literature means grammar, art a catalog, history as list of dates, and natural science a sheet of formulas and weights and measures" 

At the End of an Age, 53, quoting James, Memories and Studies (1911), 312-313.

So I say “three cheers!” for Bill Gates, David Christian, and Big History.

Braley for Senate Endorsement . . . . And a Dream Speech

First, I'm voting for Bruce Braley for the Senate. Easy.

 I first came to know of Braley through the Iowa Association for Justice, and I received the impression of someone who was impressively knowledgeable and diligent. I was delighted when he chose to run for Congress, and he was the person I thought of when Senator Harkin announced his retirement. He’s hard working, bright, and has the right instincts on the issues. 

Of his opponent, I think little useful can be said. She gained notoriety sufficient to win the primary by riding a motorcycle, shooting a gun, and castrating pigs. Otherwise, she seems to follow the Tea Party line, which is long on complaint and short on ideas. Repeal Obamacare, guns for all, tax cuts: line up the usual suspects. I do, however, want to make one thing clear. The fact that she’s from Red Oak does not prejudice me against her. I have some great friends from Red Oak. And after all, it’s not as if she’s from Clarinda. 

I’ve read the “issues” sections of each candidate’s website and find the usual nostrums and platitudes. I prefer Braley’s, but it’s like choosing one’s favorite pabulum when what you really want is steak. I’ve followed politics since the second grade (when I “endorsed” Richard Nixon for president over JFK). I’ve watched The West Wing reruns, I’ve practiced law, and I’ve read Max Weber and Reinhold Niebuhr. I understand that in politics one has to make choices and compromises that you’d rather not have to make. Reality—other powers—impose hard choices on us. Good politics mixes realism with idealism. Good politicians must know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. When I looked at Braley’s website, I didn’t see anything about reasonable limits on guns, global climate change, foreign policy realism, or political corruption (although his emails about Citizens United to do show concern about this later topic). I knew that I shouldn't expect to see such things.

But setting aside the concerns of reality for a moment, here’s a speech that I dream that Bruce Braley—or any candidate—might give. A speech that takes the gloves off and addresses what ought to be our most pressing concerns:

The Dream Speech

Imagine Bruce Braley, in the midst of his campaign, chooses to give a speech to a large audience, a full bank of microphones as a shield before him, TV lights illuminating him, and a large, live audience eager to hear him speak. The audience is mixed; Iowans from all walks of life. What they have in common is a belief that the choice of a U.S. Senator is a crucial choice, and they want to hear what he has to say. The campaign is in full swing, and sound bites of stump speeches have littered the airwaves, along with the canned commercials showing each candidate with family and farm fences in the background. And the next minute we see advertisements that show how vile and alien are the beliefs of the opponent. The ads exhibit the usual mind-numbing drivel that consultants tell campaigns they must peddle in mass quantities to trigger the appropriate Pavlovian reactions among the docile voting public. 

This audience on this occasions expects a typical stump speech, but they secretly hope for something more. It’s a major event. Maybe today will be different. Braley steps to the microphone. He speaks: 

Fellow Iowans, 

Thank you for sharing this time with me. I've been campaigning for this U.S. Senate seat since Senator Tom Harkin announced that he would not run for re-election. During this time and in my time as a Congressman, I've staked out positions on all sorts of issues. I've voted for and against all kinds of legislation. I've made statements and issued position papers, written letters to constituents, and answered questions on about every conceivable issue a member of Congress can expect to receive—and some you'd never think that we'd get.

If you voters have paid any attention to this race, you have some sense of what I'm about. You know that I'm a Democrat. That means that I believe that government can be an effective tool to improve our lives. Government programs can be—but aren't always—effective in improving our lives. Being a Democrat means that we believe that we all should benefit from government and that we all should contribute to a degree that is as fair as we can hope it to be in this imperfect world. Being a Democrat means that government should act pragmatically, creating a government that's sometimes smaller and sometimes bigger. We reject the blanket proposition that smaller government is always better government and that less taxes are always better for everyone. Our gauge isn’t the size of government. We judge government by its effectiveness in delivering the services that benefit our citizens and that work to keep us safe. We Democrats are guided by a sense of fairness and the public good. Debates about where to draw the lines of government began with the Founding of the Republic and will continue. The devil is in the details.

