From Free Life, Issue 26, December 1996
ISSN: 0260 5112

Political Issues in America Today is a new edition of a widely used textbook aimed at undergraduates and sixth formers. As such one should expect information together with the competing arguments about the contemporary issues of debate to enable the student to understand the different sides and make up his own mind. One should assume that the different positions of Republicans and Democrats would be presented. One could even hope that there was some recognition that there were more than two side to an issue. However what one gets in this textbook, as is so many others, is only one side of the debate, misnamed in the US as the "liberal" position. Should academics be surprised that they are treated with less and less intellectual deference by the population, when they fail to live up to the minimal academic standards? Even in a non-textbook which champions a particular position, one expects attention to the other side, if only to demonstrate why it is rejected. In this textbook, the editors and authors feel no need to provide a balance of argument, or to footnote sources that might take a different view. To make my position clear, I am not advocating that the book should only present Republican views , and certainly not that it should it only present my views, (which on many issues is certainly not that of the Republicans). It is that British students seeking to understand the politics of the USA deserve the basic respect to be given opposing arguments. The failure to do so is a betrayal of intellectual trust.

The bias begins with the introductory chapter by the editors, a disguised attack on the Republican Congress, and a call for "a sceptical resistance to wholesale palliatives", (p.1) by which they mean any attempt to change the liberal Democrat domination of Washington. The Republican platform , the Contract with America, is described as "vaguely worded", (p.3) and yet it is probably the most detailed document ever presented in a US election, and more precise than British manifestos. One doubts that the editors have read it in its full version. Following the spin from a Clinton speech, the "violent" rhetoric of the right is connected to the Oklahoma bombing (p.4) although no mention is made of the Waco massacres by government agents. They oppose the idea that the Republicans have some sort of mandate (and I too am sceptical of mandates), and yet such scepticism is not expressed about Mr Clinton's claim of a mandate. Democrats can have mandates, but not Republicans. Nowhere is the full programme of the Contract explained to the reader, to enable him to make his own judgement as to its reasonableness or otherwise.

The choice of topics covered is, of course, another source of bias. The "women's issues" discussed are those of the liberal women's organisations. The National Organisation of Women is described as "the mainstream organisation representing women's issues" (p.15) and yet conservative groups such as Concerned Women for America or Phyliss Schlafly's Eagle Forum have more members and are just as active, but are not viewed as "mainstream". NOW is presented as existing to promote more women to elective office, and yet it endorses liberal men against conservative women. Here as elsewhere there are references to "far-right", "extreme" and "ultra-conservative" Republicans, but apparently there are no "far-left", "extreme" or "ultra-liberal" Democrats. Gillian Peele fears that the Republican resurgence will make it more difficult "to promote the political agenda demanded by women " (p.20) (by which of course she means women like herself).

The issue of the environment is presented as the classic fight between laws and regulations protecting the environment versus greedy profit grabbing business. Yet Frederic Waldstein gives a example of a law about above ground storage tanks which actually increased the dangers, but failed to mention the free market critique that this is common with most environmental regulations. There is no discussion of free market environmentalism, which identifies how the free market and private property is the most effective means of protecting the environment. Due tribute is given to the founder of the modern environmental movement Rachel Carson, and none to how her "research" on cancer was totally discredited in The Apocalyptics (1984) by the libertarian author Edith Efron. No attempt is made to explain why conservatives opposed the Rio summit on the environment, which tried to impose international regulations. There is at least a reference to the growing literature on the use of common law, but the footnote is to a critic. The author expresses concern that the environment will lose out to "economic interests committed to capitalistic free market ideology" (38) and is incapable of conceiving that someone might believe in capitalism as an ideal ,regardless of economic interests. and an ideal that would promote the environment

The chapter on the Clinton health care plan by Calum Paton is about how it was not socialistic enough and should have followed the Canadian or British systems. He presumes that ClintonCare was destroyed by vested interests, and could not conceive that some people might think that it was wrong. A highly regulated national health system is conceived as most desirable as it would maximise effectiveness and efficiency! He is dismissive of free market theories, while giving no references that students could follow up. He never mentions the arguments that helped to defeat Clintoncare; the opponents are simply "hard conservatives" who defend the already privileged (p.49). A National health regulated system would have reflected "a more enlightened and radical diagnosis of society's problems." (p.61).

The discussion of the deficit is much more balanced, with arguments from three different schools, although Steven Koven ignores the Republican plan, and discusses only Messrs Clinton and Perot. No mention is made that the Clinton budget included the largest tax increase ever, his expenditure "cuts" were mostly postponed into the future, and that the deficit would rebound in the long term under the plan. The author attributes recent good economic growth to Mr Clinton when many economists such as Robert Samuelson argue that it is a tribute to the dynamic nature of the US economy.

