Customer Reviews

The Moral Center: How We Can Reclaim Our Country from Die-Hard Extremists, Rogue Corporations, Hollywood Hacks, and Pretend Patriots

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The author addresses a difficult theme, couched as it is in the entrenched rhetoric of today's politics, Conservative, Democrat, right and left. Yet at the heart of this argument is a call to return to the traditional values that are inclusive rather than exclusive. While the right champions a return to religion and family values, the left is mired in a definition that fails to bring them into the conversation. And at the heart of all is the free market, the cornerstone of personal liberty, the success of which depends upon the pursuit of self-interest. The question posed: are traditional values a match for unfettered capitalism?
Liberals have morphed into the ubiquitous "me generation" and social responsibility, although an intended consequence of the equation, is left languishing by the road in a rush of consumerism. The result is a proliferation of Care-Not's (as opposed to Cares), the Cares unable to make themselves heard, suffering a pervasive moral anxiety that has no apparent remedy.

Repeatedly offering a narrow interpretation of the problem, Democrats struggle to articulate a moral solution. As middle class insecurity grows with international competition, technology and corporations siphoning off the future, the economy must be dire for people to respond to this threat. At the same time, purchasing items at incredibly low prices has become pervasive, even though these prices are the result of global economics. We come to the premise of the book: Democrats or a new Third party can submit a moral agenda to restore America's values and politics. To this end, the following chapters address family, sex, media, crime, work, poverty and patriotism, establishing "a workable balance between freedom and responsibility."

The dynamic of the culture wars, tradition vs. modernism, misses the point in the current debate, where the real culprit is the free market. Any change in this culture that confronts the pertinent issues must be synonymous with real values for Americans, those we readily embrace, rather than the pandering of extreme ideologies. In essence, the author is asking us to put aside our differences, responding to the current divisiveness with an appreciation for the spirit of change for the better good. Neither party comes off well, the Democrats inarticulate, stuck in past decades of grandeur, the Republicans riding a wave of popularity with the marriage of evangelical fervor and a free market unhindered by social responsibility. A fine idea and well put, but not likely to be heard by either party in the current climate. Luan Gaines/ 2006.

I read this book as part of a small, progressive book club in Texas. There are some really good ideas in this book that helped me to integrate some of my thinking. For example, the way money is essentially running the show now in this country. For example, how progressives and conservatives really have more in common than not in common.

For Callahan, self-interest is the key word. Excessive self-interest is what is ailing us - in business, government, and yes, even in the American family. And he makes a compelling case. Focusing on some alarming trends and statistics (in divorce, media violence, education, white-collar crime, increased aggression in children, etc. ) he argues that these issues should compel us all to meet in the middle, work on solutions, and to stop putting so much time, money, and energy into age-old cultural divides that inhibit the country from moving forward on issues that affect Americans, especially American families, today. He argues that in some cases old solutions are proving not to be working.

Callahan's writing reflects thoughtfulness and civic concern. Scratch the subtitle of the book and the quasi-guidebook-for-liberals tone interjected throughout, and this book could have reached a wider audience who are seriously concerned about some of the sociological ills of the day. The author provides plenty of food for thought.

Author David Callahan has written a book that champions a new way to look at widespread American values from a progressive's perspective. The book is highly readable and full of information, statistics and, pertinent trivia. I learned a lot by reading the book and also was challenged in some of my beliefs. I do hope that Mr. Callahan will continue to write useful books like this one.

The title of this book is definitely overly ambitious. It is quite a stretch to claim that there is a moral center in the US. If anything, there is a lot of inflated, contradictory, hypocritical, cynical, and ignorant thought concerning a fundamental moral center. Actually most of the recent buzz in America concerning values is part of an immense propaganda campaign that panders to susceptible groups by constructing a specious and sinister social reality geared to manipulate behavior. The author makes a stab at detailing some of these contradictions, but does not really address the pairing of ignorance and propaganda that makes the continuation on the current course almost inevitable.

