Book Reviews

BOOKS The American Economy in the Twentieth Century by Gene Smiley South-Western Publishing Co.• 1994 • 442 pages. $38.85 Reviewed by Mark Skousen U ncork the champagne! It's time to celebrate! The first free-market economic history text book is now available for college students. The American Economy in the Twentieth Century is written by Gene Smiley, economics professor at Marquette University, and published by South Western, a major college textbook publisher. There is much to applaud. Smiley's textbook is lucid, interesting, well-documented, and re plete with charts and graphs. Professor Smiley views it as a supplemental text because it covers only the twentieth cen tury. But, as any student knows, pre-twentieth century economic history is somewhat dry, and most professors don't spend enough time on the twentieth century, where the hot issues of eco nomic theory and government policies surface.

Smiley doesn't just recount economic history, he addresses all the major debates. He does a masterful job of expounding on the theories and policies surrounding the two world wars, the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression, and the postwar modern economy, giving fair treatment to all points of view. What makes this text so different from all others? Lots ofthings. I particularly like chapters six through eight on government intervention in the economy during the critical period 1920-40. • Chapter 6, "The Role of Government, 1920 1940: Monetary and Fiscal Policies and the New Deal," reveals new research on the booming 1920s, the evolution of monetary policy under a flawed internationalgold standard,and the pros and cons of the New Deal. • Chapter 7, "What Caused the Great Depres sion?," is the most comprehensive piece ever written on the subject. It includes a full Austrian explanation, normally missing from standard textbooks. But it doesn't shortchange Monetar ist, Keynesian, and other explanations. Instruc529 tors need not be concerned about bias in this textbook. Smiley really does offer equal time for all schools of thought. Moreover, he doesn't ignore any of his critics, a chronic disease among many academics .

• Chapter 8, "The American Economy During the 1940s," includes new research questioning the magnitude of the recovery during World War II, based on breakthrough research by historian Robert Higgs and others. In addition, Smiley gives an objective analysis of public-sector unionism, the agricultural short ages and energy crises of the 1970s,and the farm debt and banking crises. In all these controversial issues, the author focuses on the role of govern ment. I also found fascinating his extensive coverage of the dramatic changes in technology and in dustry during the twentieth century. He has an entire chapter on the communications revolu tion, including radio and TV, often overlooked in mainstream textbooks. Another chapter is de voted to developments in retail trade. He covers finance, banking, international trade, labor, ag riculture, and manufacturing. Finally, Smiley has a thought-provoking chapter on the distribution of income.

I recommend this textbook to all economic historians and students who desire afull and fair examination of what Paul Johnson labels the century of" superpower and genocide" and Car roll Quigley calls the generation of "tragedy and hope." D Dr. Skousen, an economist at Rollins College and editor of Forecasts & Strategies, writes a monthly Freeman column. Taxation and Confiscation with an introduction by Hans F. Sennholz The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. 1993 .208 pages. $14.95 paperback Reviewed by Daniel J. Pilla W ashington lawmakers are slowly beginning to admit a fact many of us have known for some time: our tax system is broken beyond repair. The grumblings have led to a stream of major tax-change proposals such as I have not seen in 15 years. Some advocate a flat tax, and 530 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1995 others seek an even steeper graduated tax. Some call for a European-style value added tax and still others hope to create a pure consumption-based sales tax.

The center of the debate is the question of what type of tax system will raise the revenue de manded by the federal government. Lawmakers wrestle with increasing deficits and what appears to be a decreasing tax base. Since wages and income are the base upon which 80 percent of all federal revenue is raised, and since real wages are in decline, the genuine question of "what to tax and in what amounts" seems difficultto answer. Throughout the entire debate, however, we have not seen the joinder of what I believe is the seminal question. The questions of what to tax and in what amounts are, in fact, secondary. The principal question America should be asking is, whether to tax in the first place. Taxation, after all, is the primary means by which the functions of government are carried out. If we do not address the seminal question of whether to tax, the supposition is that any action the government undertakes is legitimate, providing it can be funded. This supposition is not only erroneous, it is most dangerous, as evidenced by our current federal debt.

