Rating: 
Summary: New Deal Chic
Review: "Made in Texas" seeks to explain George W Bush by describing the social, economic and cultural milieu of the region in Texas where the president grew up. It's an unorthodox approach since many people assume - especially the president's critics - that Bush's Texas roots are a put-on. It's well-known, for example, that his father, George H.W. Bush, had a flexible idea of where he called home; the Bush family is from New England stock; and even the president himself was born in Connecticut. But to Lind, George W Bush is very much a son of Texas and it is this premise that "Made in Texas" works from.The book starts off well. Lind is at home describing Texas and its history. (It's possible, however, that I only found this part of the book the most interesting because I know the least about it.) He argues that Texas has two political camps: a modernizing side typified by men like LBJ, Sam Rayburn, and Ross Perot and a conservative side typified by men like Pappy "Pass the Biscuits" O'Daniel, Coke Stevenson, and George W Bush. The modernizers have their roots in the American Midwest and in the Scandinavian and German ethnicity of some Texans. The conservatives' roots are in the Deep South and the Scots-Irish ethnicity of many Texans' descendents. Lind says that until FDR and the New Deal, the conservative side dominated Texas politics. Only with the large government spending projects of the 30s was their stranglehold on Texas loosened. Since the 1970s, however, the Texas conservatives have been winning back the ground they lost during the previous four decades. Many people think of LBJ as a southerner, but Lind argues that Bush is far more representative of the southern roots of Texas than LBJ was. Up to this point, I found the book interesting. While Lind generalizes a good deal about Texas and ethnicity, generalizations - if accurate - are useful and indeed necessary to understanding any culture and society. But when Lind turns to other subjects, his book begins to disintegrate. He obviously has little knowledge of economics - there are so many elementary mistakes in the book that it would take an entire review just to point them all out. At one point Lind even suggests higher wages *cause* higher productivity. He also writes "One need not be a Jeffersonian agrarian to recognize that the big city and middle-class society are usually incompatible." In this light, he advocates big government projects - similar in spirit to the work projects of the New Deal --to seed the South and Midwest regions and attract people back from the coastal cities to the interior. This is pure silliness - a complicated and wrong-headed approach to a large but fairly straightforward problem (growing income disparities between groups of Americans because of fewer good job opportunities for blue-collar workers). First, large cities are not incompatible with a large and secure middle class. One could argue the exact opposite in fact. Second, Lind wrongly identifies globalization as the cause of the problem when most economists agree that it is but a small part of the problem. Third, he fails to think through the economic implications of his grand policy proposal and instead spends most of his time dealing with environmental objections to it. After dealing with economics, Lind turns to religion. Where he was simply wrong in his economic prescriptions, he is positively hostile in describing the religious impulses of a good portion of his fellow Americans. George Bush's thoughts on religion are dealt with in a perfunctory and risible way. Lind plainly thinks that if you take your religion seriously, you are a bit nuts. He drags up every already well-covered anecdote to show that your average religious southerner is about as civilized as a Neanderthal. (As hostile as Lind is to the religious Christians, it should be mentioned that he is nearly off the charts in his attitudes towards Jews. Given Lind's fascination with ethnicity and social determination, one could probably make a good go as to why this is so by using Lind's own methods.) Michael Lind is in many ways a fascinating writer. I consider his book "Vietnam" one of the finest and most unusual interpretations of that war I've ever read. Lind tries to avoid the standard answers to the standard questions we often hear in U.S. political discourse. He also manages the rare trick of being a powerfully direct writer who is still able to make a sophisticated argument. But he overreaches his talents here and this book is clearly an emotional one rather than a well-thought out argument.
Rating: 
Summary: True to His Roots
Review: A very reassuring book, this. But the relief took a while to sink in. Michael Lind meticulously traces George W. Bush's world view to his Texas upbringing and disappointing experiences outside the Lone Star State. And, Voilá, we find a president entirely, and predictably, consistent with his roots.
Now, if Texan ways grate with your sense of what America the Liberal is all about, this book may upset you more than reassure. But to the extent you see Texas as an example of what all America should become, you'll be encouraged.