The author looks at the areas of family, sex, media, crime, work, poverty, and patriotism with considerable overlap to locate moral discontinuities and concerns. The biggest disconnect in American thinking in these areas is the notion that morality can survive the zealous drive to turn all areas of life into profit-making centers. The laissez-faire, free-market capitalism that is the current rage absolutely has no conscience, crushing social bonds and moral considerations in its path. Extremist individualism scarcely acknowledges social connections, morality, or values. The author is unwilling to really confront the American version of corporate capitalism other than to mildly chide it.

The following examples of the author serve to show the power of profits to overwhelm a culture, while simultaneously hiding their true impact. Cultural conservatives bemoan the prevalence of sex in the media but prefer to blame cultural elitists (liberals), while failing to see the immense profits of huge media companies. To not be working or to be impoverished is viewed by conservatives as an absence of personal character - again a complete failure to understand power dynamics of capitalism, where the welfare of individuals, families, and communities is irrelevant. There are no concerns for family values. Patriotism was once a shared value for all citizens, now it has become profits for the wealthy and duty and loss of life for the average citizen. Except for a very few high profile cases, corporate crime goes largely unpunished, while petty street criminals and drug users get prison sentences. Any concerns with this disparity are quickly labeled as coddling of criminals.

The author, like so many recent commentators, seems to think that pointing out these contradictions in a book will gain some traction with the public. But if Americans were inclined to analyze the cynical use of values and personal responsibility that is a part of the examples above, the US would not now be in its current state. Corporate capitalism now so permeates our entire society that it is ridiculous to suggest that a little information infused into this hegemonic situation will reverse our course. The wealthy, the wannabes, and all of those who have been so propagandized as to totally believe that liberals are destroying their way of life seemed to have formed a significant majority that is unlikely to diminish in the near future. The author's suggestion that liberals be more receptive to the American Dream, or the supposed opportunity to become rich, simply reaffirms the values of the selfish society.

There has been quite a spate of books in the last few years that purport to discuss American values and then suggest that liberals must adopt or recapture the meaning of conservative rhetoric. How this is supposed to happen, no one addresses. Just how is it that the media, educational institutions, and churches will be transformed from being propagandists for corporations into purveyors of knowledge and information for the benefit of all people. They just ignore that huge hurdle. There seems to be the belief that there are substantial numbers of untainted people just waiting to reject the current direction of society. Well, what have they been waiting for? Read the book if you want a quick rehash of the values clash - that's about it.

THE MORAL CENTER: HOW WE CAN RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY FROM DIE-HARD EXTREMISTS, ROGUE CORPORATIONS, HOLLYWOOD HACKS, AND PRETEND PATRIOTS argues that underlying concerns such as eroding values, and the rise of greed, are the real problems neither party is addressing in political campaigns. A new vision and strategy is needed based on acknowledgment of this underlying erosion: one provided in THE MORAL CENTER, which argues for change in the face of polarized differences which paralyze both parties and reduce effective strategies.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

I mean of course I have not read this book yet since it has not been released. But I greatly look forward to having SOMEONE point out to the world that for most reasonable peole in our culture, the greatest moral crises in this country are NOT about abortion and gay marriage but rather concern deeper issues such as our overly profit-oriented and inadequate healthcare system, the devastating effects of abject materialism, political and corporate dishonesty and the ethics of war. It is about time someone point this out and I am pre-ordering this book now.

From the very beginning, no one in America ever went wrong by questioning the morals of their fellow citizens or urging more virtue upon them.

This book continues that proud tradition.

Callahan is amazed that "In the 2000 election, 9 out of 10 of Kentucky's poorest counties voted for George W. Bush". Why are they poor? People are poor because they consistently make wrong choices in life, from dropping out of school to having babies to spending money on beer instead of books. Most significant, perhaps, is the willingness to settle disputes by punishment instead of help, understanding, sympathy or friendly persuasion.

