Customer Reviews

A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

When Garry Wills closes his book with the idea that government is a necessary good, some reviewers seem to have made the assumption that he is claiming then, that bigger goverment necessarily yields greater good. Nowhere does he make such a claim. In fact, his focus is not the scope of government or, for the most part, specifics of government. His main focus is two-fold: both the fact that anti-government sentiment has long been present in our nation, and the way in which its proponents have tried to see that sentiment written into our founding documents. His harsh words are not for those who are skeptical of the government but for those intellectualls who he feels have been sloppy in their attempts to establish a constitutional basis for such skepticism. If we were to assume that Wills's reading of the Second Amendment is the correct one, does that mean that it is the wise thing to ban citizens from owning fire-arms? Not necessarily. Is the belief that skepticism was not written into the Constitution a condemnation of skepticism? Certainly not. Though I may disagree with some of Mr. Wills ideas (though not generally with those found in this book,) he is certainly not a state-ist, a Hitler apologist, or a knee-jerk Liberal. The reviews that his book has received certainly show, though, that he has found a political nerve and that we often do look to the founding documents as justification for strongly held beliefs.

The strident, negative tone of some of the earlier customer reviews convinced me to buy this book. Anthing that generates that much anger is worth reading. Wills properly notes that people in this country have always distrusted government, and that this is probably a good thing. He also properly points out that many of the extremist critics base their arguments on selective misinterpretations of the Constitution, fail to understand the history behind the Constitution and its Amendments, and often quote those who OPPOSED adoption of the Constitution as argument for their misinterpretations.

People who want to change the Constitution have the right in this country to voice their opinions. People who claim to support the Constitution, but then claim our current government is not following it need to read this book.

Wills has written some great books: "Nixon Agonistes" was a revelation and his book on Reagan was a wonderful analysis of the relationship between a president and the myths the American people wanted to be true. This book has much in common with the earlier ones, in that there is the most careful examination of what actually went on in the past connected to themes that are of pressing importance today. So, for example, there is an impressive analysis of the "Federalist Papers" [especially Madison's contributions] interlaced with an evaluation of the misreadings over time that have now been embraced so willingly by our contemporaries. The writing is clear, the endnotes useful, and the total product an impressive one, in terms both of helping us understand our fascinating past and giving some order to the confusion of our current political climate.

As I read this book there was something hazily familiar about it. Finally I figured out what it was. Wills is seeming more and more like the Robert Bork of the left. Like Bork, he argues from history and intent. Like Bork, he takes positions (for example, on the Second Amendment) that fly in the face of virtually all the scholarship on the subject. And, most distressingly like Bork, he assumes that since everyone but him is wrong (that is, disagrees with Bork/Wills), that is evidence that everyone else is either stupid or dishonest. It is, of course, always possible that everyone else *is* wrong, and that Wills *is* right -- but Wills does not come close to meeting the burden that one adopting such a position should carry.

His central point -- that the Framers weren't anarchists -- is true, but trivial. No one with any sense thinks they were. His other points, however, ignore the fact that they *were* revolutionaries. Also like Bork, Wills tries to graft late-20th-century (well, really mid-20th century) political theories onto people who held very different views. Most like Bork of all, his book will no doubt be used by people who agree with him politically to suggest that there is solid historical support for their position. That will work until enough people read it to realize how intellectually thin it is.

I have generally been a fan of Wills, but this work is the proverbial thirteenth chime of the clock -- not only wrong in itself, but calling into question everything that came before. For a more accurate take on many of these issues try Pauline Meier's "From Resistance to Revolution," Joyce Lee Malcolm's "To Keep and Bear Arms," Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights," and Gary Hart's "The Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People."

A very interesting book. A little hard to read at times, due both to Mr. Wills overuse of language and to the differences in 18th century English and our own.

Right wing reviews have panned this book as left wing. As a Centrist, I noticed, however, that the both the left and right got poked on occassion.

The one thing that I noticed was the amazing human ability to flip-flop and interpret. Even our founding fathers apparently had the ability to interpret the actions, words, and writings of others according to their own beliefs and needs. Additionally, they demonstrated an ability to change (flip-flop!) their own positions to suit their current situation.

Whether they agree with Mr. Wills conclusions about the meaning of the constitution and bill of rights or not, I suggest that everyone, especially "either-wingers", read this book just to understand that these human abilities extend even to our founders and our constitution -- to understand that every one of the founders probably had different interpretations of what they were doing, and different reasons for doing it.

Nothing is black and white.

In fairness, I now plan to read a book that is reviewed to be more on the right wing. If I can find one, I may also try to read one that is more left wing.

Before writing this review, but after reading the book, I waded through all the other readers' reviews. What struck me was the level of antipathy this book had raised in some of the reviewers. I never expected to find absolute truth or correctness of thought as I read it. This man has his prejudices and the book has its errors, as do all authors and books. I'm reminded of the storm of criticisms that met Paul Johnson's recent history of America. However, I revelled in Mr. Wills' capacity to express himself so clearly, his plethora of new (for me)important things to ponder, and his excellent narrative and descriptive skills. I'm glad I came upon this book and will now get ahold of some of his earlier works.

