Governments

This book is a keeper for all who cherish our freedom and should be read and re-read as a reminder of why this is a great country and why it prospered in relatively short order.

The first half of the book serves as a comprehensive survey of arguments brought against reform. He begins by analyzing why the proposed legislation would give incumbents enormous advantages over challengers. From there, he discusses how the term corruption has been expanded to mean anything that a legislator does to respond to the wishes of constituents who helped contribute to her campaign-whether or not a causal link can be established between particular contributions and particular legislation. He concludes it with a section on how limits placed on monetary expenditures made to pay for speech are, in fact, limits placed on speech itself because the expenditure of money to pay for speech is inextricably linked to speech itself.

In the second half, he deconstructs philosophical arguments used to justify reforms and turns them on their heads. He starts by pointing out that supporters of reform typically ignore the fact that most non-monetary means of influencing politicians are not distributed on an egalitarian basis. Thus, simply removing private contributions from our political system will not make everyone equal overnight. He develops this point by discussing the traditional notion of political equality-that "...Citizens are free to use their differing abilities, financial wherewithal, and personal disposition to become more or less active in political life, and to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a particular manner." He points out that campaign finance reform is nothing more than an attempt to narrow the pool of individuals afforded this freedom.

He concludes by hammering this point home: "...Because the First Amendment...makes no distinction between the different types of political influence, it allows a maximum number of voters to participate and helps to prevent any one faction or interest from gaining the upper hand in political debate." This Madisonian indictment of the campaign finance movement goes above and beyond merely attacking various legislative proposals as incumbent protection schemes. It cuts through all the political rhetoric and reveals what campaign finance reform really is: an attempt by a coalition of elite groups to cast the rules of political debate on their own terms.

If you're concerned about free speech, read this book. You won't be disappointed.

Indeed, from a historical perspective, the current crisis is really an anomaly. The modern feminist movement of the 60s taught that the only good woman is a career woman, and that homemaking and motherhood were to be despised and fled from. But interestingly, the women's movement prior to that fought for the right of a mother to stay at home with her young children, and not be conscripted into the paid workplace.

Thus the struggle for those in the earlier years of the women's movement was to protect women from the encroachment of market forces, and to prevent them from being forced into career at the expense of their families. Motherhood and homemaking, in other words, were seen as honorable and valuable ends in themselves.

But with the late 60s and onwards, the new wave of feminists took a totally different line: only in the paid workforce can a woman find meaning, freedom and dignity. Thus the vitriolic attack on mothers and the family. Betty Friedan therefore could call the home a "comfortable concentration camp" while Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown could label a mother and housewife as "a parasite, a dependent, a scrounger, a sponger ' a bum".

A woman's freedom, said these feminists, meant that a woman should and could be independent both in the economic and the reproductive realms. Women just do not need men, and are better off without them. Establishing a career and gaining financial independence is the first goal of the modern woman. And millions of Western women bought this line of thought.

Of course now the inherent contradictions are coming all too clear. Women who were told that they could have it all are now fining that they have very little. They may have a good job, but they have no husband or boyfriend, no children and no family. And many today are deeply regretful of this fact.

But it is not just women who have suffered at the hands of feminist orthodoxy. Children have been the big losers. Millions of children today are being raised by strangers. Yet all the social science research shows that children desperately need their mums and dads. No day care system can ever compete with the love and attention of a mother and a father.

Yet as Robertson documents, while the social research on all this is quite clear, very few are willing to promote the findings, for fear of incurring the wrath of feminists and of making working mums feel guilty. So although the research is clear, that attachment is important for infants and mother-child bonding is crucial, millions of mothers are ignoring the evidence, and their maternal instincts, and are abandoning their children in droves.

The harmful effects of extended periods of time for young children in day care are well documented in this book. Even child care workers admit that they would not dare to leave their own children in day care. Yet many mothers have been so indoctrinated into believing that their needs and desires must come first, that they are offering their children second best.

And seeking to alleviate the problems by better day care, more workplace flexibility, or seeking to obtain an unobtainable balance between work and family just is not sufficient. And it is not just short-sighted governments offering these inadequate solutions. The corporate world in effect has bought the feminist myth as well that women can have it all. But the truth is, they can't have it all, at least not at the same time. Thus more corporate day care centres will not solve the bigger problems.