The essays presented by FEE in Taxation and Confiscation are particularly relevant to this debate. Not only do the various authors address the secondary questions of what to tax and in what amounts, but the crucial threshold ques tion is reached. In this regard, I am particularly impressed with Clarence Carson's discussion of the "general welfare" clause of the United States Constitution. I am well satisfied it is the single most misunderstood phrase in the Constitution, if not the entire body of American law. The "general welfare" clause has been used, or rather misused, to erect a welfare state which our Founding Fathers clearly never intended. In Taxation and Confiscation, Carson establishes the true meaning of the phrase, then skillfully answers the question' 'whether to tax. " U ntiI we all understand what he teaches, I fear there is little hope of dismantling the costly federal levi athan.

The collection of essays which comprise the pages of Taxation and Confiscation go well beyond this issue. From the pen of various authors, including William Henry Chamberlin and Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., we are taught im portant lessons about the nature of a fair tax system and the elements of the economy which form a sound tax base. Another issue which is treated extensively in the book is the question of whether and to what extent a tax system should impose burdens upon capital. Authorities including Hans F. Sennholz, Robert G. Anderson, and John Semmens paint a clear and unmistakable picture of the relation ship between capital and strong, sustainable economic growth. The case is plainlY made for relieving the tax burden on America's capital. The one drawback to the book is the fact that some of the essays present economic statistics which are out of date. For example, the essay by Christopher Witzky and Rolf Wubbels addresses the negative effects our tax system has on na tional rates of savings and investment. The article, entitled "Government Policies and Cap ital Growth, "appeared originally in the October 1981 issue of The Freeman. It is important to note the principles outlined in this essay, and through out the book, are timeless. Still, I would have liked to see more up-to-date numbers to illustrate the points made.

Overall, Taxation and Confiscation is a tre mendously important guide to those of us who will shape tax policy over the coming years for the United States. It provides the solid support needed to help agitate in favor of a non-graduated tax system, a system which is simple, fair and efficient, and one which encourages savings and investment, as opposed to the current system in which none of these elements is present. Even better, the guide helps to measure the current proposals coming from Washington against these critical yardsticks. D Mr. Pilla, a tax litigation consultant from St. Paul, Minnesota, is author ofeight books dealing with taxpayers' rights issues and tax policy and editorofa monthly newsletter, Pilla Talks Taxes. He is also the co-founder and executive director of the Tax Freedom Institute. His radio com mentary, The Tax Rescue Minute, is syndicated nationally by the U.S.A. Radio Network.

The Theme Is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition by M. Stanton Evans Regnery Publishing. 1994 • 352 pages. $24.00 Reviewed by Gregory P. Pavlik T he sources of the freedoms and form of government that Americans once enjoyed are often a subject of dispute. One side claims that the American republic was the product of the Enlightenment and the spirit of the times. The other holds that the break from Britain was essentially a conservative affair provoked by usurpations of liberties by the British crown. Since each thesis is radically at odds with the other in its political implications, the truth of the matter is of the utmost importance. M. Stanton Evans' new book, The Theme Is Freedom, is a popularly written discussion of the elements of British history and culture that contributed to the American Founding. Actually, the book touches on a range of topics that relate directly or indirectly to Mr. Evans' thesis. He argues that not only was the Founding a product of British civilization, it was a product of a specifically medieval heritage, imbued with po litical notions derived from the history and reli gion of that era. His case is strong, although the wide-ranging nature of his examination injects a few problematic elements into the text.

