Book Review: It's Even Worse Than It Looks, by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein (2012)

Paperback cover of It's Even Worse Than It Looks, by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, 2012.

Why is Congress so gridlocked? Why can’t anything get done in Washington D.C.? Political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein attempt to answer those questions, and others, in their excellent 2012 book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. Mann and Ornstein are both non-partisan political analysts, so they don’t have a partisan axe to grind, but they do place much of the blame squarely on a Republican party that has moved much farther to the right, and has refused to work with President Obama at all. 

In the Introduction, Mann and Ornstein write:

“One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier-ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” (Mann and Ornstein, p.xxiv) 

I think Mann and Ornstein have hit the nail on the head. I’m a liberal Democrat, so I have my own biases, but from where I stand, it’s not that the Democrats are getting any more liberal, it’s that the Republicans have taken a sharp turn to the right. Liberal and moderate Republicans are an endangered species, if not outright extinct. Nelson Rockefeller, who was something of an outsider in the Republican Party during his own lifetime, wouldn’t be able to find a place inside the Republican Party in 2014. Republicans have demanded a stifling orthodoxy of all their members, and the insurgent Tea Partiers have made sure that anyone not toeing the line will see a primary challenge from the far right. 

Republicans have made it very clear from day one of Obama’s Presidency that they were just waiting out the clock, and wouldn’t lift a finger to help him. This has hurt our country, as the Republican party has not offered any ideas of its own, but just turned into an obstructionist faction. Of course, it’s natural for the party opposing the President to not just roll over and give the President what he wants, but Republicans have taken obstructionism to a whole new level. The Republican party of 2014 doesn’t have an agenda beyond just opposing Obama’s policies. What do they stand for? It’s a question the party has to ask itself. If they keep only appealing to old, rich, straight white men, they won’t win any more Presidential elections.  

Part of the problem with gridlock in Congress is that our political system is designed to be hard to change. It’s meant to be difficult for a simple majority to completely override the minority party. And while that might be a good thing in the long run, it also means that it’s extremely difficult to get anything done in the short term.

Mann and Ornstein also discuss other problems facing contemporary politics, like the proliferation of Super PACs and unregulated money that has poured into the political system since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010. Stephen Colbert has often highlighted the absurdity of the rules surrounding Super PACs by forming his own Super PAC in 2011, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.” Colbert deftly showed how much of the money going to Super PACs is untraceable, and how the contributors’ identities remain secret. 

Fortunately, lest you get too depressed by Mann and Ornstein’s compendium of the political madness of the 2010’s, the authors also have a long section of the book in which they propose solutions to some of these maladies. Some of their solutions are modernizing voter registration to increase turnout, which Republicans have been overwhelmingly against, making Election Day a holiday, and making voting compulsory. They also mention doing away with mid-term elections, which would be a great idea, as turnout in the 2014 mid-terms was a pitiful 36.4%, the lowest since 1942. Changing to open primaries would be a great idea to get candidates for office that are more moderate, since they would have to appeal to more people than just the base of their own party. Another solution Mann and Ornstein suggest is limiting the number of filibusters in the Senate, which would greatly increase the amount of floor time available for debate. 

It’s Even Worse Than It Looks is an excellent look at the politics of today, and I would recommend it to anyone wondering why Congress is so ineffective.

Book Review: Once Upon a Secret, by Mimi Alford (2012)

The cover of Once Upon a Secret, by Mimi Alford, 2012.

Mimi Beardsley, circa 1962. She was an intern in the White House press office during the summer of 1962, and worked at the White House again during the summer of 1963.

President John F. Kennedy. He wouldn't have been smiling if he had ever had to field questions from the press about his extramarital affairs.