Regardless, the insularity of our southern border state and its sense of great superiority toward its southern neighbor does seem to be reflected in Bush's sense of how the world ought to be.
As a book of anthropology, sociology, and politics, this is a most insightful book. It provides the most coherent explanation of where Bush is coming from, and where he's taking America. He may not succeed, but at least we know he has a goal. And that's reassuring. Scarily reassuring.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts
Review: Clearly, this book has a message that many people would rather not hear. But Michael Lind insists on revealing the slime hidden beneath the rock. It is not always a pretty picture. However, this is still a fascinating exploration of the peculiarities of Southern politics. Also an important one, because the phenomenon has now been nationalized thanks to corrupt campaign financing and the quirks of the electoral college, which denied the White House to the candidate who won the popular vote in 2000. Anyone who is interested in how and why the United States is overextending and bankrupting itself to the brink of national suicide will find many answers in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Great ... but ...
Review: I have had the good fortune to attend Michael Lind's class at Harvard Law School, and I have to say that I agree with most of what he says (as usual). His analysis of Texas and its influence on George W. Bush, while quite stereotypical, strikes a chord. Lind's on to something. The focus on resource exploitation rather than resource development is an all too familiar characteristic of the Bush administration. Similarly, Lind's analysis of Bush's wholesale adoption of the Likud party's war-hawk political agenda rather than the Labour party's more reasonable agenda is right on target. No other factor has contributed more to the violence in the Mideast that Bush's Protestant fundamentalist/Jewish zionist coalition (the only true "coalition of the willing"). Ariel Sharon is little better than Saddam Hussein, and Israel's build-up of the sixth largest nuclear weapon stockpile in the world continues to destabilize that region. Right after we get Bush out of office, Ariel Sharon should be next. Having said that, I think Lind's analysis is a bit incomplete. While Lind castigates the conservative Southern Republicans for their views on abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic research (all admittedly out of step with the majority of Americans), he never addresses the fact that the majority of Americans' views on these issues are equally out of step with most of the rest of the world (like Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Mid-East). So in one sense, Lind is right to argue that the Bush administration should not be able to hijack the rest of the country's social values, but then, Lind (intentionally or unintentionally) skirts the corollary to that argument -- the United States should not be able to hijack the rest of the world's social values through World Summits, UN resolutions, and mass media blitzs. Lind's proposal to transplant people to the Midwest is also poorly thought out (though absolutely necessary given the high housing prices and terrorist threats the United States faces today). While Lind is quite right about the Midwest not being a source of major racial tensions like the South and coastal regions, he also fails to consider that few minorities moved to the Midwest before or after the New Deal. After WWII, most of the minority movement was to the coastal cities. So the fact that there weren't many race riots in the Midwest in the past is no guaranty that Lind's proposal to move people to the Midwest won't generate race riots and other acts of violence now. If Lind were to couple his Midwest transplant project with his more creative ideas on affirmative action (changing the criteria from race to economic class), then his theory might be more credible. Those are my main criticisms. I think larger taxes on gasoline (with subsidies to low-income families) would provide better incentives to American companies to come up with fuel-efficient cars and heating systems and get the United States off its dependence on Mideast oil. I also think that the United States should impose wage tariffs on goods made in countries like China and Mexico that dump cheap goods on the American market (the tariff should equal the difference between what it would cost to make the goods in the U.S. and what it would cost to make the goods in China or Mexico). But now I'm starting to write my own book, so I'll stop. Overall, Lind has done a good job yet again!
Rating:
Summary: Great ... but ...
