About book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism And American Decline (2003)
I wrote a review earlier that somehow fell into the internet black hole. Here we go again...My father had the blessing of receiving a seemingly endless arsenal of right-wing books from one of his siblings, every Christmas and birthday. This was among them. This was probably the lowest-quality one. Robert Bork's message here is one that is as old as the hills: "people are just not as good nowadays". Ever since the advent of the industrial revolution, which replaced the cyclical time of pre-modern people with the linear time of the modern age, every generation has given us people who regret the decline of morals, customs, whatever, among the present cohort of human beings. The fact that wealth and productivity continue to increase by leaps and bounds in spite of these supposed defects, that slavery and despotism have increasingly been done away with, that wars and violence have become rarer, does not dissuade people who want a tragic story. It never will. Being a teenager when I read this book, familiar with most of the popular culture stuff that Bork discusses, I was particularly unimpressed. Bork gets a lot of mileage out of gangsta rap, hard rock, and, surprisingly, Michael Jackson. He misrepresents popular songs wherever it suits him, neglecting to note context and details such as ironic intent that may change the meaning of words. I do not recall whether Bork is for a positive program of censorship, which would seem to be the only logical solution to the problems he sees, but in any case he lacks an inspiring rallying cry. His project is protest and denunciation. I am reminded of William F. Buckley's bon mot about his publication, National Review: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so." Can you blame other people for finding this tiresome?Addendum:The New Yorker's obituary of Robert Bork sums up his life better than I could:Robert Bork, who died Wednesday, was an unrepentant reactionary who was on the wrong side of every major legal controversy of the twentieth century. The fifty-eight senators who voted against Bork for confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1987 honored themselves, and the Constitution. In the subsequent quarter-century, Bork devoted himself to proving that his critics were right about him all along.Bork was born in 1927 and came of age during the civil-rights movement, which he opposed. He was, in the nineteen-sixties, a libertarian of sorts; this worldview led him to conclude that poll taxes were constitutional and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was not. (Specifically, he said that law was based on a “principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”) As a professor at Yale Law School, his specialty was antitrust law, which he also (by and large) opposed.Richard Nixon appointed Bork the Solicitor General of the United States, and in that post Bork showed that he lacked moral courage as well as legal judgment. In 1973, Nixon directed Elliot Richardson, the Attorney General, to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor. Richardson refused and resigned in protest, as did his deputy William Ruckelshaus. Bork, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, had no such scruples and thus served as executioner in the Saturday Night Massacre, to his enduring shame.In 1981, Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and then, six years later, to the Supreme Court. To his credit, Bork gave honest and forthright answers to the questions posed by the senators on the Judiciary Committee, which was led admirably by then Senator Joseph Biden. Much of the questioning focused on Bork’s long-held belief that the Constitution does not include a right to privacy. As one of the creators of the “originalist” school of constitutional interpretation, Bork asserted that since the framers did not use the word “privacy,” that value was not reflected in our founding document. Accordingly, he opposed such decisions as Griswold v. Connecticut, which said states could not ban married couples from buying birth control, and Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortion. He promised the senators he would reflect those views as a Supreme Court Justice.It was said, in later years, that Bork was “borked,” which came to mean treated unfairly in the confirmation process. This is not so. Bork was “borked” simply by being confronted with his own views—-which would have undone many of the great constitutional landmarks in recent American history. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it in a famous speech on the Senate floor:"Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, [and] writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government."Was Kennedy too harsh? He was not—-as Bork himself demonstrated in the series of intemperate books he wrote after losing the Supreme Court fight and quitting the bench, in 1987. The titles alone were revealing: ”The Tempting of America,” “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,” and “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges.” One of his last books may have summed up his views best. Thanks in part to decisions of the Supreme Court—-decisions that, for the most part, Bork abhorred—-the United States became a more tolerant and inclusive place, with greater freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination than any society in history. Bork called the book, accurately, “A Country I Do Not Recognize.