But today I want to address the larger picture, beyond the usual laundry list of how particular programs that I support will benefit children, or teachers or veterans, or the elderly, or women, or farmers, or a seemingly endless list of other groups to which most of you probably belong. Today, I want to address those issues that go beyond our common, more limited characterizations of our concerns and ourselves. I want to talk about those issues that should concern us all. The wider focus gets shunted aside in our incessant marketing of positions to groups defined by how government affects their bottom line. But because you care about whom you will support for the U.S. Senate will make a difference for our future, I want to address some of the fundamentals that we usually try to hide from. Let me therefore share these ideas with you:

Buying and Selling Influence. Our political system is badly corrupted. The corrupting agent is money, lots and lots of money. Our current political system has legalized bribery. Anyone running for office today at the federal level most worship at the feet of the big campaign contributors. I appreciate the $5, the $25 or $100 that you send, but's its small change for what it costs to run a campaign today. The real money comes from interest groups, shady super-pacs, and extremely wealthy individuals. The bigger the contribution, the more the moneyed interests will influence legislation. This isn't an insider's secret knowledge, it's human nature, it's Econ 101. He that pays the piper calls the tune. You students of history recognize that this problem isn't new, but it's gotten worse. It's out of control. We have to do something about it because Big Money is warping the outcome of our political process.

To take concrete steps to counter this pernicious infection, I'm endorsing the programs of two groups aimed at restoring our political process to end the most egregious effects of Big Money in politics. I am endorsing the programs of Root Strikers and Represent Us. I pledge to change our system of political financing so that the corruption of Big Money will no longer call the tune and fundamentally distort the democratic process.

The Senate Filibuster. Another alarming warp in our political institutions involves the U.S. Senate, the body to which I seek election. Minority rule now controls that chamber. I’m speaking about the filibuster. For those you my age or older, you probably first learned about the filibuster by reading about it in the daily paper or in history class, about how Senators from the Old South used it as a weapon to fight civil rights legislation. Those tactics failed and the American Dream moved forward despite that its use. But in the last twenty years or more, and especially during the term of President Obama, the filibuster has changed from a rarely used device to stall legislation into a common tool to impose minority rule on the Senate and the nation. It requires the Senate to pass legislation or confirm judges by a super-majority. To block Senate action requires only 41 members oppose a vote—just a vote! This isn't about debate. It's about obstruction of the will of the majority. The issue of the filibuster goes far beyond free debate and Senate tradition. It creates a regime of minority rule. I support and relish free and vigorous debate in the Senate, but I don't believe that a minority—even if I'm a member of that minority—should hold the power to veto the will of the majority and counter the intention of the Constitution. I will strive to end this practice.

Guns. Let's be honest: when it came to the Second Amendment to the Constitution that includes the provision about the "right to bear arms", the Founders blew it. I’m not sure what they intended. Scholars aren't sure. Those who claim certainty have the least basis for their beliefs. We would be better off throwing it out and starting over, drafting something new that we can understand and that addresses the realities of the 21st century.

Does this mean banning all guns? Don't be ridiculous. Limiting all gun ownership and possession is neither proper nor practical. However, we do need to make sure that we create reasonable restrictions on weapons that serve the needs of the community for safe schools, homes, and workplaces. We have to make sure that gun ownership and possession balances responsibilities with rights. We must stop sanctifying guns and recognize them as having legitimate uses, such as for hunting, sports, and law enforcement and having criminal uses. Whether we’re talking about handguns, semi-automatic assault rifles, mortars, grenades, or weapons of mass destruction, we have to take reasonable, practical steps to regulate weapons to protect ourselves. We need to stop worshiping guns and treat them as the weapons that they are and the useful tools that they can be. We should no longer worship the Moloch created and promoted by the NRA. Our idolatry requires us to sacrifice too many children, teachers, colleagues, friends, and family. We must act sensibly now.