The first chapters of the book revolve around a critique of liberalism, which is juxtaposed with a discussion of Christian traditionalism. Evans argues correctly that liberalism, being empty of absolute value content, can never sustain its promises of liberation or freedom. In fact, he suggests that liberalism will ultimately reduce itself to totalitarian tendencies in the absence of a conception of authority beyond the state. This has been borne out by historical example. The transformation of liberalism toward social ism was fueled by the impetus of its own pre mises. The classical liberal world view was motivated by belief in an ideology of liberation and based on a theory of atomized individualism. These elements ofliberalism necessarily promote an ideology of change. When the end ofthe liberal program is met, satisfaction cannot be reached for two reasons: the utopian nature of the liberal vision and the perpetual desire for human liber ation. Hence, the need to move beyond the capitalist society that formed the original vision of liberalism.

As an alternative, Evans offers a vision of American liberty based on the Anglo-American tradition, rooted in ·religious axioms. This re quires a detailed discussion of medieval law and political structures, the contractual basis of the feudal order, the origins and applications of the common law, British history, the nature of mon archy in Britain, the role of the church in society and politics, theologians' views of the state, and a plethora of other factors. In fact, the book is worth reading for its educational value on these issues alone. Mr. Evans goes far to document the basis of John Adams' claim that "The.patriots of BOOKS 531 this province desire nothing new; they wish only to keep their old privileges." An important element of this interpretation rests on the issue of contract. Much emphasis in what Mr. Evans calls the "standard treatment" of our history is laid on social contractarian theories of the state that are rooted in liberal and Enlightenment thought. A sizable discussion in The Theme Is Freedom revolves around the issue of contract. Mr. Evans points out that the notion of contract between king and subject derives from the practice of the feudal system, that the colonies were bound by charter to the crown, and many of the early religious settlers formed com munities based on compact. This raises the question as to the depth of influence of liberal thought on the birth of our nation. The record of history and the written legacy ofthe men who laid the groundwork for the republic suggests that it was minimal.

Despite the overall strength of the book, Mr. Evans' discussion of the contractarian John Locke is flawed. He spends some time suggesting that Locke's use of social contract theory was not an innovation based on the precedent of the widespread idea of contract. Borrowing from the lexicon of the day, however, does not obscure the radical underpinnings of Locke's theory. Central to understanding this is the recognition that Locke's social contract did not revolve around the relationship between the people and the monarchy through a history of agreement and concession. Instead, Locke was a republi can, and his social contract was an abstraction agreed to by tacit consent amongst the people. His discussion was wholly theoretical, based on logic and a set of a priori assumptions. If this were not the case, Mr. Evans would not have to provide a lengthy discussion salvaging the Dec laration of Independence from the influence of Locke.

This is unfortunate because it can only serve to obscure the message of Mr. Evans' work. The multiculturalist assault on the civilization derived from England and the diminution of faith, public and private, can serve only one end: the destruc tion of our legacy of freedom. D Mr. Pavlik is director 0/ The Freeman Op-Ed program at The Foundation/or Economic Edu cation.

532 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1995 Out of Focus: Network Television and the American Economy by Burton Yale Pines (with Timothy W. Lamer) Regnery Publishing, Inc.• 1994 • 384 pages. $24.00 Reviewed by Raymond J. Keating O n the evening I finished reading Out of Focus, ABC television coincidentally ran a program entitled "The Blame Game." I watched in amazement as reporter John Stossel developed a story about the United States becoming a na tion of victims. Stossel explored how various government programs, such as welfare, and reg ulations like the Americans with Disabilities Act, create dependency, generate frivolous lawsuits, and degrade individual responsibility by fostering the notion that we are all, in some way or another, victims. Through various interviews, Stossel illus trated how a government check for not working creates disincentives for working. He also looked at the costs of more government regulation, including lost jobs.

Unfortunately, the source of my amazement was that this program actually aired on prime time, network television-not exactly known as a medium tough on government programs and intervention in the economy. Burton Yale Pines' Out of Focus confirms what many of us have thought for some time-namely, that television reporting on the economy is riddled with myths and cliches. In a sense, this book helps to explain why I and, I am sure, many others were amazed at ABC's "The Blame Game." Out of Focus offers the results of a year-long study, conducted in 1992 by the staff of the Free Enterprise and Media Institute, analyzing morn ing and evening newscasts and magazine shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, as well as twelve weeks of prime-time entertainment television. The researchers evaluated the kinds of economic information, signals, and lessons being commu nicated. Unsurprisingly Pines offers worrisome find ings. While television executives strongly sup port capitalism and free enterprise in polls, more often than not, a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works makes its way onto the television screen.