I hate stars. I gave this book three even though I disagree vehemently with Bork, but it's kind of fun. His jeremiad, Slouching Toward Gomorrah uses Gomorrah as a metaphor for the United States. The book reminds me of the cantankerous old relative at the dinner table who can’t stop talking about how terrible things are today. One can’t even find time to pass the peas. Bork’s thesis is simple: our culture is immoral, and it’s all the liberal’s fault.Society’s degradation has been caused by radical egalitarianism, radical feminism, popular culture, the Supreme Court, and rock n’ roll music (which he admits never having listened to). Portable radios share much blame for they permitted youth to listen to music without parental supervision. The Internet (which he admits to never having looked at) is a quagmire of dirty pictures, political correctness, and Afro centrists. He leaves virtually no one unscathed, attacking both the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations that are living in a “leftist dream world,” and have become feminized.Bork’s solution to this state of affairs is censorship, democratization of the Supreme Court, and religion - where this religion is to be found among today’s debased denominations he does not say.The problem with this book is that it’s all assault and no finesse. Never does he engage the reader in a discussion of both sides of an issue. He creates a straw man and then knocks it over. He falls into the trap he accuses liberals of falling into; “assaulting one’s opponents as not merely wrong but morally evil.” He confuses cause with symptoms. Never does he reveal evidence as to how the Beatles cause immoral behavior. He states simply, “Rock and rap are utterly impoverished by comparison with swing or jazz or any pre-World War II music [personally, I always thought swing was the epitome of decadence] impoverished emotionally, aesthetically, and intellectually.”Bork cannot resist name-calling. Liberals are fascist, totalitarian, and Nazi-like. Multiculturalism “is barbarism,” “feminist ideology is a fantasy of persecution.” He castigates those “cafeteria Catholics” who subscribe only to those elements of Catholicism with which they agree and then he proceeds to rebuke the Catholic Church’s call for a “just wage”, calling it “misunderstood economics.” Not an American institution escapes Bork’s wrath: the universities, colleges, government, the arts, the churches and the press have all been indoctrinated by liberals (that must be why we've elected so many Republicans in the last 25 years.)For a self-defined conservative, Bork had some radical ideas. He would overturn the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions to be overridden by a majority vote of the Congress. He does not explain how, for example, if popular culture and society are so debased, a legislature elected by those debased people will fix Supreme Court decisions. It seems to me the whole purpose of the Supreme Court being immune to public pressure (as Franklin Roosevelt discovered to his dismay) is to provide a conservative brake on society, to constrain the short-lived stimulus of fleeting majorities. He is against an activist court. Not just liberal activism, but conservative as well, suggesting at one point that it all began with the conservative court that wrote into the constitution all sorts of free market principles that are not there. The liberals then just continued this process of activism but from a cultural perspective.And what do you bet, he visited adult bookstores.
Do You like book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism And American Decline (2003)?
Justice Bork is one of those rare writers: an exceptionally clear thinker, a genius at crafting a well-reasoned argument, but also widely read and (dare I say it?) actually popular. After THE TEMPTING OF AMERICA, I couldn't stay away. This book does not disappoint. As before, the sentences are perfectly built, the architecture of each paragraph worthy of the Parthenon. I stopped at four stars instead of five because in the end--for reasons probably entirely my own--it took me some five years to finish this book. As lush as the writing is, the subject matter is arid. Or it was for me--and I'm pretty patient about such things. But I know that had this book had been the revelation that his first was, I would have burned through it in a matter of days. I'm a huge fan; I wish everyone would read Bork. (Frankly, I wish everyone COULD read Bork, but the former Yale professor remains a scholar.) He's not for everyone. But his arguments are an education in rhetoric, and his conclusions merit close scrutiny.The content of the book? An interesting and often personal account of life in post-modern America. He begins with campus protests during the 1960s (that brought Yale University to its knees), and shares his reactions to what amounts to widespread and often utterly pointless rebellion. Bork argues the "rebellion" or counter-culture would have come sooner had not the Depression and WWII put it off a few years. In fact, he argues it may have been an intrinsic part of the nation since its founding: that America's emphasis on equality and liberty could never have continued without the inevitable conflict. I can't explain it here--but it's an interesting read, and Bork provides so many insights. I value his point of view, and regret that his pen has been silenced. We have lost a great resource. By the way, I would love to add a few quotes to the Goodreads quote pages--but I underlined about half this book, and put stars and brackets around the other half. I'd need to provide 100 quotes if I started copying down even one.
—Steven
3.5 stars out of 5.Writing: 3.5. Use: 3-3.5. Truth: 4-4.5.Bork is an analyst of keen insight. Even though this book was written in the late 90s, it hits hard 2 decades later, a testament to its satisfying broadness of philosophy. Bork details the failings of modern Liberalism with exceptional description. Most of his discernment is rare or stunning. Unfortunately, the book ends with a short chapter on 4 optimistic solutions, all but one of which is unlikely. (The only likely one, a religious revival, is apparently outside his field.) The only other viable option I have ever heard Bork does not provide; Bill Whittle has, with his proposition of economies growing out of bureaucracy due to innovation.
—James
This is one I've kept on my bookshelf for years, always intending to read it. I vividly remember the "borking" of Robert Bork, and remember deciding at the time that I'd better not ever write anything publicly that could be used against me the way his writings were used against him. Fortunately, I've since decided I would never seek higher office, so I'm relatively free to speak my mind. I should add an anecdotal endorsement from Rex Lee--when he came as a guest lecturer to my pre-law class at BYU and was asked who was the best Supreme Court Justice of his time, he named Robert Bork--who obviously didn't get confirmed, but whom he believed would have been the best of our time.
—Scott