Climate Change. Not so long ago, I thought that global climate changed caused by our current energy system would be the most significant issue we would leave to our children. I was wrong. The problem isn’t waiting for the future. Try as we have to ignore or dismiss the threat, it won’t go away. We cannot act as if it’s a child’s nighttime monster that will retreat if only we hide under the covers. This monster that we—the modern industrial world—has created, like Frankenstein's monster, must now be brought to heel by us, its creators, before it wrecks too much havoc on this earth we inhabit. We cannot easily change the economic and energy systems that have made us the most privileged and prosperous human generation to have ever inhabited this earth. But we cannot continue to foist the dregs of our economic miracle onto the future that our children and grandchildren will inherit. In fact, the future has arrived, and we must reduce the amount of carbon and other greenhouse gasses that we are dumping into the atmosphere. This is a scientific, engineering, economic, and—most of all—political problem that we must address before it's too late. We must adopt a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade regime (or combination of the two). We must develop conservation measures and alternative energy sources. We have to do these things before we are compelled to spend vast sums on projects that will prove difficult and perhaps unsuccessful. This goal transcends the particular interests of farmers, drivers, oil and power companies, and ordinary citizens. We must develop an effective response before the problem rends our social fabric. Change will hurt some more than others and so we must seek to spread the burdens equitably and to promote new opportunities for those subject to change.

In sum, we either cure ourselves now with some hard choices or suffer the remedies that Mother Nature will impose upon us in her fury at our desecration of her gift to us. 

We must stop fighting foolish wars. In my lifetime, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all taken away from America more than we could have ever gained. In the way of young lives, lost limbs, shattered minds, and billions of dollars that could have been spent more wisely, we as a nation have paid a heavy toll. We have the most powerful, most awesome, and most well-armed, trained, and disciplined armed forces in world history. But our leaders’ failures of wisdom in choosing when to deploy those armed forces in the national interest of the United States have harmed our nation. We must understand the limits of military power even as we have cultivated this most mighty military. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have offered these lessons, but we haven't been smart students. The cost of our pride and foolishness will only increase. We must actively resist the lure of the Situation Room where the adrenaline rush of life and death decisions, enhanced by the reach and potency of technology, creates a temptation for any president to deploy force when so much power lies in his or her hands. We need to think strategically and realistically about how can protect our national interests, with the use of force as only a last, most carefully weighed, option. We must be wary of delegating to a president from any party the authority to wage war without the approval of Congress and the approval of a fully and truthfully informed American public.

In conjunction with limiting the war-making power and predilection of our government, we must also curtail the mentality that justifies infringing upon and degrading our civil liberties. Make no mistake here: belief in a strong, effective government does not entail the endorsement of an omniscient government that spies without constraint on its citizens and subverts due process of law. These problems arise from the militarization of our government in the face of fear of foreign enemies, both nations and trans-national terrorists. We have to act decisively in a changing environment, but we have to recognize that crossing some lines take us down a path that we should never want to travel.

I will stop here. This is not a list of all of the pressing issues that we face, issues about jobs, sustainable economic growth, the size and role of government, public finance, and issues of legal rights. Nor have I addressed the growing economic inequality that divides our nation and that fundamentally distorts the social and economic mix that marked the height of our national success in the post-World War II era. But you’ve been a patient audience, and I will not tax your patience more fully. We cannot—and should not attempt—to create a Perfect Union. We can only strive to create a More Perfect Union. Our task is never complete. Human fallibility, our limited understanding of ourselves and the world around us, and the distorted lens of self-knowledge that we all have, make perfection impossible. But we must act. Political decisions are about choosing our future. It's messy and irrational; often comic, sometimes tragic, but it molds our future as a nation, as a community, as a planet. We can choose to strive to think and act rationally with a sense of love for this precious fleeting life that we are given, or we can descend back into the myriad hells of war, pestilence, and famine that have marked most of human history. I offer these proposals to you as my ideas for a better future for all of us.

Postscript: I read a couple of brief press accounts of the race. What a bunch of garbage. Wake up, Iowans! 