John F. Kennedy once said that the reason we read biographies is to answer the question, “What was he like?” That’s certainly the reason that Kennedy still intrigues people more than 50 years after his tragic death. Personally, I find JFK to be one of the most interesting Presidents, so I was fascinated by Mimi Alford’s excellent 2012 book, Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and its Aftermath. Alford, then known by her maiden name as Mimi Beardsley, was a 19-year-old college student and intern in the White House press office during the summer of 1962. On her fourth day on the job, presidential aide Dave Powers invited her to go swimming in the White House pool during lunch. She said yes, and joining her for the swim were two White House secretaries and the President. At the end of the day, Powers invited Beardsley to a party for new White House staffers. She accepted, and once again, President Kennedy was there. Later that evening he took her on a tour of the private residence and had sex with Alford in First Lady Jackie Kennedy’s bedroom. Mimi Beardsley lost her virginity in 1962. To John F. Kennedy. While he was President. In the White House. Wow, now that’s a story.

Kennedy seduced many women, both before and throughout his Presidency. He once said to British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, “I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don’t have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches.” (President Kennedy: Profile of Power, by Richard Reeves, p.290) Despite his charm and good looks, Kennedy wasn’t known to be a great lover. Actress Angie Dickinson was rumored to have had a relationship with JFK, and this quote has often been attributed to her: “Sleeping with the President was the greatest 20 seconds of my life.” That pretty much sums up John F. Kennedy’s attitude towards sex. It was definitely all about his pleasure, not hers. Beardsley writes that her first sexual experience with Kennedy was brief, but later on she writes “As time went by, he was also more attentive, more gentlemanly than he had been in our first encounter…Our sexual relationship was varied and fun.” (Alford, p.65) 

Kennedy saw Beardsley regularly for the rest of the summer of 1962, and their sexual relationship continued. Kennedy even continued seeing Beardsley after she went back to college in the fall, using a fake name to place phone calls to her dorm, and arranging for her to make weekend trips back to the White House. Beardsley was even in the White House during one of the most tense days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. The reason that Beardsley was able to sleep over at the White House so often was that Jackie Kennedy was hardly ever at the White House, which is ironic, since one of the most famous things that Jackie Kennedy did as First Lady was to oversee a remodeling of the White House. But Jackie hated politics, and wanted to ride horses in the country, so she spent most of her time at Glen Ora, the Kennedys’ house in rural Virginia. 

Beardsley also traveled with the President, making several trips as a part of the President’s entourage. I was surprised as I read the book by how much time Beardsley spent with Kennedy. She spent many, many hours in his company during 1962 and 1963, which made me wonder, how deep was their relationship? What would Kennedy have said about their relationship, how would he have defined it? I don’t think that he was in love with her, but he was obviously drawn to her, and there must have been a reason other than sex that he spent so much time with her. For her the relationship was something like a schoolgirl crush, but what was the relationship like for him? Kennedy obviously enjoyed Beardsley’s company; otherwise he wouldn’t have gone to such great lengths to keep seeing her. 

Beardsley continued working in the White House during the summer of 1963, even as she got engaged to Tony Fahnestock, a college student at Williams. Beardsley knew that she would eventually quit working at the White House and stop seeing President Kennedy. The last time she saw Kennedy was at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City on Friday, November 15, 1963. Kennedy gave her $300 and told her to buy something nice, as his wedding present to her. Kennedy told Beardsley, “I wish you were coming with me to Texas. I’ll call you when I get back.” (Alford, p.127) A week later Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

The second half of Once Upon a Secret deals with how the secret that Alford kept for so long affected her relationships in her life. She told her fiancé Tony about her affair with JFK on the night of November 22, 1963, as they were watching television coverage in the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination. Tony took the news poorly and made Mimi promise that she would never tell anyone, ever. Their marriage eventually crumbled, and they divorced. Alford writes very well about her struggles on her journey to becoming a woman who is happy with herself and who can love someone on her own terms. She has been happily married to Dick Alford since 2005. Her secret relationship with JFK remained something that she had only shared with a few people until May of 2003. There was a reference to Alford in an oral history that Robert Dallek quoted in his acclaimed biography of JFK, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963, although she wasn’t named. But soon the press figured out her identity, and reporters were stalking her. Alford made a brief statement confirming her relationship with JFK, but didn’t give any interviews to the press. 

Once Upon a Secret is an excellent book, and I applaud Alford for telling the truth, even when it’s difficult. Her book sheds new light on John F. Kennedy, and he comes off as a very flawed human, but still likeable.

