Book Review: Watergate

Watergate: A Novel by Thomas Mallon (New York: Pantheon Books, 2012. 448 pp)

Thomas Mallon is an American author whose notable works include Henry and Clara, Bandbox, and Fellow Travelers. A specialist in non-fiction, Mallon focuses his studies on plagiarism, diaries, and the Kennedy assassination. A contributor to The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New York Times Book Review, Mallon earned his Ph.D. in English and American Literature from Harvard University. He has received the Guggenheim Fellowship, the Rockefeller Fellowship, and the National Book Critics award for reviewing. Currently, Mallon directs the Creative Writing program at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

The Passive Voice 

A writing technique I learned much too late in my academic life, I still struggle with active voicing. By preferring active verbs over passive verbs, a writer provides strong and compelling language for the reader. As a simple illustration, consider these two examples:

1. George passed the ball; 
2. The ball was passed by George. 

In the active voicing, the first sentence offers clear and precise prose describing an action by a character. In the passive voicing, the second sentence presents George as a background character. Even though both sentences describe the same action, the active sentence feels clearer.

Much like sentence construction, character development requires activity. Author Donald Miller once tweeted,

“If a character in a movie doesn’t know what he wants, the story drags. The same is true in life.”

Truthfully, passive characters create a boring story.

Sadly, in Thomas Mallon’s work of historical fiction, Watergate, the characters appear passive as if the mounting evidence surrounding the Watergate scandal influences the characters into action, rather than characters influencing Watergate.

A Scandal from the Top 

Richard Nixon

Born over a decade after the events occurring in the wake of a June 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters, I honestly admit to no rooting interest in the well-known controversy of Watergate. Housed within the acrid partisanship which permeates American society, the feelings of those who experienced the events must certainly equate to the party lines. As such, I do not accept Richard Nixon as the scapegoat for everything wrong with Republicanism or a victim of liberal politics.

Interestingly, Mallon decides to unveil the events of Watergate through a series of chapters containing multiple protagonists. With each chapter skipping a month or more ahead, Mallon reveals the dramatic events through susurrus dialogue between offending parties.

The Connecting Glue 

If I had to name a main character, Fred LaRue would earn the title. Present during the initial planning of the break-in and a crucial actor in the subsequent cover-up, LaRue forges the perfect bridge between the administration and the burglary.

“LaRue sat on the bed for a moment, silently reviewing the algebra that governed the room on the other side of the wall. Magruder hated Liddy. Mardian hated Magruder. Ehrlichman hated Mitchell. Mitchell hated Colson. And that was all before Friday night. He himself was a kind of lotion, a soother, the one most generally trusted because he was the one least thoroughly known” (41-42).

A Complicated President

President Nixon remains a complicated character, at times scurrilous and at others a fragile product of unalterable forces. Mallon illustrates this dichotomy well; he utilizes the First Lady, Pat Nixon, to describe the early days of the presidency:

“’I’m remembering a day late in ’68. A few weeks after the election. We were going from New York to Key Biscayne, and Johnson gave us Air Force One for the trip. We got on it together for the first time. And you know what he did? Dick?’
‘Tell me.’
‘He picked me up by the waist and spun me around. Twice. He hadn’t done that when we got the house in Whittier or even the one on Tilden Street, just a couple of miles from here. But that plane. That was carrying me over a threshold he could appreciate’” (216).

Here, Mallon carefully balances Nixon as a loving husband with Nixon as a power hungry politician.

Characters Influenced by Circumstance 

Watergate in 2 Covers

Despite these interesting character traits, passivity, like strong glue, connects the characters. Nobody truly feels guilty for the Watergate events because no single person feels directly responsible. With each character carrying substantial amounts of doubt, the circumstances surrounding the Watergate scandal act as the primary influencers in Mallon’s story. As an example, Rose Mary Woods, Nixon’s personal secretary cites the argument from authority as a defense against her guilt.

“If she passed the money on, would she be committing a crime? Would the lack of a specific instruction to have done so make her less guilty—or more? All her instincts spoke of the danger and foolishness of what she was about to do, but if this was the boss’s chosen course, she wasn’t going to second-guess him” (188).

By relaying guilt to her boss, Woods defends her actions as if she is incapable of defying orders. Interestingly, guilt exists in defying orders but not in covering up the scandal.