For example, Pines points out that "the no tions that high profits created incentives for risk taking, for savings, and even for hard work were ignored or implicitly slighted by network TV." In highlightinga randomly chosen week (January 25-31, 1992), Pines observes: "At least sixteen of the week's stories dealt directly with the federal government's role in the economy through taxation, regulation, or spending. Al most everyone of these stories took as its premise that when the marketplace created prob lems only the government had the answer. Rarely were possible nongovernment solutions men tioned. " The author notes that this philosophy held sway throughout 1992. He states: "Regulation has a friend in television. Network reporters seem to believe that government officials and bureaucrats have the information, ability, and tools to regulate economic matters effectively." Particularly egregious was network reporting on health care. The idea that government was capable of providing cost-efficient, quality health care seemed to be accepted as an economic verity. This misguided notion served as the foundation upon which most healthcare televi sion news reports were built. Pines found that "viewers had less chance of seeing a balanced story on health than on taxes, regulations, the environment, or any other economic subject."

However, a glimmer of hope could be found on the reporting front. Pines notes that' 'viewers watching reports on tax issues, in contrast to those about all other economic topics, had a better than even ~hance of learning something about how their free enterprise economy func tioned and how the tax structure affected it." On April 15, CBS "This Morning" even interviewed Paul Craig Roberts, allowing him to explain how lower marginal tax rates on capital would gener ate' 'more investment, higher productivity, while simultaneously shifting the average tax burden from labor to capitaL" Perhaps the two most informative chapters in Out ofFocus identify the ten worst and best news stories on the economy in 1992. These stories were ranked by a panel of free-market econo mists-Bruce Bartlett, Christopher Frenze, Ed ward Hudgins, Marvin Kosters, and Stephen Moore. The comments from these individuals cited by Pines provide the reader with sound analysis of where economic reporting was but tressed or undercut by market principles.

Out of Focus also offers a glimpse of how entertainment television treats free enterprise. Pines finds that generally "entertainment TV in 1992 portrayed businessmen and women as un feeling and cruel bosses and managers, as criminals or otherwise evil, and as taking advantage of the public." However, the author does report an unusual exception. A character on the NBC program " Sisters' , failed in her attempt at selling cos metics at Kaffee-Klatsch gatherings. However, she found a market at these events for the self-designed, hand-painted sweatshirt that she was wearing. Pines sees a supply-side message in this episode-supply creating demand. If supply-side economics can find its way onto a network entertainment program, and John Stossel can address the downside of government intervention in the economy on an ABC maga zine show, then all is not lost. By pointing out the current weaknesses, Out of Focus provides the first step on the path to improving television news and entertainment treatment of free enterprise and the economy. D Mr. Keating is chief economist with the Small Business Survival Foundation.

Property Rights Edited by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jetfrey Paul Cambridge University Press. 1994 • 291 pages • $19.95 Reviewed by Tibor R. Machan M ost of us turn to philosophy only when problems arise with using our common sense. For instance, we are seldom troubled about determining what belongs to whom as we go through a normal day in our lives, but there are those occasions when just trusting our customary beliefs won't suffice. I know pretty well that the car parked in my garage, the flower growing in my garden, or the furniture on my porch is mine. But what about the sidewalk in front of my house, the land Indians claim is theirs because their ancestors are buried there, or the portion of earnings declared as tax by officialsof the Inter nal Revenue Service? Are they mine? If not, why not? Then again, in what sense would my arm, my heart, my lungs, my body, even my self be my property, if any? After all, I can speak of my height, my weight, my age, and my hair color and in none of these cases am I talking about items that belong to me. What about my team? My child? Your share in a company's stocks? What about the public park-in what sense is it both yours and mine?