Book Review: How Music Works, by David Byrne (2012)

How Music Works, by David Byrne, 2012.

David Byrne. He looks like he's about to go for a bike ride.

Duke Ellington once said that there are only two types of music: good and bad. I love that quote, and I’m pretty sure that musical omnivore David Byrne would agree with it. Byrne’s 2012 book How Music Works examines many different aspects of music, from a history of how music has been recorded to the financial breakdown of the expenses of recording Byrne’s 2004 solo album “Grown Backwards.” I’m a big fan of Byrne’s music, so I was very interested to read How Music Works. 

How Music Works is a very good and interesting book, but it’s not always a successful one, as it feels like two different books in one. For me, the most successful chapters were the ones in the middle of the book that were informed by Byrne’s own life experiences in music. The least interesting chapters were at the beginning and end, where Byrne is writing about general theories. Those chapters felt very impersonal; a lot of it is Byrne recapping other people’s research about music. Byrne is a smart guy, he has done his homework and he breaks down complex theories into clear prose. Byrne discusses how music has powerful effects on people, but he never gives us any personal examples. I’m sure there are pieces of music that have deeply moved him, but we don’t get to hear about them. I think these chapters would have been stronger if Byrne had made them more personal.

How Music Works is not an autobiography or a memoir. While Byrne does go into some personal details about his solo career and the records he made as part of Talking Heads, don’t expect any dirt to be dished. Byrne discusses how during the making of Talking Heads’ classic 1980 album “Remain In Light,” the band recorded all of the music first, and then he went off alone to write the lyrics for those songs, which were overdubbed later. It’s a fascinating way to work, and Byrne goes into some detail about the sessions for “Remain In Light.” Then he writes, “We did another record, ‘Speaking In Tongues,’ that continued with this idea of using improvised initial riffs and gibberish vocals as a guide for lyric writing. That record turned out to be the most commercially successful so far.” That’s all you get about “Speaking In Tongues.”  He doesn’t even mention that the title “Speaking In Tongues” came from his method of singing gibberish until the final words were written. Oh well. We do learn that Byrne was very disappointed with the way the first Talking Heads album turned out. He writes, “When we eventually made our first proper record, ‘Talking Heads: 77,’ it was by and large a miserable experience. Nothing really sounded like it did in our heads, or like we were used to hearing ourselves on stage.” 

After the middle three chapters of the book, which I found to be fascinating, I found the last three chapters of How Music Works to be pretty dull. I can understand how people might feel the opposite, as they might not be too intrigued by how much money Byrne made from “Grown Backwards.” But I find that kind of thing fascinating, and I enjoy reading about the finances of the music world. Back to the last three chapters that I didn’t care for. Chapter 8, “How to Make a Scene,” is basically about the New York music scene around the nightclub/bar CBGB’s in the 1970’s. Byrne spells out things necessary to support musical creativity in an area, like low rent, free admission for other musicians, and that you should be able to ignore the band that’s playing. Well, okay. But people can and do create music everywhere, no matter if the place they’re in is supporting a scene or not. 

Chapter 9, “Amateurs!” really annoyed me. In the chapter, Byrne criticizes art museums for organizing exhibitions that are popular. I’m not sure what offense he takes at this. Byrne makes it clear that he doesn’t like museums telling people what is great art and what is not. Fine, but part of the museum’s job is to preserve the art that they have and to exhibit it so people can see it. The reason museums organize “blockbuster” exhibitions is to get people who wouldn’t ordinarily go to a museum in the door. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m a firm believer that everyone, rich or poor, needs exposure to the arts. It doesn’t matter what art they like, or how they interpret the art. But I do believe that if people are exposed to the arts, they will find art that they like, which is a very good thing. Art, be it paintings, sculptures, music, movies, or books, enriches our lives. Art takes us on voyages to places that we might not otherwise visit. If believing those things makes me an elitist, well, so be it. 