Words of Wisdom: A Review of A Gradual Awakening by Stephen Levine

Every once in a while you come across a book that strikes you as a fount of real wisdom. This is such a book

Stephen Levine writes about mindfulness meditation and the practical application of Buddhism in a more inviting and compelling manner than perhaps any other book that I've encountered. Levine bases his practice in the Theravada tradition, but he draws in other sources as well. But it's not his sources that make this book extraordinary, it's his wisdom. As I read these pages, I feel that I'm soaking up the words of a genuine sage. And this perception of his wisdom comes from the fact that his personality never gets in the way of his message, which, I suspect, is perhaps as good a measure of true sage as I can think of.

This isn't the first time that I've read this book. I read it many years ago. But good fortune allowed me to find a copy on the shelves of Prairie Lights this summer, although it's been out since 1979. (My original copy is stashed in a box somewhere in our storage locker.) It was like finding an old friend to sit down and read it again. Indeed, after my meditation retreat, I have an even better appreciation of its gentle wisdom.

I won't go on. I feel inadequate to the task. But if you want a book of genuine wisdom and insight, then I highly recommend this book.

Islam & the West: A Review of The West & the Rest: Globalization & Terrorist Threat by Roger Scruton

I admit that I’d been reluctant to read this book because it was published in 2002, and I feared that it might be another ill-considered rush to publication in the wake to 9/11. (It turns out that my concerns about Scruton’s credentials were based on the erroneous assumption that he was new to the field. In fact, Scruton published a book about Lebanon in 1987.) Besides, Scruton is a high-end philosopher and a conservative. Some so-called conservatives have a propensity to rant. However, as I noted in arecent post, I’d read an essay by Scruton that I found persuasive, so I decided to give this book a try, and I’m glad that I did—despite the false advertising. 

False advertising? Well, the title—the most important advertising a book ever receives—misleads. Despite an opening discussion of Samuel Huntington’s “the clash of civilizations” hypothesis, Scruton only focuses on two civilizations: “the West” (with its Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Greco-Roman genealogy) and Islamic civilization. Scruton doesn’t address China, Japan, India, or Russia (with its roots in Orthodox Christianity and Marxism). Neither does Scruton spend much time addressing terrorism as such, its sociology and ideology. Others have explored the roots of terrorists, such as Scott Atran, for only one example. Finally, Scruton doesn’t spend much time on globalization as an economic reality. So what does Scruton write about that makes this book worthwhile? He writes about the characteristics of Islam society and political thinking contrasted with that of Western institutions, and he does so well and thoroughly. 

In his preface, Scruton notes a contrast that will remain a recurring theme throughout the book, that between the contemporary West and Islam: 

Islamic civilization involves a common religious belief, based on a sacred text whose law may be misapplied but never altered. It defines itself in terms not of freedom but of submission. Islam, salm, and salaam—“submission,” “peace,” and “safety”— all derive from the verb salima, whose primary meaning is “to be secure,” “unharmed,” or “blameless,” but which has a derived form meaning “to surrender.” The muslim is the one who has surrendered, submitted, and so obtained security. In that complex etymological knot is tied a vision of society and its rewards far different from anything that has prevailed in modern Europe and America. 

Western civilization also grew from a common religious belief and a sacred text, and, like Islam, originated in a religious movement among Semitic people— albeit people living under an imperial yoke, for whom submission was already a day-to-day reality. Western civilization has left behind its religious belief and its sacred text, to place its trust not in religious certainties but in open discussion, trial and error, and the ubiquitousness of doubt.

Scruton, Roger (2014-05-13). The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Kindle Edition.

It is the uniqueness of modern Western institutions and beliefs that set off the West against the traditions of Islam. Even when Christianity was the dominant cultural fact in the West (such as in the High Middle Ages), the theory of the Two Swords—of both ecclesiastical and secular rulers exercising authority—differs from the ongoing practice in the lands of Islam. Scruton details how Roman law and even Greek drama differentiate the sacred and secular realms. Over the course of Western history, ideas of contract and eventually social contracts—governance based on the consent of the governed—began to take root. Scruton goes on to consider the proposition that “we” (as in “We the People”) is a basis of Western polities. Based on his analysis, the nation-state becomes a crucial instrument in fostering and maintaining a sense of community that allows the existence of a self-governing polity. After the Thirty Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), Europe effectively established the nation-state as legal and international reality and put most (but by no means all) of its religious strife about control of the public realm behind it. (The French Revolution and “The Troubles” of Northern Ireland among the significant exceptions.) Also, the nation-state, through the vehicle of nationalism, came to supplement—if not supplant—the idea of God, which following the Enlightenment became more of a matter of the head than of the heart. Scruton summarizes his argument: 