Indeed, the corporations are shooting themselves in the foot here. The really productive worker is the worker who has a happy and satisfying home life. But the corporate world, even with generous paid maternity leave policies, cannot stop the hemorrhaging of the family. Maternal deprivation is harmful to children, and unhappy children make for unhappy families, and unhappy families result in poor workers.

Governments also lose, as they seek to press women into the paid workplace, and do not deal with the root causes as to why so many families are forced to have two incomes. By bribing mums into the paid work place, whether by child care subsidies or other financial incentives, the growing problem of falling fertility rates, for example, will only increase. Less people mean less taxable income, and the inability to pay for expensive social welfare programs.

Thus both governments and businesses need to radically rethink what family-friendly workplaces actually mean. Robertson concludes by proposing some radical measures to put the interests of families first. These are predicated on the principle that human societies need the traditional family structure with a mother as the principal caregiver. Marriage and family are non-negotiable first principles. If that is accepted, then the following steps can be explored:

-Treat families as a unit in the tax code
-End "no-fault" divorce
-Replace the current welfare system with one that does not encourage illegitimacy and undermine intact families
-Pare back affirmative action legislation and programs
-Give all parents, not just those in the paid work place, child care credits or tax breaks.

These and other proposals, will help to ensure that real family-friendly policies are pursued. Yet Robertson knows that legal and economic change alone is not enough. The much harder cultural element needs to be addressed. But we have to start somewhere. And this volume is a good beginning point.

Thomas Sowell is more than just a critical thinker: he has a penchant for expressing his ideas with a clarity with which it is difficult to argue. He uses that uncommon commodity known, for some strange reason, as "common sense."

Sowell points out`the ludicrous incongruities of the liberal "philosophy" in terms so plain and unvarnished that only one attempting a proctological examination on themselves could miss it.

An example: "The point of being a superpower is so that no one will attack you and require the sacrifice of more and more young Americans like those buried in this cemetery. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor because we were sitting ducks who had allowed our military forces to dwindle away until we had an army smaller than Portugal's--and not enough equipment even for this small force." Page 7.

Or: "Multiculturism is one of those affectations that people can indulge in when they are enjoying all the fruits of modern technology and can grandly disdain the processes that produced them. None of this would be anything more than another of the many foibles of the human race, except that the cult of multiculturism has become the new religion of our schools and colleges, contributing to the mushing of America. It has become part of the unexamined assumptions underlying public policy and even decisions in courts of law." Page 19.

Or: "Much of the current uproar about IQ differences between blacks and whites does not get down to the rock-bottom question: What is there to explain? The average score of blacks in IQ tests in the United States is about 85, compared to a national averge of 100. Is that unusual? No. It is not." He goes on to explain that various groups of various ancestries have had IQs of 85 at various times and places, and he names some of them, and says that the phenomenon is not peculiar to the United States, and he admits that he doesn't know why. Even American aoldiers of the First World War had lower IQs than our soldiers of the Second World War. Page 176.

This is a man to be reckoned with, and these essays are valuable for their insights, most of which effectively puncture widely and emotionally held ideas, especially those that are deemed "politically correct," and institutionalized unquestioned dogma of the liberal anointed who think they are qualified to tell the rest of us how to think and act.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

Sowell exercises with mastery and skillfully his favourite "hobby": bashing without mercy the anointed ones (leftists, in the peculiar sowellian vocabulary), giving no truces to their dogmas (lies) on the political, economical, social, racial and educational scenes, dismounting all them one by one.

"Barbarians inside the Gates" is an excellent work, from a leading figure of the movement against political correctness' intelectual dictatorship, constituting ammunition of the highest quality to be employed in the counter-cultural war on leftism.

This latest collection of his provocative essays will challenge the presumptions and beliefs of many people, especially in America. Sowell has a special talent for slicing through fallacies, poor research, and "mushy" thinking, and getting to the truth in practically any controversy. He's logical, but at the same time he writes from a 'common sense' perspective that can be readily understood by everyone. Everyone except, perhaps, the "anointed ones."

Covering culture, economics, politics, law, race, and education, the essays in this book will challenge your understanding of the world, as well as your thoughts on how society should deal with the many issues it faces.