Byrne resents the fact that rich people have valued classical music over other forms of music. Sure, valuing one form of music over another might be silly. For whatever reason, classical music does have a cultural cache that other forms of music simply don’t have. What Byrne seems to miss in this chapter is that innumerable museums and cultural institutions in the United States owe their very existence to rich people. Ever heard of the Carnegie Libraries? Those were all started by a rich guy. Byrne seems annoyed that orchestras get funding from state governments, while other forms of music aren’t funded as much, if at all. The reason that orchestras are supported by tax dollars is that they need to be. Pop music isn’t usually supported by tax dollars because pop music supports itself. Katy Perry doesn’t need state funding, the Minnesota Orchestra does. I think that some people take a great deal of civic pride in the cultural institutions of their city and state. I know I certainly do. When you live in the Midwest, you sometimes need to remind people on both coasts that yes, we do have culture here in fly-over land. I’m extremely proud of the cultural institutions of Minnesota, as they are a big part of what makes Minnesota a great place to live.

Byrne writes in chapter 9 that “There are some classical works that I do genuinely enjoy, but I never got Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven-and I don’t feel any worse for it.” Part of me wants to say, “Really? Beethoven’s 9^th does nothing for you? The Magic Flute is just meh?” I could go on, but I won’t. I do feel that this quote reveals some of Byrne’s agenda for the chapter. Yeah, if you don’t “get” three of the greatest classical composers ever, you’re probably not going to be a big fan of all the philanthropy that supports classical music. 

Chapter 10, “Harmonia Mundi,” attempts to answer the question, why do we need music? Byrne cites lots of sources, but doesn’t add anything from his own experience to help answer the question. Which is fine, but the chapter just dragged for me.

Despite my criticisms of some of Byrne’s arguments, I would highly recommend How Music Works to fans of any type of music. As I said before, Byrne is a very smart man who writes very well about music.

Book Review: "Who Stole the American Dream?" by Hedrick Smith (2012)

"Who Stole the American Dream?" by Hedrick Smith, 2012.

Hedrick Smith

Hedrick Smith’s 2012 book “Who Stole the American Dream?” is a powerful look at the way things have shifted against the middle class over the last 40 years in America. It’s an important book that everyone interested in American politics or economics should read. 

Hedrick Smith is a veteran journalist who worked for The New York Times for 26 years. While he was with the Times Smith was a part of the team that broke the Pentagon Papers story and won a Pulitzer Prize in 1971. In 1974 Smith won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for his stories reporting from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. His work in the Soviet Union was the basis for his 1976 best-seller “The Russians.” Smith’s other books include “The Power Game,” his seminal study of political power in Washington, D.C., “The New Russians,” and “Rethinking America.” Since retiring from The New York Times, Smith has produced many documentaries for PBS. 

I was an intern in Hedrick Smith’s office during the fall of 2001. While I was there I helped work on Smith’s documentary “Rediscovering Dave Brubeck,” which I would highly recommend to any jazz fan. While I interned at Hedrick Smith Productions, I saw first-hand Smith’s tireless work ethic and his dedication to journalism. He’s won two Pulitzer Prizes, but he’s not just resting on his laurels.

Smith’s reporting for “Who Stole the American Dream?” is deep and incisive. He weaves the threads of his story together very well, writing in clear prose that is easy to understand. The book covers a lot of ground, but Smith excels in presenting the reader with the most relevant points in each chapter. The book is separated into short sections that make for quick reading.

Smith does a great job of showing how many government policies over the last 40 years have favored the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor. As Smith writes in the Prologue:

“This book sets out to describe how, over the past four decades, we came to this point-how we became two such polarized and dissimilar Americas, how the great economic and political divide affects the lives of individual Americans, and how we might, through changed policies and a revival of citizen action, restore our unity and reclaim the American Dream for average people.” (Prologue, p. xix) 

In the first chapter, Smith stresses the influence of the Powell Memorandum, which was a call by lawyer Lewis Powell in 1971 for increased activism of business to strength their position and influence within government. At the time, Powell was a corporate lawyer, but a few months later he would be named to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon. The Powell Memorandum was written to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and it was not meant for public consumption at the time. The memorandum said, in part, “Business must learn the lesson…that political power is necessary.” (P.7) During the 1970’s business interests would take Powell’s message to heart as they began to lobby Congress in much greater numbers than ever before. 