There are two basic moral approaches to life: "Hit 'em or hug 'em". Conservatives generally favour "hit 'em", such as the War on Iraq. It's direct decisive action without a bunch of namby-pampy soft talk, friendly persuasion and appeals to a "brotherhood" of wimps. Conservatives want to "get things done" even if corners are cut. Liberals are generally the opposite.

Bush's torture policies, which he calls "tough but safe", are an example. Suppose it prevents an attack similar to the World Trade Center destruction? I've yet to hear any Liberal explain why an appeal to "brotherhood" is better, even at the cost of not stopping such an attack. But, if torture works even once, conservatives would enshrine it as a new amendment to the Constitution. Now, who's "morals" do we choose?

This reflects the fundamental problem in books such as this: "morals" are based either on idealism (e.g. religion) or a pragmatic "what works" in the real world. Callahan takes a Puritan/Liberal approach, which I believe is more effective in the long run. Pragmatic/Conservativism also has benefits; e.g. a negotiator who "lies" to end a potentially fatal hostage situation without anyone being hurt.

For example: In 1960, about 10 percent of college students "cheated". Today, about 70 percent do so. This is "age compression". A 20's-something cheater may ruin a career that otherwise may not have been ruined until their 50's. It eliminates cheaters faster from the pool of potential executives. That's bad? Ignored morals do eventually bite you in the butt.

Morals are important, and Callahan is like Elmer Gantry in his ability to list faults, follies, sins and outrages. But, judgment is also important. Bush is criticized about his torture policies, pre-emptive wars, terrorism, axis of evil, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. Yet, everything from waging war to blocking stem cell research is supported by his born-again Christian morality. Bush is a very "moral" man.

Sometimes, even the best morals are not enough, as the worsening situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere indicates. As an effete Eastern preppie with a thin coat of Texas desert varnish, it seems Bush never heard of the old Arizona saying, "Don't insult seven men if all you're carrying is a six shooter."

Despite its faults of generalities and inability to understand the future, this book will stir the outrage of moral readers. Conservatives are quite likely to respond, "So what?" and regard it as business as usual. Callahan's solution is to be more moral and ignore the changes in the world.

Elmer Gantry, Peter Singer or Jerry Falwell couldn't say it better. But, just as their basic "morals" are vividly different from each other, this book is likewise limited in its scope by its devotion to the past. That said, it is an excellent starter book on morals and the state of the union. Read it, and you'll want to read more, think more, and have more faith in a better future.

If you want a list of all of the traditional ways liberals want to spend money, go ahead and read this book. Callahan offers some well developed reasons for making these investments, but none are new or bold. And the jabs at the conservatives, Bush 43, and Regan, we've heard them all before. I didn't notice a mention of even one liberal program that didn't work, and that should be cut (I guess Callahan thinks we're batting 1000). This book fails because it doesn't offer anything but the same arguments from the extremes that has done nothing for America (except to let the religious fundamentalists take over).

The book's title might tempt that part of the electorate hoping to dethrone the religious fundamentalists into picking up the book. But Callahan's argument falls flat, leaving me with a picture of the sleek shark of fundamentalism with the little remora of liberalism hanging on for dear life.

From a technical perspective, the book had quite a few typographical errors, where the first letter of a word was wrong (town vs. down), as if it were dictated, and nobody proofread. That took it down from a "2" to a "1" in my rating.

The book cover, with it's red on the left, and blue on the right, signifies what it is: the old, tired "us versus them" with no new ideas. Another book with red on the TOP and blue on the bottom does have some bold ideas for real change in American politics. It's not what you think. It's written by a gay catholic philosopher (Andrew Sullivan). Although I'm politically in the center, I have read both books from the right and left that claim to have an idea for getting US politics out of the ditch. Sullivan's boldness holds promise, whereas Callahan's stale ideas fall flat.