Ultimately, the same difficulties with a passive sentence exist in the characters of Watergate. A compelling character must act. Readers find entertainment in a driven character; they do not enjoy a character left swaying in the winds of lassitude. Even if Mallon intended to illustrate the nature of the political beast consuming the Nixon administration through no action of the characters, passiveness created a frustrating read. If you are interested in the Watergate scandal, Watergate might be an entertaining read. However, it did not do enough for me.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

What do you think? Did you experience Watergate? Do your political leanings influence your perception of Nixon? Can a passive character be intriguing?
Share your thoughts below.

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Powell's Indie Bound Amazon

Book Review: Abraham Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader by Abraham Kuyper; edited by James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998. 512 pp)

Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman, and theologian. Kuyper studied at Leiden University and received a doctorate in 1862. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and held the office of Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. A staunch Calvinist and a proponent of conservatism, Kuyper seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church and founded the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He published many books during his lifetime and died in the Netherlands in 1920.

James D. Bratt is a professor of history at Calvin College. He earned his B.A. from Calvin and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He is also the author of Dutch Calvinism in Modern America.

Comparative Advantage

The economic principle of comparative advantage offers an intuitive level of truth. It argues that individuals/institutions/states ought to produce items that best suit their talents. Comparative advantage is intuitive because it allows the entity to govern the action(s) at which it performs best. This very principle surrounds Abraham Kuyper’s notion of “sphere sovereignty,” the bedrock doctrine behind Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader which is a compilation of Kuyper’s influential writings.

Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper’s writing offers much to consider. As a man involved in the church, media, government, and academics, Kuyper dabbles in many spheres. Yet, one underlying principle in all of his work is the notion of sphere sovereignty, the belief that God, the sovereign being over all of life, grants authority to specific spheres to govern each sector to the best of its ability.

A staunch Calvinist, Kuyper conservatively follows in the footsteps of previous Reformed Dutch theologians. As such, Kuyper’s worldview flows from his understanding of God as an absolute sovereign being. Kuyper writes,

“Only God is Sovereign; He regards all creatures, born in royal palace or beggar’s hut, as nothing in comparison with Himself. One creature cannot have authority over another except as God gives it” (307).

Since Kuyper places absolute authority in the hands of God, he views the exertion of authority from one group of people onto another as an affront to the sovereignty of God. For example, when government legislates what the church can and cannot do, Kuyper believes that government has overstepped its sovereign boundaries. While not explicitly stated in a concise rubric, the notion of sphere sovereignty permeates all of Kuyper’s writing.

To understand sphere sovereignty more specifically, Government holds authority over the political realm; church convenes over spiritual matters; universities over matters of education; and businesses/unions on matters of work. Kuyper confirms this idea when he notes,

“State and society are not identical. The government is not the only sovereign in the country. Sovereignty exists in distinct spheres, and in each of these smaller circles this sovereignty is bound to primordial arrangements or ordinances that have been created not by the government but by the Creator of heaven and earth” (241).

Given this position, Kuyper believes that society functions best when each sphere governs itself. Any crossover between spheres in society falls into inefficiency at best and grave injustice at worst.

Real-Life Examples of Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper

Reacting against the injustices he readily viewed in Europe and in the colonies of the British Commonwealth, Kuyper proposed the separation of church and state found in the then still-fledgling United States and the separation of government and business in ancient Athenian democracy as examples of sphere sovereignty.

First, Kuyper found the physical and spiritual growth of the United States to be a direct result of the separation of church and state. He argues:

“No longer was there a church in the state nor a state bound to the church. The church of Christ was the point of departure. She was to make sure that the principles of justice and truth held sway in the hearts of the citizens, but the citizens in their everyday life found free organization in the state to be indispensable. Once the ideal of freedom had established itself in the bosom of the church, it inevitably sought civil rights in the domain of the state” (296).

Instead of the church-dominated legislation previously found in Europe, the church in the United States influenced the hearts of the population toward justice and, thus, influenced the legislation of government through the hearts of the citizens, not by the power of the priesthood.

