false 10 69 57 true 5800432 read 1 true 636600 currently-reading 11 true 636599 to-read http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175648 to: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia, #2) by C.S. Lewis
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175633 to: What Baby Needs (Sears Children Library) by William Sears
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175588 to: Jane Eyre (Penguin Classics) by Charlotte Brontë
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175574 to: The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Part 1) by J.R.R. Tolkien
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175568 to: The Hobbit: Or There and Back Again (Paperback) by J.R.R. Tolkien
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175514 to: Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl (Paperback) by Anne Frank
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/55175470 to: Moby-Dick: or, The Whale (Penguin Classics) by Herman Melville
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/22809992 The Third Policeman (Harper Perennial Modern Classics) by Flann O'Brien
bookshelves: currently-reading
]]> http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/27546182 to: Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream (Hardcover) by Ross Gregory Douthat
My interest in this book was sparked by an interview with the authors on NPR's "Fresh Air". Douthat and Salam are trying to create a new direction for the GOP by re-focusing traditional conservative ideals in a direction that the party hasn't, other than through lip service. Their goal is to make the GOP more relevant to the needs of working-class Americans (which they define as non-college graduates) by creating policies that address W-C concerns: job instability, instability in the traditional family unit, and health care.

They provide an interesting take on these issues, and some of their plans I wouldn't mind seeing implemented: like tax credits for parents who choose to take time off from work to raise young children, and governmental supplements for "sub-living wage" workers. Additionally, they are smart enough to acknowledge that anti-government rhetoric is self-defeating (although they don't point out that it is also anarchistic), and what most American's actually want is government that works efficiently.

However, there are some serious problems with the book. First of all, I find their lack of citations annoying. I don't believe that they are just making things up, I just like to know where they are getting their information from, especially when they make claims that divorce is a bigger problem for working-class families than middle-class ones. I'd like to know their sources to help me judge their credibility. Additionally, it would help if they would clarify claims like that one; by reading the book, the implication is that divorce does more economic damage to the W-C than the M-C, which while I don't have the evidence to dismiss that claim, they did not provide me with any to support it either. Having a number of these claims sans support really undermines their credibility.

Another problem was their history of the GOP of the last 60 years. I think they made a valiant effort to re-frame that history of GOP reformers who want to help the W-C being defeated by the short-sighted members/special interests in their own party and the Democrats who had their own agenda for the W-C. However, after this pattern is repeated over and over, it started to run thin, and the left-critique that the Republicans only care about the W-C during elections seemed more credible. Additionally, some of their defenses for the rise of uber-wealthy in the last 20 years because they created so much wealth for the nation seemed very dated considering the current economic state of the US.

Additionally, while I wouldn't claim that they are necessarily advocating the anti-intellectualism that has been rampant in the recent Right, their set-up does create and opposition between those with college education and those without. Additionally they ridicule the idea of liberal education in favor of more job training and vocational education, citing the example of English majors who can't write a business letter right out of college. The point that is missed is that while English majors might not learn the genre of business letters in their classes, they learn how to adapt to different genres, so can easily learn writing business letters, as well as reports, presentations, press releases, etc. Additionally, they gain analytical skills that can make them useful in other capacities to the company. Someone who is only trained to write business letters does not get the meta-skills involved. While might be nit picky of me, it seems that they want people to be productive workers, not necessarily productive contributors to both work and society.

But what troubles me more about their argument is that they are calling for the GOP to focus upon those who do not have college degrees (which isn't necessarily bad) based upon the idea that college education provides more economic stability. Considering that a college education is supposed to be so helpful, wouldn't it be better for them to advocate for better programs to help the W-C to get this benefit rather than advocate for more training/vocational programs? If getting a college-education makes them M-C and the M-C has an advantage, why not make college for everyone the focus in education, other than the W-C would no longer be W-C in their definition. That seems to be the crux of the problem. They are dependent upon having a group that does not have what they claim is an advantage. Ultimately, they are trying to make up for a disadvantage that does not have to exist. ]]>