BOOKS 533 Political theorists have addressed these issues for centuries and they will probably continue to do so for as long as human beings inhabit the universe. Some have blamed all the troubles of the world on the emergence of private property, while others see property rights as the solution to many problems. Others have defended a view of ownership that precludes any reference to rights or wrongs, to matters of justice or virtue, and concerns only who has power to do what roughly the legal-positivist position. Still others think ownership cannot even be conceived of without considering rightfulness versus wrong fulness-the natural rights approach. And there are always those who want a bit of both-for example, limited ownership rights, limited pow ers to use and dispose of various goods and services. Finally, there are some who see own ership falling on very hard times when it comes to certain very pressing issues, usually related to the ecosystem (water or air masses) or the intellectual products or creations (inventions, novels, musical arrangements, computer pro grams, etc.).

In each age some have also argued, more or less successfully, for excluding some types of prospective property on grounds that these do not qualify or meet the proper standards for rightful, valid ownership. Slavery was over thrown, in part, because ownership of blacks was successfully excluded, whereas the argument that cows or chickens cannot be rightfully owned is advanced less successfully in our time by animal rights advocates. The book before us is invaluable as a contri bution to the ongoing debate. Paul, Miller, and Paul have been collecting into separate volumes discussions on various topics in political econ omy, usually derived from conferences they have held at their increasingly prestigious Social Phi losophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. This particular product is especially valuable to classical liberal theo rists. It presents for them a wide variety of both champions and critics of proper rights. Nearly every position is, if not fully developed and defended, at least touched upon. And in each case there is reasonable thoroughness, with only minor omissions of significant contributions to the debate. (For example, none of the contribu tors seemed to find the Randian and neo-Randian doctrines worth examination.) Some treatments are a bit too didactic, paying little attention to possible or extant objections. (For example, David Friedman's presentation of the positivist position takes little notice of arguments which 534 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1995 maintain that his stance is untenable.) Yet in each case the exposition is rich in nuance and very informative, even if incomplete.

Beware, however, for this work is not bedside reading material for those who like their philos ophy in a breezy and easy style. Every essay is loaded with complex vocabulary and complex sentence construction. Nonetheless, if one is serious about figuring out how the topic of property rights might be best thought about, what the most sensible approach is to dealing with the ordinary phenomenon of ownership-especially when it confronts hard cases with legal, moral, and historical muddles surrounding property one must dip into this book. There is a wealth of insight here, providing much food for thought and creative development in the area of property rights theorizing. The one lapse in this work is a paper by Alan Ryan, whose glib treatment of many theories of ownership, specifically Rothbard's and Nozick's, does not deserve to be included in a serious volume. There is a principle in scholar ship that every contributor to a discussion ought to practice conscientiously. It is the principle of charity: givingthe strongest representation to the views which one criticizes. Ryan seems not to have heard of that principle. Of course, there are many others who have not, but fortunately in this book no other contributor gets a chance to engage in scholarly malpractice along such uncivil lines.

This book belongs on the shelf of anyone who is serious and disciplined about the study of property rights. Even lay persons will benefit from studying some of the essays-e.g., by Richard Epstein, David Schmidtz, and Gary Lawson-if only by way of the lessons they learn about how complicated problems of political economy can be and how intensely those who want to address them successfully need to work in order to approach some measure of success. After studying these essays, no one will walk away making glib declarations about property rights or, indeed, about political philosophy in general. D Dr. Machan is Professor of Philosophy at Au burn University, Alabama. He is a contributing editor of The Freeman. A Nation Under Lawyers: How the Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society by Mary Ann Glendon Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 1994. 331 pages • $24.00 Recapturing the Constitution: Race, Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered by Stephen,.B. Presser Regnery Publishing, Inc.•1994 • 397 pages.