Second, Kuyper found the example of Athenian democracy an excellent illustration of sphere sovereignty. Kuyper writes:

“A better way would have been to follow Solon’s approach in Athens instead of trying to imitate ancient Rome. Solon gave free rein to private initiative. He did not allow the government to get involved in business but merely stipulated that manual laborers constitute their own class of citizens, that nobody be allowed to have two trades at the same time, that foreigners from the outside be allowed to offer competition only if the local craftsmen agreed. Furthermore he gave industry the right to be sovereign in its own sphere and to make its own rules, the only restriction being that it was not to decide anything contrary to the law of the land” (244).

Again, Kuyper proposes that the sector most attuned to the operation ought to legislate its sphere. As Solon’s approach in Athens illustrates, those people that best know their trade will optimally legislate their sphere.

The Decision of One Sphere Influences Other Spheres

On the surface, the logic behind sphere sovereignty is compelling as comparative advantage illustrated earlier. It makes little sense for a career politician to decide the laws that are in the best interest of the church, business, or any other sphere. A carpenter will know the optimal way to fashion lumber; a priest will know the best way to shepherd the flock. But I am not ultimately convinced that sphere sovereignty offers the best solution for the way we organize society.

The decisions of one sphere will always influence other spheres. When business, for example, decides to pursue profit as its highest goal, it will make decisions that could negatively affect other stakeholders. Other spheres, then, have the right to condemn such actions.

At its core, I believe the danger of sphere sovereignty lies in the blinding nature of each sphere. The very reason that sphere sovereignty is compelling is the same reason why it is dangerous. Specific spheres best know their field; they also know little about how their decisions alter other fields.

Thus, I believe it is important for checks and balances between spheres. If one sphere negatively affects another, the other sphere ought to have the ability to authoritatively respond.

For Kuyper, sphere sovereignty begins with an absolutely sovereign God. For one sector to dictate the rules of another sector in society, then, is to reject God’s authority over all spheres. Each sphere, Kuyper argues, ought to sufficiently govern itself.

Despite the pull of comparative advantage that points toward agreement with Kuyper’s view on sphere sovereignty, I argue that sphere sovereignty presents danger for external stakeholders. Too often, people focused on one sphere will make decisions that are in the best interest of that specific sector but negatively harm other stakeholders.

Abraham Kuyper is an influential character in politics and theology. His theories carry much weight in modern thought and it is valuable to understand his positions. For this reason, I recommend Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader to anyone interested in theology, business, and politics.

Verdict: 3.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Second Treatise of Government

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, edited by C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980; originally published in 1690. 124 pp)

Widely known as the Father of Liberalism, John Locke’s work in epistemology and political philosophy has influenced countless nations. Born in 1632 in England, Locke attended Westminster School in London earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree. Having fled to the Netherlands to escape suspicion of an assassination plot, Locke began publishing his writing upon his return to England. With his writing gaining widespread influence, Locke died in 1704. He never married nor fathered children.

C.B. Macpherson was born in Toronto, Canada in 1911. From 1935 to his death in 1987, he taught primarily at the University of Toronto on political economy and political science. The author of numerous books, Macpherson received the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association in 1979.

“Mine!”

It begins early with a child yelling, “Mine!” We have all heard him/her bursting into tears and the quick crawl/run/waddle to a parent claiming the injustice of lost property. From an early age, we feel the seemingly self-evident truth of private property. We were given an object; we collected items; we connected those items in ways that made a new and much better object.

In all of these scenarios, we learned the idea of “mine.” In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the author presents a theological case for government authority through the principle of property.

The Premise of Property

Photo by Eduardo Amorim

Any discussion regarding John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government must center on property. A highly influential writing on political philosophy, Locke’s tome details the ways in which a society organizes and manages itself. But before one can state maxims regarding political government, one must discuss the reasons for organizing societal connections. For Locke, this reason begins with private property.

Locke’s justification for private property begins with the assumption that God the Creator fashioned a world for humanity to subdue and manage. Locke writes,

“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18).

The earth, then, exists in a supporting role to humankind; it carries no first order intrinsic value. Instead, it functions instrumentally for the good of humanity.

From this position, Locke believes that private property arises from mixing personal labor with land from the God-given commons of the earth. Locke argues,

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (19).

Thus, while God provides commons for the good of all humanity, the ability for any human to conduct work allows him or her to transfer land held in common into private property.

