Antioch Road

One Paragraph Review: Witness by Whittaker Chambers

Witness by Whittaker Chambers

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


This is a heavy book. (Having read the Kindle version, I don't mean physically, though the physical book would be that as well.) Whittaker Chambers is a serious man who lived by choice through serious events. He powerfully wrote about them in 1951 shortly after his part in them concluded. In this autobiography, Chambers recounted his unhappy childhood, his search for meaning in the "crisis of history" that led him to communism, his underground work for the Communist Party, the confrontation between God-less communism and Christianity, his break from the Communist Party, his efforts to protect his family from the Communist Party after his break, his work at Time Magazine, and his essential decision to become a "witness" against the Communist infiltration of the U.S. government. That decision came to be played out in the very public battle with Alger Hiss. Chambers wrote so well about so many topics affecting his life and his nation that the recounting of his underground Communist activities ends up being the least interesting part of the book (though interesting nonetheless). His telling of his confrontations with Alger Hiss and Hiss's representatives ten years after his break -- with actual hearing transcripts -- is absolutely fascinating. Just as well as Chambers tells of the events, he explains their meaning. I can't recommend this book highly enough. Its universal themes ensure its enduring relevance.



View all my reviews

One Paragraph Review: The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989 by Steven F. Hayward

The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989 by Steven F. Hayward
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is the sequel to Hayward's book covering the years 1964-1980 (review here). It is, like the first book, excellent political history and a fun read. It picks up following Reagan's 1980 election and concludes with the 1988 presidential election, with an epilogue on the fall of eastern European communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Hayward writes from a conservative viewpoint, which leads him to be both laudatory and critical of Reagan and his administration depending on the context. Hayward draws heavily on contemporaneous media sources (often revealing the less than prescient nature of such sources). The chapters in Part II of the book on the Reykjavik summit and the Iran-Contra matter are particularly riveting and hard to put down. If you enjoy 1980s political, U.S., and Cold War history, you will enjoy this book.

View all my reviews

One Paragraph Review: The Path Between the Seas by David McCullough

The Path Between the Seas by David McCullough

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I had no idea that a book on the building of the Panama Canal could be so fascinating, mostly because I had no idea that the story itself was so fascinating. David McCullough's 1977 telling of that story, in The Path Between the Seas, is excellent. From the debate over the path and the method, to the somewhat disastrous French attempt, through the triumph of the United States' completion of the canal, this 600 page history moves fast. The technological (sea level or locks?), natural (the landslides and the annual flooding of the Chagres River), and health (malaria and yellow fever) obstacles were enormous. The scale of the project was, literally, unprecedented. This book is just as much biography (de Lesseps, Bunau-Varilla, Roosevelt, Gorgas, Goethels) and political history as it is a description of just how the canal was built.

View all my reviews >>

One Paragraph Review: Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry by David J. Vaughan

Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry by David J. Vaughan

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Give Me Liberty is good because its subject--Patrick Henry--is so interesting, influential, and great. The book is divided into three sections: Henry's life; his character; and (briefly) his legacy. His life was amazing (perhaps more important to the Revolution than anyone save George Washington), his character was almost impeccable, and his legacy is enduring. Author David Vaughan writes on the backs of others: his sources are secondary. Vaughan also writes from a Calvinist perspective. That causes him to treat Henry's Christianity seriously, but also causes him to overstate Calvinism's importance. For instance, Vaughan all but says that Calvinists brought religious liberty to the colonies; he ignores the Baptists' profound influence in securing religious liberty and the history of Puritan persecution of Baptists in New England. There are a few other problems with the book: Vaughan treats Henry as almost flawless. And--perhaps due to the format (separate sections concerning Henry's life, character, and legacy)--there are many repetitions, which should not happen in an under 300 page (with small page size) biography. Despite these problems, Give Me Liberty contains a concise, interesting, and readable study of Henry and the leadership qualities he exhibited.

View all my reviews >>

Jaffa on the Importance of a Proper Understanding of the Declaration and our Country's History

In the Spring 2008 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, Harry Jaffa provides us a timeless rejoinder to the now famous sermon of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and "spiritual mentor" for twenty years. It is more than a response to a particular and poisonous sermon. It is a response to a general (and poisonous) mindset or worldview, with the context being an understanding of the founding of our country and the history of slavery in the United States. A portion of Jaffa's conclusion reads:

But if History or Progress or "change" is to be our guide, if the truth of relativism is to replace the truth of the Declaration, then the cause for which the nation fought at its birth, and in the Civil War, was meaningless, too. White power, black power, the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, are as justifiable as Jefferson, Lincoln, or the doctrine of the equal natural rights of all human beings. We may understand how the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could so awfully misunderstand the American political tradition, inasmuch as it has been so very misunderstood for so long in circles from whom a better understanding could be expected. But this misunderstanding is a cancer which can in the end prove fatal, not only to a political campaign but to our country.

Read the rest and subscribe to the Claremont Review of Books.

