The Color of Politics (February Reading)

[ase]

Three nonfiction, one reread (fiction). Victory to the nonfiction resolution.

Warrior Poet: A Biography of Audre Lorde (Alexis De Veaux): Nonfiction. Academic biography of a unique "black, lesbian, feminist, mother, poet warrior". Footnotes abound.

Comments

[meril]

Krugman's writing has become sloppier since he left academia for popular commentary. Not saying that he wasn't trying to write popular nonfiction when he was still in academia (his website in 1997 was fairly large and fairly full of short op-ed pieces, for example)

[ase]

Krugman's trying, but he's readable and plausible without convincing me. Does that make sense? I would like to believe that unions, federal activism in all branches, and taxing the rich to distribute to the poor would squeeze everyone into one big happy middle class. However, Krugman fails to interpret the social movements of the last half of the 20th C through the lens of his hypothesis to my satisfaction. This is a problem: is there feedback between the status changes of African-Americans, women, LGBTs and the political/economic scene? How does this play into Krugman's "it's the regulated economy, stupid" hypothesis?

In other news, I'm 366 pages into The Race Beat and it's rocking my world. There are more than 100 footnotes for some chapters, many to articles and other documents contemporaneous to the civil rights movement. Now that is satisfying nonfiction.

[loupnoir]

Darn it. The Greek fire book sounded fascinating, too.

[ase]

It should be! It really ought to be fun and informative! It was not. The best thing I got out of it was the elephants quoted above and a book to look up - James Riddick Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder - which may take on the topics of my interest in greater depth.

[charlie_ego]

Oh, bravo re Krugman (and floofy pop social science books in general). I haven't read the book because his essays give me a very similar reaction to what you describe: he has some good points, and then he says something that makes my head hurt because it is way too simplistic and not backed up, and sometimes my personal experience runs absolutely counter to it (of course, my personal experience is anecdotal, but he better be able to explain away why I or my example doesn't fit the mold).

As a tangent, this is why I call BS on social and political sciences.

this reminds me of my recent experience reading about music psychology-- I found the more careful drier book waaaaaaaay more interesting and satisfying than the floofy pop one. Once work settles down maybe I'll get around to posting the rant on that one :)

[ase]

I would like to believe Krugman, but I am more convinced by citations and pre-emptive stikes on the opposition's arguments than by pretty simplified tables.

Also, I remain unconvinced by the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Either it's a conspiracy, and has connotations of small group activity, or it's vast, and therefore isn't a conspiracy. I would be more impressed by about 300 pages illustrating the vast Republican Party machine of fear and intimidation than a few sweeping statements and catch-phrases. Yeah, the GOP's probably corrupt, but how much better are the Dems?

Anyway. Politics make me mad and stupid and a little self-contradictory.

I look forward to reading about your music psych book experiences - I think I'm with you on the dry-and-careful vs pop. If I want fluff or floof, I will read that new Laurie King novel I got from the library.

[charlie_ego]

Anyway. Politics make me mad and stupid and a little self-contradictory.

...yeah. Politics makes me want to roll my eyes and beat my head against the wall. Mostly because it is filled with people who, while otherwise rational, argue in extremely annoying and impassioned ways about subjects for which not enough data exists (or can be twisted both ways!) to justify a clear-cut solution, plus which those arguing are almost always starting from a different set of assumptions (both factual and "what-we-think-is-important") but don't realize it, thus complicating the whole mess.

Um. Not that politics makes me mad either, or anything. :)

Somehow I've landed in a situation where about half the people I know and respect are conservatives, and the other half are liberals. Makes it kind of hard to demonize either side...

[ase]

I am nodding emphatically with what you're saying.

Somehow I've landed in a situation where about half the people I know and respect are conservatives, and the other half are liberals. Makes it kind of hard to demonize either side...

You are doing what I want to be doing. I keep getting hung up by a "conservative <=> Republican <=> that incompetent in the Executive branch" chain of association. This is unfair, but a recognizable consequence of hanging out in Liberal Central (college, Maryland, etc). I refuse in the abstract to throw out an entire political party worth of people, but I need to educate myself so I'm not as ignorant about where they're coming from.