$24.95 Reviewed by William J. Watkins, Jr. T he second part of the twentieth century has witnessed a marked decline in the rule oflaw. The legal profession appears to be out of control as society becomes ever more litigious and the guarantees of the Constitution are ignored. What happened to the United States Tocqueville vis ited where "that numerous and turbulent multi tude does not exist who, regarding the law as their natural enemy, look upon it with fear and distrust"? Professor Mary Ann Glendon of the Harvard Law School in her new book, A Nation Under Lawyers, does much to answer this vex atious question. In order to ascertain when and how the rule of law was lost, Glendon looks to the past. She ties the litigiousness and judicial activism of our time to the legal conventions of immigrants. The gentleman's ethic which prevailed at the turn of the century stressed ascendancy of the rule of law even if it meant refusing the wishes of a client.

This was replaced with an old-world ethic that placed greater emphasis on the lawyer's loyalty to his client than to the system. Glendon marks the 1954 school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, as the beginning of the present era of judicial activism. From this landmark decision that took the courts into the ordinary affairs of local governments, the "Warren Court children" were born. This gen eration that entered law school in the late '50s and early '60s no longer saw the law as the collected wisdom ofthe past that safeguarded our scheme of ordered liberty. On the contrary, they viewed the law as a means to bypass the political process and effect radical social change. Glendon sees the media as exacerbating the problem by glorifying the judges and lawyers, who through the judicial process, sought to engineer a better world. Judges, in Glendon's words, "began to taste the once-forbidden fruit of emancipation from the constraints" posed by the rule of law. Qualities such as impartiality and an adherence to precedent that made a good judge at the beginning of the century gave way to a new set of principles that called for the courts to be the champions of the underdog.

Glendon ends the book on a high note, re counting how today's law students are spurning the utopianism of the Warren Court children for a more traditional legal system. And it is only tra dition that Glendon sees as the means to recover the impartiality and restraint that have been lost over the years of radical experimentation. Though radical experimentation has come from all members of the legal profession, the most damage to the rule of law has been wrought by the Supreme Court through constitutional interpretation. Since FDR's New Deal Court let the genie out of the bottle, scarcely has the law restrained the action of the federal government. This demise of constitutional government is ex amined in Stephen B. Presser's new book, Re capturing the Constitution: Race , Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered. Rather than appeal to the" originalintentions" of the Framers as many conservative members of the academy do, Presser advocates "original understanding. " Though at first this sounds like semantic hairsplitting, Presser bases his view of the Constitution cogently around this doctrine.

Instead of simply looking at the text of the Constitution, one must look "to the context in which it was drafted." Thus, the attitudes and understanding of the ratifiers are paramount. For example, the First Amendment's prohibi tion against the establishment of religion does not erect a great wall between church and state. After givinga fine history of the changes in the wording of the First Amendment as it was being drafted in the first Congress, Presser concludes, as did the legendary Justice Joseph Story, that the amendment was only to "exclude all rivalry among Christian sects .... " Insofar as the founding generation was overwhelmingly Chris tian and recognized the inseparability of religion and morality, they would not have countenanced the Jeffersonian wall of separation. Rather than stopping with the doctrine of original understanding, Presser goes on to em brace natural law in the form of substantive due process. Substantive due process, in the words of legal historian Kermit L. Hall, means that there exists an irreducible sum of rights with which government cannot interfere. Under substantive due process, the courts struck down much legBOOKS 535 islation dealing with the regulation of the public's health, welfare, and morals as well as part of the New Deal.

By embracing this doctrine, Presser violates his own principle of original understanding. Rather than recapturing the Constitution, ambig uous doctrines of natural law and substantive due process, despite their salutary results until 1937, give the courts carte blanche to make the Con stitution mean whatever they want. The accep tance of this doctrine is the only major flaw in the book. As does Glendon in her book, Presser marks Brown v. Board of Education as a watershed event. From this case onward, Presser outlines how the social sciences became more important in adjudication than an understanding of consti tutionallaw. This absence of a traditional under standing of the Constitution naturally results in decisions like Roe v. Wade. Presser concludes that Justice Blackmun's declaring abortion to be a fundamental right in that landmark case caused a deep rift in society that should have been settled through the polit ical process as the Framers intended. Presser sees abortion, like school prayer, as fallingwithin the gamut of state and local authority. The Court's usurpation of legislativeauthority in matters deal ing with race, religion,and abortion have, accord ing to Presser, moved us further away from the rule of law and towards the rule of man.