Review: I have had the good fortune to attend Michael Lind's class at Harvard Law School, and I have to say that I agree with most of what he says (as usual). His analysis of Texas and its influence on George W. Bush, while quite stereotypical, strikes a chord. Lind's on to something. The focus on resource exploitation rather than resource development is an all too familiar characteristic of the Bush administration. Similarly, Lind's analysis of Bush's wholesale adoption of the Likud party's war-hawk political agenda rather than the Labour party's more reasonable agenda is right on target. No other factor has contributed more to the violence in the Mideast that Bush's Protestant fundamentalist/Jewish zionist coalition (the only true "coalition of the willing"). Ariel Sharon is little better than Saddam Hussein, and Israel's build-up of the sixth largest nuclear weapon stockpile in the world continues to destabilize that region. Right after we get Bush out of office, Ariel Sharon should be next. Having said that, I think Lind's analysis is a bit incomplete. While Lind castigates the conservative Southern Republicans for their views on abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic research (all admittedly out of step with the majority of Americans), he never addresses the fact that the majority of Americans' views on these issues are equally out of step with most of the rest of the world (like Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Mid-East). So in one sense, Lind is right to argue that the Bush administration should not be able to hijack the rest of the country's social values, but then, Lind (intentionally or unintentionally) skirts the corollary to that argument -- the United States should not be able to hijack the rest of the world's social values through World Summits, UN resolutions, and mass media blitzs. Lind's proposal to transplant people to the Midwest is also poorly thought out (though absolutely necessary given the high housing prices and terrorist threats the United States faces today). While Lind is quite right about the Midwest not being a source of major racial tensions like the South and coastal regions, he also fails to consider that few minorities moved to the Midwest before or after the New Deal. After WWII, most of the minority movement was to the coastal cities. So the fact that there weren't many race riots in the Midwest in the past is no guaranty that Lind's proposal to move people to the Midwest won't generate race riots and other acts of violence now. If Lind were to couple his Midwest transplant project with his more creative ideas on affirmative action (changing the criteria from race to economic class), then his theory might be more credible. Those are my main criticisms. I think larger taxes on gasoline (with subsidies to low-income families) would provide better incentives to American companies to come up with fuel-efficient cars and heating systems and get the United States off its dependence on Mideast oil. I also think that the United States should impose wage tariffs on goods made in countries like China and Mexico that dump cheap goods on the American market (the tariff should equal the difference between what it would cost to make the goods in the U.S. and what it would cost to make the goods in China or Mexico). But now I'm starting to write my own book, so I'll stop. Overall, Lind has done a good job yet again!
Rating:
Summary: Michael Lind¿s central theme is not substantiated
Review: I thorough enjoyed Michael Lind's efforts pertaining to the political and cultural history of Texas. This relatively short book is perhaps the best that I've seen in this regard. You will learn much about Texas' rapidly disappearing racism and anti-intellectualism which should not be ignored. The author's attempt, however, to describe the thinking of the Bush administration as a result of Texas' reactionary past leaves much to be desired. Did the publisher encourage Lind to do so to increase sales? If nothing else, he overlooks the demographic changes that have taken place in the last quarter century. Many Texas Republicans like myself were born and raised in an entirely different part of the country. Our background is often more liberal and cosmopolitan. The younger indigenous Texans care little about preserving the status quo of Neanderthal bigotry. President Bush, after all, is himself the uncle of a number of Hispanic children. Also, Lind fails to place sufficient emphasis on the neo-conservative intellectuals who he concedes greatly influence the President. Bush may be an evangelical Christian, but a high number of neo-cons are rather secular in the tradition of Leo Strauss. They are primarily non ideological intellectuals who shun utopian schemes, and instead prefer pragmatic responses to the issues of the day. Lind may disagree with their overall views on the Middle East, the environment, and economic policy, but he is not justified in essentially calling them a bunch of wild eyed crazies. Moreover, Lind seemingly fails to realize that George W. Bush does a vastly superior job marginalizing the radical right-wing lunatics than do the Democrat leaders in controlling the extremists of the left-wing variety. Is there a possibility that Michael Lind is quickly becoming the Pat Buchanan of the neo-Liberals? "Like present-day Israel," adds the author,"Texas before the Civil Rights Revolution was a Herrenvolk (master race) democracy, combining populism within the majority ethnic nation with the state-enforced subordination of ethnic minorities." This sentence is most disturbing. Is he really accusing Israel of being a racist state? Lind is compelled to further explain himself. The author is fairly bright and insightful. I have no problem recommending the work he coauthored with Ted Halstead, The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics. There is much food for thought offered in this provocative study. Alas, my guess is that Lind may have been seduced by the favorable attention he receives from the Liberal establishment. He is often pointed out as their token Republican representative at their white wine and brie cheese get-togethers. Is it possible that Michael Lind might soon grow out of this phase? We can only hope so for the author is still quite young and will most assuredly not disappear anytime in the near future.