To illustrate, under Locke’s philosophy of property, I cannot travel to a pristine wilderness and, upon discovering it, proclaim the land my property. Instead, I must cultivate this discovered land. By building on it and utilizing its soil for food, I then possess the right to proclaim the land my private property.

In short then, Locke suggests that God, who created humanity through labor, considers humans God’s property. God provides the earth as a common for which humans can use their God-given gifts of manual labor to cultivate and transfer the earth into private hands.

Governance

The need for political government arises from this principle of private property. When a society expands beyond the simplicity of cultivating open commons into private property, the need to protect and govern property becomes an important issue. Locke reasons,

“Political power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property” (89).

Even though the Second Treatise of Government explores many specific matters in the execution of governmental affairs in a united society, the core principles behind these discussions surround Locke’s theological notion of property and the need for governing those God-given rights.

Locke: An American Ideal

Interestingly, I find that Locke’s arguments sound natural as if they are ingrained in the psyche of American society and capitalism as a whole. John Dunn, in an essay titled “Measuring Locke’s Shadow” confirms this idea when he writes,

“Locke is still intractably America’s philosopher, and still very much America’s philosopher for what still seems ever more peremptorily America’s globe. He is the sign on the banner of America’s imperious external reach, her cultural, imaginative, ideological, economic, and even political Griff nach der Weltmacht [bid for world power].”

Put differently, Locke’s ideas on property and the need for government to authorize and protect it are the modus operandi for American business and politics.

Property as Dominance

John Locke

In fact, Locke’s ideas seem to be the foundation for the domination of nature for which society now encounters drastic repercussions. In other words, to align theologically with Locke’s views on property, one must translate “dominion” in Genesis 1:28 as “domination.” What else could private property mean other than the absolute control of a specific portion of God’s creation?

By assuming “domination” of God’s creation in Genesis 1:28, I find tension in Locke’s arguments. Given Locke’s premises, God owns humanity because God created us through work. Under the same assumption, God possesses all of creation. Therefore, humans cannot possess an absolute right over a portion of creation because they were not the first to labor on it.

It then follows that the God-given commons for which humans carry the right to fill and subdue is not a space which humans carry the right to section off into private property but an area owned by God given to humans in common to share and steward for the good of the whole.

Locke centers his political philosophy on a theological case for private property. By mixing labor with the God-given commons, private property arises. As an extension, political governance exists to protect that property. Nevertheless, the notion that God created and thus possesses the created world forces us to consider the earth in stewardship instead of domination. Even though we feel the pull of private property from an early age, our connection to an item through work does not require it to become our private possession.

With dense philosophical writing, Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a difficult but rewarding read. Despite my reservations regarding Locke’s premises, this book is a must read for anyone interested in politics.

Verdict: 4 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: God the Economist

God the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy by M. Douglas Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. 272 pp.)

Currently the Cal Turner Chancellor’s Chair in Wesleyan Studies and Theology at Vanderbilt University, M. Douglas Meeks is a renowned researcher on the relation of Christian doctrine to economic, social, and political theory. Dr. Meeks earned both his B.D. and Ph.D. from Duke University and studied as a Fulbright Fellow at Tübingen University. In his previous appointment, he served as the dean and professor of systematic theology at Wesley Theological Seminary. Dr. Meeks has authored 16 books and numerous scholarly articles. He is an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church serving as the Director of Wesleyan Studies and the United Methodist Programs.

A Global Community

With the world flattening as Thomas Friedman so famously noted, it is becoming increasingly easy to make relational connections with the worldwide community. Where in the past, the culture of foreign lands seemed distant and, well, foreign, current urban centers amalgamate a myriad of cultures. In other words, the modern age illustrates the ease in which citizens throughout the world can consider the globe as a community.

Yet, business often operates under individualistic principles. Functioning under the theory of self-interest, many companies seek to further their interests only. Is there a theological case to be made for or against these current business practices? In his book, God the Economist, M. Douglas Meeks argues against the current marketplace practices and proposes a dramatic redefinition of “economy.”

Economist Etymology

The premise behind God the Economist is an etymological study of the word “economy.” Current conceptions of the economy conjure visions of a global marketplace and transnational transactions. But, where does the word “economy” come from? Citing the etymology of the word, M. Douglas Meeks suggests that “economy” should be understood through its Greek roots, oikos and nomos or “household” and “rule or law”.