In short, Presser provides a thought-provoking examination of the perversion of the Constitution that the layman can comprehend. Like Glendon, he sees the restoration of the rule of law resting with tradition. It was, after all, for our traditional rights as Englishmen that the colonists fought. And only a clear understanding of this tradition can restore our republican form of government and the corresponding rule of law. D Mr. Watkins, an assistant editor for The Free man, begins law school this month. The Abuse Excuse by Alan M. Dershowitz Little, Brown & Company. 1994 • 341 pages. $22.95 Reviewed by David Brown I t would be tough to dispute the thesis of this book, which is that being a victim of abuse hardly entitles one to become an abuser in turn.

536 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1995 One wonders a little, then, why Alan Dershowitz felt entitled to inflictthis collection on the reader. Surely not because he himself has been similarly assaulted by other writers who slapped together editorial collections with only marginalliterary or journalistic warrant. Still, I'm fairly glad this book was published. We do need to be told again and again that we are responsible, really responsible, for our actions. And the author tells us again and again. Take those Menendez brothers, for instance, who sneaked up on their parents and gunned them down so as to precipitate their inheritances. Then in court the boys claimed they were only retali ating against past, or protecting themselves from future child abuse. That horrific instance of the abuse excuse led to hung juries despite the brothers' admission of the killings and the skit fodder phoniness of their courtroom histrionics.

Skater Tonya Harding was abused by her former boyfriend/husband, ergo her ruthlessness in seeking Olympic Gold was seen as partly pardonable, and definitely plea-bargainable. Ob serves Dershowitz: "Ordinarily, it is the 4s0 1 diers' or the 4mules' who get favorable plea bargains in exchange for helping to put the boss in prison. Here, the primary beneficiary of the crime-known in advance to her, according to prosecutors-got the best deaL" An inebriated woman driver who tried to kick a police officerin the groin (without provocation), and who later assaulted the breathalyzer, claimed the scourge of premenstrual syndrome as her excuse. She was acquitted. Victory for wom en-or for the abuse excuse? Black rage, adopted-child syndrome, battered husband syndrome ("At times I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend," wrote O.J. Simpson in what was to be his parting epistle), the minister, the Super Bowl, the Holocaust, Twink ies, the wrong self-help book, or the oppressive system made me do it. Dershowitz enumerates excuse after excuse. He seems to waffle, how ever, about the propriety of jailing Judge Sol Wachtler, the ChiefJudge ofthe New York Court of Appeals convicted of harassing and extorting a former girlfriend, and whose "expansive view of civil liberties I deeply admired."

These pieces, not all of which illustrate the title theme, refresh our memories of stuff we read in the papers at the time and remind us of how commonplace these· excuses have become. The most analytical and interesting item is the intro duction, which mentions the first excuse ever, something about a serpent. So what's the impetus to all the contemporary abuse-excuse monger ing?It's convenient for defendants, for one thing. But ifyou want to trace it back to philosophic and social theorizing and engineering, better books to read would be FEE's own Criminal Justice?, edited by Bob Bidinotto, with its scholarly anal yses of criminal behavior and of the "excuse making industry"; or Charles Sykes' culturally perceptive Society of Victims. Dershowitz, himself a high-profile criminal lawyer ofliberal inclination, laments and catalogs the trend, sheds light on the legal angles, rebukes the rebukes of liberal colleagues over these issues, provides a glossary of abuse excuses, and urges the legal system 44to confront the issues of responsibility in a rationally calibrated manner that is comprehensible tojurors and citizens....

We must stop making excuses and start taking responsibility." At stake, he says, is "the very nature of our experiment with democracy." Also justice. D Mr. Brown is a freelance writer.