Rating: 
Summary: The Lone Star Rant
Review: I was surprised about the span of what this book covered. Based on the title and dust jacket I assumed that the book was going to be about G.W. and his rise in Texas politics. I was looking forward to some details about how he lost his first congressional race and then went on to win the race for the Governor. The book did not cover this area at all, what it did cover was the history of Texas politics, the now familiar anti Bush run down, and the authors idea of what America should look like. If the writing had not been so shocking and surprising from page to page I might have been disappointed in the difference in the book description and what it ended up covering.
The area of the book that covered the history of Texas politics started out normal enough. It just kept getting more odd from page to page. The author fell into some sort of habit of labeling all conservatives as ultra right wing, religious and racist British hand me downs. After reading the book you would think that the state is run by a bunch of white men that are half KKK and half John Birch society. The author kept getting deeper into this odd rant that it started to border on a conspiracy theory close to alien abduction. The author then followed this up with a Michael Moore light version of all the things bad are due to G.W. It is not that this type of book is not something I enjoy reading, it was just that the author did not successfully tie in his Texas roots with the policies and actions detailed. To give the author some credit he did try a few times to tie in one of the policy issues he disagreed with to some sort of ultra conservative Texas politics. I was just that he did it so haphazardly and infrequently that it appeared to be an after thought.
The last section of the book was a rather odd as it covered some version of what the author thinks America should be like. The author went off the deep end and basically dictated that the federal government should move people and industry from the coasts to the middle of the country and give every one a three bedroom house and a car. He went off on some tangent that most farm and ranch land was wasted and should be used for suburban sprawl. Now I have no doubt that this author has strong feelings about this area and that he dug up some interesting facts to support his conclusions. It was just that it nothing to do with the overall subject of the book so it came off as a bit strange. If I wanted the authors views of social engineering then I would have bought a book covering it. Overall I found the book a confused anti conservative rant that boarded on strange. It has few pages so it reads fast and similar to slowing down to look at a car wreck, it is hard to put the book down as you are always wondering what is on the next page. Buy it if you really hate the GOP or if you like to read the author.
Rating: 
Summary: Unfair Assessment
Review: Michael Lind haphazardly jumbled facts and figures with excessively inaccurate statements to compile a 184 page disaster. In one example, Lind mixes the beginning of the twentieth century with the end of the twentieth century and argues that the social impetus for racism over that period has remained stagnant is unfair and indicates a palpable lack of reliable research by Lind. He seems to have potential to form and address an argument, however, in Made in Texas there is little rational thought or intelligent theses pertaining to Texas politics.
Rating:
Summary: Banana Republican
Review: Michael Lind is a native Texan who loves his state, but pulls no punches about the destructive path its recent leaders (George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, etc.) are taking the nation. He is also one of the more original and unpredictable pundits around. Just when you think you have him pegged ideologically, he throws you a curve. Although a fierce critic of today's Republican right, he also opposes affirmative action and property taxes, and he is no apologist for today's Democratic Party either. The constants in his writing are populism and contempt for conventional wisdom. Check your preconceptions at the door before reading him.
The book's central focus is how Texas as a state and the South as a region have impacted, in both positive and negative ways, American political ecomomy. As Lind sees it, the two dominant political factions in Texas have been the "traditionalists" and the "modernists." He stresses that these labels do not necessarily coincide with "liberal" and "conservative." Today the traditionalists are represented by the Bush family and other Texas Republicans (although Lind also places Lloyd Bentsen in this camp). They are more or less the successors to the 19th century Confederates and the segregationist Democrats who ran the state in the first half of the 20th century. This group, he writes, "is content for Texas to have a low-wage, commodity exporting economy, even if the result is a society with enormous inequalities of wealth and opportunity."