"Reinventing Government" is Mr Clinton's attempt to tap public dissatisfaction with inefficient government by reforming it rather that reducing it. Clarence Stone and Timothy Rose note that "public agencies have a demonstrated capacity to absorb more money and add more staff without expanding or improving services". (p.115) However they share the Clinton position that government can be made more effective. They note the existence of the view of "the Government as market" with a single reference to Chubb and Moe's advocacy of education vouchers, and dismiss it as expressing no concern for the common good (as if expressing it is more valuable that achieving it?) and ignoring group affiliation and social identity. The error here is to ignore civil society, voluntary groups such as churches and sports clubs outside the state as the primary source of group identity. They confuse community with politics. They are particularly hostile to attempts to privatise police activities.

The chapter on federalism assumes: that the Great Society of President Johnson that created the federal welfare system provided considerable benefits with no reference to costs; that Reaganomics failed; and that a recession requires government intervention, without considering that it might be the cause. David Walker describes attempts to get people off welfare as "intrusive", and fails to explain that the Republican approach is to favour a return to "dual federalism", when the federal government has only those specific powers explicitly granted to it in the Constitution.

For Wayne McIntosh the biggest problem facing the courts is the overload of cases, and the solution is to increase the number of judges, rather than consider that the cause could be the decisions of the judges themselves which encourages greater litigation. He does however note that the biggest increase in caseload is in drugs cases and implies that drug legalisation or at least a non-applied policy would be desirable. He approves of the Clinton judicial appointments because they include more minorities than under Mr Reagan with no reference to whether the quality of judges is not a more appropriate standard. He believes that a conservative activist court requires a moderating influence, but does not suggest that a liberal activist court does as well. He does allude to the growing abuse of power by judges. (p.159) In Censes City a judge has ordered a tax increase to pay for his court mandated system of schools, thus combining judicial, executive and legislative powers. Whatever happened to checks and balances?

Chris Bailey expresses concern about the growing cynicism about Congress, and its incapacity to find solutions to problems. Now where could they have got that idea? He complains that it is difficult to get Congress to act in a unified way, but ignores how the Contract with America was a perfect example of the responsible party government that he and other political scientists favour; only they thought it would be a liberal agenda so the Contract as a contract (as distinct from its content) receives no praise. He concludes by expressing frustration that no attempt has been made to show that "Congress can tackle problems facing Americans" (p.185), reflecting his activist view of the role of government. It is of course nonsense as every Congress passes masses of legislation precisely to convince Americans that it can solve their problems, but the American people are not buying it.

Mr Reagan is portrayed by Philip Davies as a failure, and described as "the least intellectually gifted of the post war presidents" (p.194), and yet he was probably more successful in achieving his goals than any post war president. The 1988 victory for Mr Bush is attributed to the "most negative presidential campaign of modern times " (p.198) . This is an allusion to Willie Horton, a convicted murderer out on weekend parole who committed another murder. Mr Dukakis supported the policy. It was a genuine example of a clear difference of policy and attitude towards crime. It is similar to the myth of the left in this country, that they only lost the 1983 election because of the Falklands War, when the evidence suggests that the War was a marginal factor in the result.

The final section is on foreign policy. While libertarians are right to be critical of US interventions, these chapters present US influence as negative only when it fails to promote "liberal" goals. Latin America is portrayed as a victim of privatisation, which is defined very loosely as "not only the selling of government owned enterprises, but the reduction of the regulatory and social service roles of the state" . (p.209) The only argument for privatisation, free trade, and welfare state reforms is free market ideology, while the more detailed case against is presented in each area. Jack Spence discusses the low economic growth of the 1990s and yet makes no comparison with the 1980s , or those with widely different rates, eg Chile has a relatively high 2.7%. The free market model is presented as excluding labour; and the drugs trade is described as a result of the market. Does he not know that drugs are illegal in the US? He complains that neo-liberalism is now dominant (if only it was!) and is reversing state-centred policies but never explains why there is this trend, except to attribute it to US interests. The idea that Latin America has learnt from its experience of statist policies is not considered. He complains that in Mexico in the past, the free market only benefited the rich, and yet when did Mexico have a genuine free market?

In the area of post-Cold War policy, the US is faced with three major options: neo-isolationism, global democracy or neo-realism. These options are not mentioned. In the Cold War, the communist menace existed only "allegedly" . International instability is attributed to "international deregulation" . Mr Clinton's economic failures are attributed to the complexity of the problems and opposition is attributed to "partisan political gains as their principal motivation rather than high national purpose". (p.248). Mr Clinton is accused of increasing defence spending when he has cut it. Support for anti-ballistic missile defences (known as Star Wars) against rogue or planned nuclear attacks is attributed to missile envy. No attempt is made to present the various policy options facing the US with their advantages and disadvantages.

The USA is one of the freest and most successful nations in the world for all its considerable faults. Interventionists cannot bear the idea of a free and largely capitalist society and so they portray it as controlled by free market ideologues who fail to see the advantage of a European style system: a system which fails to create jobs, growth, prosperity or freedom. It is the role of a textbook to present the students with a balanced introduction to the issues. This book so lamentably fails in that task. Perhaps its agenda was another one?

Nigel Ashford