In other words, the source of the term “economy” comes from the word for the household manager. In Greco-Roman times, commerce functioned between households, not companies; the family managed the business, and the marketplace existed as a portion of familial life.

In contrast, current cultural norms bifurcate work life and home life. Given the ancient term defining the economist as household manager, Meeks offers God the Economist as a new metaphor for God. He writes,

“Many of the biblical traditions represent God as engaged in creating, sustaining, and recreating households. Household can refer to the people Israel of the church of Jesus Christ, to families to a royal court or dynasty, to a place of God’s abode, or, in the most comprehensive sense, to the whole creation. God has made Godself responsible for the households of Israel and the church, the households of nations, and the household of everything God has brought into being. The oikonomia tou theo (economy of God) applies to the life of the Christian community (Col. 1:25; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 1 Tim. 1:4) as well as to God’s work of creating salvation for the household of the creation (Eph. 1:9-10; 3:9-10). Because of the peculiar promises made by this God, the life of God is inextricably connected with the livelihood and future of these households” (4).

Stated differently, although the modern conception of economy functions remarkably well, it neglects the comprehensive and communal meaning behind the economy – managing the household. This metaphor for God argues for the importance of human livelihood, the significance of a household community above profit.

 The Household Economy as Community

Considering the household community ethic with God understood as an economist, Meeks asserts that the economy ought to perform a transformative task writing,

“it can be said that a theological correlation of the God of Jesus Christ and economy should take place in the midst of and for the sake of those who have been denied access to the household in our society and to the global household” (42-43). 

The economy ought not function as a means to ascertain personal needs; it exists as a global household where economics functions as a way in which we relate to each other and serve the poor in order to transform all of society.

The Importance of Service

As the etymology of “economist” suggests, the term defined the household servant in antiquity. The ancient economist served the interests of the household community and entered the marketplace with the household in mind.

Since Scripture frequently mentions the servant-nature of God (see 1 Cor. 1:20-32 and Matt. 6:33 among many others), it is natural to view God as the household economist who acts for the common good of the household.

Arguments Against a Self-Interested Marketplace

What does it mean, however, for businesses to elevate community above profit? Meeks contends that a dramatic shifting of the marketplace must occur.

Currently, markets function under the capitalist assumptions of Adam Smith. With an ethical system based in egoistic consequentialism, business practitioners versed in Adam Smith’s theories trade under the principles of self-interest. In other words, self-interest moderates the marketplace and increases efficiency as everyone produces goods and services at a comparative advantage.

This theory, however, is exceedingly individualistic. By nature, the person in the marketplace looks after her interests and expects everyone else to do the same. In this rubric, it is quite easy for individuals to receive the proverbial short end of the stick.

Growth for Self or Growth for Others

Stated differently, current business practices function on the principle of exchange. With scarce resources, people in the marketplace seek to exchange goods and services in order to maximize individual gain. Under this assumption, modern economists believe that exchange will foster growth for citizens worldwide.

From the perspective of a household economy, unlimited growth is not the ultimate goal. Meeks writes,

“Growth should not be based on infinite needs and acquisition leading to an ever-widening appropriation of nature for the sake of accumulation of wealth as power. Rather growth should be a deepening of human capacities for the service of human development within community” (57).

Again, the critical argument Meeks presents is grounded in the value of the household community in the market place. By inference, the individual exists for the purpose of community, not individuality.

Reconstructing Business as a Household

While God the Economist discusses the Christian principles for rethinking the definition of economy and critiques the modern conception of the marketplace, it does very little reconstruction. However, the principles in the book offer a foundation for Christian-based business operations in the current market.  

First, Christians in business must reconsider the classical view of Capitalism presented by Adam Smith. Despite the success of the self-interest system in the marketplace, its individualistic outlook on life makes the creation of community problematic.

Second, the metaphor of God as an economist presents God as a servant leader. Just as the ancient household manager performed business operations with the household in mind, so too does God serve the needs of the global household.

As a Christian in the marketplace, the principle of service is necessary in order to maximize the usefulness of profits for others. The marketplace ought to function for the good of everyone. Thus, as it becomes increasingly easy to connect with the globe, the notion of serving the worldwide community will become more important. For these reasons, I recommend this book!