The "modernists" have been more eclectic politically. They have included John Connally on the right, H. Ross Perot in the center and Barbara Jordan on the moderate left. Lind defines their vision as "a high-tech economy with a meritocratic society. If traditionalist Texas is symbolized by oil companies, ranches and farms, modernist Texas is symbolized by the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the computer industry that grew up in Austin's 'Silicon Hills.'" The modernists combined "populism and a military ethic in a synthesis that, although not unique to Texas, was particularly pronounced in the Lone Star State."
The traditionalists have generally held the upper hand. In the 19th century the Confederates envisioned America as 1) the British Empire's junior partner in the realm of international politics and as 2) a low-wage exporter of raw materials to industrialized Britain under the banner of free trade. This is what Lind derisively calls "Southernomics" -- a banana republic or Third World style of political economy in which it is taboo to use tariffs and high wages to foster domestic industry and technology. In 2004 George W. Bush's vision was remarkably similar. But this time Britain is America's junior partner in a self-defeating policy of military overextension, and this time America does the importing from low-wage countries in a system sacrificing the middle class on the altars of free trade and cheap labor.
The era in which Texas modernism rode high was when the New Deal brought the Industrial Revolution, rural electrification, and middle class prosperity to the South by way of "state capitalist" projects such as the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). This era peaked in the 1950s and '60s when Sam Rayburn (of Texas) was Speaker of the House and Lyndon Johnson (of Texas) was Senate Majority Leader and then President of the United States.
Back in the Goldwater, Nixon and early Reagan years, the Southwest (Arizona/Southern California) was the GOP's geographic homeland. That is no longer the case. The geographic core of the Republican coalition is now in the South. Lind writes: "[I]t is no exaggeration to speak of the 'Texanization' of the American right as a whole...conservative thinkers and politicians rooted in the old Texan commodity-exporting oligarchy have redefined what conservatism means in the United States. Even in the Northeast and Midwest, older, rival conservative traditions...have been replaced by a recognizably Texan (and broadly Southern) conservatism uniting belief in minimal government [in theory, but not in practice] at home and a bellicose foreign policy abroad with [Protestant] fundamentalism." There was ample evidence of this at the 2004 GOP convention. Witness Rudolph Giuliani shilling for the Bush Doctrine in all its bankrupting glory and Governor Ah-noldt mocking the manhood of anyone dissatisfied with the consequences of Southernomics.
Lind devotes the final chapters to the growing nexus between the New York neoconservatives and the Southern right. It is the neocons, mostly ex-socialists or ex-liberals and their progeny, who give today's GOP whatever intellectual credibility it has. However, it is precisely because of the neocons that most of what is today labeled "conservativism," in both foreign and domestic policy, bears no philosphical connection to the true conservatism of Edmund Burke and George Washingtion. It is basically Marxism turned inside-out. (Lind developed this rather amusing point at greater length in his 1996 book UP FROM CONSERVATISM.) Try this at home if you can. Throw together an outline of Maoist and Marxist-Leninist propaganda. Then substitute "permanent war" for "permanent revolution" and "culture" for "class." Presto! You have the 2004 Republican platform.
Lind makes a couple of factual errors. Ross Perot and Al Gore debated the NAFTA treaty on the Larry King Show in 1993, not 1992. He also misidentifies the date of a Weekly Standard editorial ("Axis of Appeasement") which was printed in 2002, not 2000 (it's listed correctly in the index). Also, in discussing the Middle East, the dissing reviewers have a point when they complain that he goes too easy on the terrorist/mass murderer Yasser Arafat. I would also deduct one star for style. Lind has a habit of overstating his case and making the same point in ten different ways. Nonetheless, his brand of iconoclasm is needed now more than ever.
Rating:
Summary: Understanding America and Bush
Review: The book is about much more than Bush and what the author calls "Southern Takeover of American Politics." It allows one to better understand American's cultural history, especially that of the South. Lind is by no means an ultra-liberal trying to discredit Bush. On the contrary, some of his sternest criticism is reserved is reserved for extremist liberals and environmentalists with their rigid notions of race, ethnicity, and "green" politics that hurt ordinary Americans. The books is a valuable addition to a library of anyone trying to understand the politics of America, the most wonderful country in the world.
|
