A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "One of the dramatic developments of the 1990s was the emergence of self-styled militias training for guerrilla war against the federal government..." (more)
Key Phrases: lower law, Second Amendment, New England, South Carolina (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Nothing may be more American than distrust of government, but Garry Wills says there is something deeply wrong with this tradition. "It is a tradition that belittles America," he writes, "that asks us to love our country by hating our government, that turns our founding fathers into unfounders, that glamorizes frontier settlers in order to demean what they settled, that obliges us to despise the very people we vote for." Although A Necessary Evil is full of historical references, it is plainly motivated by contemporary politics: "I began this book in 1994, when the fear of government manifested itself in the off-year election of a Republican majority to Congress." Wills writes at length about matters such as the republic's founding, the 19th-century debate over states' rights, and so on. Yet the most passionate and engaging sections focus on antigovernment attitudes today, as embodied by the term-limits movement (the founders, he says, never were opposed to professional politicians), the National Rifle Association (whose defense of gun-ownership rights, Wills believes, is ahistorical), and abortion-clinic bombings (which Wills unpersuasively blames on Ronald Reagan). In his conclusion, Wills argues that government is in fact "a necessary good." It may do things poorly from time to time, and it may even do great harm. "But," to draw a parallel, "when marriages fail, we do not think it is because marriage is an evil in itself." A Necessary Evil is an erudite treatment of an important subject. --John J. Miller

From Publishers Weekly

In a masterful extended essay, Wills, an accomplished analyst of the American political psyche (and winner of a 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Lincoln at Gettysburg), explores, in all its guises, the great American distrust of government. Antigovernment sentiment is owned by neither the left nor the right, Wills explains: in the 1960s, for example, radicals adopted anti-government values, and Southern conservatives, though steeped in the tradition of states' rights, switched gears to affirm the authority of the federal government to wiretap, arrest and otherwise harass the radicals. The debate over the proper size and reach of the federal government is a moving target, but Wills hits it bulls-eye in chapter after chapter, whether he's debunking the mythology that has grown up around the militias that fought in the Revolutionary War (he argues that the Continental Army played a much more vital role) or clarifying the principles that undergird the separation of powers. He conceived of this book in reaction to the 1994 congressional election, feeling that the Republican Party's Contract With America embodied not a healthy wariness of power but a calcified, and dangerous, antigovernmentalism. Americans, Wills argues, need to stop "demanding from government qualities that should be sought, primarily, in other aspects of our social life." He asks readers to value the federal government for the things it can provide, from the quotidian (the highway system) to the majestic (equal protection under the law). Ultimately, his book is an eloquent plea for the maturity that would enable Americans, after more than 200 years, to view government as "a necessary good." (Oct.)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster; 1st Edition edition (October 20, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684844893
• ISBN-13: 978-0684844893
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (52 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #813,600 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

67 of 79 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A thoroughly engaging book that seems to have been mis-read, November 10, 1999

By	a Republican (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews

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.

77 of 109 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Not his best -- Wills is looking like the Left's Bork, November 22, 1999

By	Glenn H. Reynolds "Instapundit" (Knoxville, TN USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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."

28 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars I liked it anyway!, February 5, 2000

By	James A. Richardson "[e-mail]" (Tucson, Arizona) - See all my reviews

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.