Smith then chronicles how the middle class grew and flourished in the decades following World War II, and how the middle class’s earnings have stagnated over the last 30 years. As he writes, “…while productivity was rising close to 3 percent a year, hourly wages of the average worker, adjusted for inflation, were essentially flat, the same in 2011 as in 1978. Three decades of getting nowhere.” (P.73)

But while the middle class has been treading water for 30 years, the wealthy have been getting richer and richer, as compensation for CEOs of companies has skyrocketed over the last 40 years. Smith writes, “In the 1970s, the Federal Reserve reported that chief executives at 102 major companies were paid $1.2 million on average, adjusted for inflation, or roughly 40 times an average full-time worker’s pay. But by the early 2000s, CEOs at big companies had enjoyed such a meteoric rise that their average compensation topped $9 million a year, or 367 times the pay of the average worker.” (P.59) CEOs certainly have a right to be well compensated for their work, but the way their pay has skyrocketed is outrageous. CEO stock options have also skyrocketed in the last few decades. The thought is that CEOs will do a better job of leading the company if they have more of a stake in that company. Which is rather ridiculous, as pure self-interest will keep a CEO doing their job as best they can. The suggestion that CEOs need the extra incentive provided by stock options to do the best for their company is absurd. 

Smith also writes about Congress, and how politicians are more beholden to special interests than actual voters. The reality of politics today is that money buys you access to a politician, and access gets you influence. And since special interests are contributing more to PACs than middle class and lower class voters, the special interests have more influence than ordinary voters. Gun control is a recent example of an issue where the majority of people want action, but Congress was unable and unwilling to do anything substantive on the issue. The will of a majority was thwarted by a powerful minority. 

Smith details how Congress used to work in the 1950’s and 1960’s, as politicians from both parties would frequently work together to craft legislation. Compromise was essential, and there were more moderate politicians in both parties. In contrast, Congress now is extremely dysfunctional, and is barely able to pass any kind of legislation. Compromise has become a dirty word. Filibusters, and the threat of them, have become much more common. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution says of the Senate: “In the 1960s, about 8 percent of significant legislation was subject to delaying tactics like filibusters or holds. It is now about 70 percent. Obstructionism is now the hallmark of the Senate.” (P. 322) 

 While it’s true that Democrats have become slightly more liberal, it’s also very true that the Republican Party has shifted steadily to the right since the 1960’s. Moderate Republicans are now an endangered species. One of the key moments in the Republican Party’s shift to the right was the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater as the Republican candidate for President. Smith and other authors have highlighted this turning point as the moment when the right wing started to take over the party. Even though Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide, it was the moment when the right wing first asserted itself. When moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller was booed by Goldwater supporters at the 1964 convention, it marked the beginning of a huge change in the Republican Party. 

In Part 4 of the book, Smith discusses many of the things that have caused the middle class to lose their wealth, from the subprime mortgage crisis, to Wal-Mart and other companies moving good jobs overseas. There was a time when companies were actually concerned about the welfare of their employees. Now the focus is often only on the bottom line of the balance sheet.

“Who Stole the American Dream?” is a book that should make you angry. It should make you think about what’s happened in the country over the last 40 years, and how the wealth disparity in this country is growing larger and larger. You should get indignant about the status quo as you read this book. My high school Social Studies teacher Mr. Anderson would always say to us “Be indignant!” He wanted us to have a reaction to current events, and Hedrick Smith wants us to have a similar reaction to his book.

In the final section of “Who Stole the American Dream?” Smith focuses on possible solutions to the problem and how we can rebuild the middle class. None of the solutions he proposes are easy, and none of them will be a quick fix. Some of them require direct citizen action. It might not be easy, but there are ways that we can change things in this country and take action to help rebuild the middle class. 

Personally, I think that Hedrick Smith hit the nail on the head with “Who Stole the American Dream?” He accurately diagnoses many of the maladies that plague our country today. He describes how we’ve gotten there over the last 40 years, and what can be done to change it. We would all do well to listen to him.