One Paragraph Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, by Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)'s most useful aspects are its examination of Islamic texts, including the Koran, its historical overview of the application of those texts, especially the violent ones, and its defense, at least in part, of the Crusades. This quick read is divided into three parts. Part one deals with Islam generally and more specifically Islam's relation to war, intolerance, and oppression of women. Part two debunks the myths surrounding the Crusades and their aftermath. And part three addresses today's jihad movements, making the connection with Islam's past. This book will not make an Islamic-sympathizer happy. Throughout the book are enlightening Mohammed versus Jesus sidebars, in which the author contrasts statements of Mohammed with statements of Jesus. In order to address Islam's modern expansion and goals, it is important to understand Islam's past, and this book is a good place to start. One criticism of the book's format: the book has sidebars and text separated in boxes on what seems like every other page, and these sidebars and separated boxes interrupt the flow of the narrative of the book overall, forcing you to leave your place and come back repeatedly.

One Paragraph Book Review: Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson

Subtitled "The Civil War Era," this book is less about the era than the war itself. It is a narrative telling of the military and political history of the times leading up to and including the Civil War. It is comprehensive, well written, laudatory to sources, and--perhaps most importantly for a book this size--consistently interesting. McPherson gives the South fair treatment, but he writes from a decidedly Northern perspective, which is even more evident in the 2003 Afterword in which he defends Abraham Lincoln from southern critics. Originally published in 1988, it won a Pulitzer Prize, and deservedly so. If you're looking for a one volume history of the Civil, this book will reward you. I also suggest Jay Winik's April 1865 as a good follow-up to this book. Winik's book provides a history of the final month of the war, the "month that saved America."

One Paragraph Review: The Age of Reagan by Steven Hayward

There are few books greater than 700 pages in length (almost 850 with footnotes, etc.) that are real page-turners. Steven Hayward's 2001 The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order 1964-1980 is one of them. Age of Reagan is not entirely about Ronald Reagan. It is, instead, a political history--at the federal level--of the United States from 1964-1980. It is, as the subtitle says, about the fall of the "old liberal order" and the subsequent rise of Reagan. The story from Lyndon Johnson's huge victory in 1964 to Reagan's huge victory in 1980 is a story of the exposure of the failure of governmental ordering of society and economics. Johnson's Great Society, the impact of Vietnam, the rise of the New Left, the return of Nixon, the fall of Nixon, Reagan's insurgent 1976 campaign, and Carter's failed presidency are all covered in fascinating detail in this book. The book really picks up steam in discussing the 1976 and 1980 elections. Hayward is a conservative, and this book is written from a conservative worldview. But Hayward does not ignore Reagan's gaffes and, in discussing contemporary opinions, seemingly quotes from the pages of The New Republic as much as he does from National Review. Age of Reagan is, in short, fair, comprehensive, fun, and essential for those interested in recent American political history.

UPDATE (2/12/2011): See review of Hayward's sequel here.

The 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar

The cover story of the Oct. 24 issue of U.S. News and World Report, by Jay Tolson, is an interesting read on Lord Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar. Tomorrow, Oct. 21, is the 200th anniversary of the battle that significantly affected the course of western civilization.

Championing Reason Without Reason

The Wall Street Journal carried three letters to the editor commenting on Professor David Gelernter's earlier op-ed on the Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, and Christian fundamentalism. One of the letters is from Harry Binswanger, Ph.D., of the Ayn Rand Institute. Mr. Binswanger disagrees with Professor Gelernter, arguing that Christian fundamentalists, like all faith adherents, are dangerous:

A more philosophical analysis shows that any creed that substitutes faith for reason is incompatible with religious toleration. Reason is the only basis on which men can live peacefully with those who disagree, knowing that reality is the common court of final appeal.

Only reason makes possible an objective theory of the good, one which holds that the private immorality of others is not per se one's concern. On the religious theory of the good, there is no such thing as private immorality: anyone's "sin" stands as an affront to God and simply cannot be allowed.

On such a basis, how can one tolerate the "evil" done by those who worship the wrong God, or perform "blasphemous" rituals -- or no rituals? The social danger of fundamentalism, whether Christian or Islamic, is what follows when dogmatic faith in sacred texts replaces reason.

What Mr. Binswanger has done here is quite interesting. He has championed reason, by ignoring reason and employing faith.

Reason tells us at least two things. First, Christian fundamentalists desire to see souls saved. People cannot be forced to be saved. They must realize their sin, and thus their need for salvation, and must be willing to receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour. If this is forced, the repentance and submission to God's will is not real, and thus ineffectual. That is why Christians must tolerate those of other faiths and those of no faith. Without that toleration, people will lack the freedom necessary for actual repentance.

Second, Christian fundamentalists in fact tolerate those of other faiths and those of no faith.

These two points make Binswanger's suggestion that Christian fundamentalists cannot tolerate those of other faiths and those of no faith just bizarre. Indeed, it is devoid of reason, and relies on faith: a faith in his secular humanism and a faith that Christian fundamentalism is dangerous.

All this leaves Binswanger in this paradox: He, in the same breath, criticizes Christian fundamentalists for a lack of toleration and suggests that the rest of the society should not tolerate Christian fundamentalists.