This book is not perfect. For example, it seemes to me that Wills misunderstands Thoreau's use of irony, and I'm not sure the causal link between Reagan and abortion clinic bombings is as strong as Wills suggests. But most of the customers who have reviewed this book either 1) haven't really read all the book or 2) are hopelessly close minded.

That said, I'll just add that Wills's latest book is a masterful analysis of the very fiber of American society. I don't know anyone who LOVES the government, but Wills shows why it is essential to our well-being, how it is a vital force in making this great country what it is. Few people know more about the Constitution than Wills, but he is not (as some readers suggest) a mere liberal pedant. Sometimes the truth hurts.

"Lincoln at Gettysburg" solidified Gary Wills' position as America's foremost popular historian. The work is genuinely profound, and the temptation is to expect nothing less from his succeeding efforts. While "A Necessary Evil" doesn't quite attain the heights of "Lincoln," it is worthy and important. It does what a good history, rather than a simple chronicle, should-- it interprets the past so as to explain its relevance to the present. Wills tackles some of the most persistent myths of our country's origin regarding the supposed foundation of its government on anti-governmental values.

Wills starts out with some broad points that are hard to argue with, such as the evidence of the framers' goals to create a more effective and efficient government under the Constitution than that which preceded it under the Articles of Confederation. But the more nuanced arguments based on examining the language of the framers (especially Madison) are the real value of this book are. This is where Wills excels. He is convincing in his dismissal of the notions that the framers intended states to be "sovereign;" meant for the second amendment to protect the right of private gun ownership for personal use; thought of the branches of government as "co-equal" and "balanced;" or that they meant for the Constitution to abide nullification in any of its forms. Some of these items, such as use of the term "sovereign" and "co-equal" seem to be Wills' pet peeves of Constitutional interpretation - that's fine, by getting these seemingly semantic points off his chest he adds passion that what from the pen of lessers could come across as dry and dull.

The book isn't all about language, but there's certainly enough there for those who liked "Lincoln at Gettysburg." Much of the rest of the book is more similar to another of Wills' recent books, "Certain Trumpets," in that it contains a series of brief profiles of historic figures (or movements) to illustrate his points. This is how Wills discusses Nullification, insurrection, vigilantes, "withdrawers" and "disobeyers." The section on Nullification is the strongest because of its depth and thoroughness. The latter four sections are a bit superficial and are more removed from the discussion of founding Constitutional concepts that is the bulwark of Wills' argument. I think what Wills is trying to do is establish first what the framers actually said and what they meant, then what some of the early alternate agendas were, then after how later Americans misinterpreted the framers' views. But the transition is tenuous - Thoreau wasn't looking for justification for his "withdrawal" in the Constitution, hippie communes were not founded with James Madison in mind. What holds the subjects of the book together is their shared reverence for "anti-governmental" values.

The book itself is beginning to acquire its own mythology. Some of its detractors are criticizing it for being some sort of liberal revisionism. This criticism is off mark. First, Wills is critical of both liberals and conservatives, but mostly reactionaries, radicals, anarchists, and libertarians. His position is not liberal per se, but more a defense of Madisonian republicanism.

That's why this book is important - almost necessary -- Madisonian republicanism is under attack from almost all sides and needs some modern-day defenders. It is entirely likely that put to referendum, the Articles of Confederation would beat out the Constitution in a popular vote today. This is a scary thought. Wills ends by contrasting the uses of government with the uses of fear and, not unpredictably, concludes that government can, despite the myths, be a necessary good. That the notion isn't self-evident is a good reason to read the book.

A good companion book is David Broder's "Democracy Derailed," about contemporary uses of ballot initiatives (it's more interesting and related than it sounds).

The book has some decent historical merit, but by coming down far on the pro-government side he ignores and misreads several key issues and people. Not helping his case against the militia/pro-gun argument is his citing of the discredited Michael Bellesilles, once thought of as the savior of the left and now accused of fabricating evidence. Additionally, the chapter 'A Necessary Good' is disastrous. The man conflates the existence of a division of labor (economic, not political) and of social norms and restrictions(social, not political) with the *necessity* and benficience of the state! By not proving that these can and would exist without a powerful state, he traps himself into a terribly fallacious argument. It reveals so much of the intellectual poverty of those who seek to glorify an organization whose roots and claims to legitimacy stem solely from force.

Garry Wills' book "A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government", is important in that it posits and corrects the many illustions about our Constitution which have provoked average Americans into feeling distrust towards their own government. I feel that his book is being misread by some. Distrust of government is, unfortunately, running rampant in our country today. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair have not helped to cure us of distrust of Washington. Myths about the Constitution put forth by members of both the political left and right have made this landmark document a target of manipulative interpretation. Wills' use of the issue of gun control is not a question of whether he is for it or not. It is a matter of proving his thesis that members of a political group will try to interpret the Constitution so that it will present the image of a big government bugaboo infringing on the right to bear arms. Wills brilliantly makes his point. At the end of the book, Wills writes that government is a "necessary good". If more Americans can take that to heart insteat of manipulating the Constitution with myth, I feel that the public's attitude toward our government will change for the better. This is a good book on Constitutional law debate and a much-needed viewpoint.