The point that I wish to emphasize is that the emergence of the modern Western state, in which jurisdiction is defined over territory, supported by secular conceptions of legitimacy , and associated with the rights and duties of citizenship, has also coincided with the emergence of a special kind of pre-political loyalty, which is that of the nation, conceived as a community of neighbors sharing language, customs, territory, and a common interest in defense.

Scruton, Roger (2014-05-13). The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat (pp. 46-47). Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Kindle Edition.

From this history, (much of) the West developed ideas of citizenship, that, especially in the U.S., were crucial for incorporating immigrants from far-flung lands. Scruton argues that this attitude contrasts with the traditional ties still dominant in Islamic countries: 

A modern democracy is perforce a society of strangers. And the successful democracy is the one where strangers are expressly included in the web of obligation. Citizenship involves the disposition to recognize and act upon obligations to those whom we do not know. The comparative absence of this disposition from the Islamic countries in the Middle East has had catastrophic consequences, as attitudes shaped by religion and family ties try to adapt themselves to a world made by strangers. The clatter of industrial progress, the remorseless technological change, the constant uprooting, pillaging, and tearing down , the tireless glare of the media, the irresistible invasions by the state and its agents— all this amplifies the desire to seek refuge in family, tribe, or religion, and to divide the world into friends and foes.

Scruton, Roger (2014-05-13). The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat (p. 53). Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Kindle Edition.

After this point in the book, Scruton wanders off into criticisms of multiculturalism and feminism, which, while not without merit, tend to go carry on about excesses instead of considering common practices and beliefs. However, Scruton is right about the values that give us the political and legal system that we have is worth defending. The Western ideas about the public realm do contrast markedly from the totalizing demands of Islam and these differences do create problems that we in the West have a hard time understanding. The nation-state in the Middle East, Iraq, for instance, just doesn’t seem to work. Some do, such as Turkey and Egypt, but not without some significant conflicts between the secular authorities and Islamic fundamentalists. 

Scruton digs more deeply into the contrast between Islamic law and the secular law of the West to show the different beliefs and assumptions of the two systems. This history and appreciation of the two contrasting legal and cultural systems gives the reader a much greater appreciation of the source of differences between our views of the world. Finally, Scruton has a chapter on globalization, but it’s mainly about the encroachment of a Western-dominated world into Islamic lands. For instance, Scruton, who has published extensively about aesthetics, writes about the destruction of traditional Islamic architecture in the name of modernizing cities. 

Scruton closes with this remark, which reveals a measured and thoughtful response to our predicaments: 

When people enjoy the benefits of citizenship they treat the world in an open and enterprising way; they become careless of the sacrifices on which sovereignty depends, and oblivious of the corrosive force of human contact. And this state of mind, which seems like good-natured toleration in the one who has succumbed to it, may be seen from outside as intolerable hubris, calling down judgment from the gods.

 Nevertheless, we are rational creatures, and nothing prevents us from thinking through alternatives to the habits that have placed us in so much danger. Unless we are prepared to do so, the idea of a “war against terrorism” makes little sense. Terrorism is not, after all, an enemy, but a method used by the enemy. The enemy is of two kinds: the tyrant dictator, and the religious fanatic whom the tyrant protects. To act against the first is feasible, if we are prepared to play by the tyrant’s rules. But to act against the second requires a credible alternative to the absolutes with which he conjures. It requires us not merely to believe in something, but to study how to put our beliefs into practice.

Scruton, Roger (2014-05-13). The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat (p. 161). Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Kindle Edition.

Therefore, if you’re interested in the particulars of regimes in the Middle East or the particulars of where terrorists come from, you should look elsewhere. But if you want an appreciation and understanding of fundamental differences about how the West and Islam view and work in the world, this is a well-considered effort to consider those issues.