The Book Review Issue (1.16.2019)

Hanover Review Inc. P.O. Box 343 Hanover NH, 03755

Volu m e 3 8 , Is su e 11

We d nes d ay, Janu ar y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9

THE BOOK REVIEW ISSUE

JEFFERSON’S MONTICELLO Once home to his magnificent private book collection

Image courtesy of WikiCommons

UnfortunateDestiny:Humane Indian World of Washington Beasts and Beastly Humans Zachary Z. Wang

Associate Editor Animals, in Levi-Strauss’ famous words, are not good to eat but “good to think.” In Unfortunate Destiny (New York, Oxford University Press, 2017), Dartmouth College religion professor Reiko Ohnuma delves into the heretofore largely unstudied area of animal representation in Indian Buddhism. “Buddhism saw the human being alone, among all beings, as uniquely capable of bringing about an end to the perpetual suffering that all beings experience…. The ultimate goal of Buddhism… was open to human beings alone.” Of all religions, Buddhism is perhaps the most human-centric. Though there are deities and conceptions of gods, the core figure of Buddhism is, or at least was, a human be-

ing. It is because Buddhism is so focused on the human being that animal representation becomes such an important area of study.

Buddhists understood the complicated relationship between the human being and the animal. Ohnuma effectively sums up this dichotomy, explaining that humans “can only define themselves in opposition to that which is non-human. …because human beings are animals, yet continually define themselves in opposition to all non-human animals, there is a simultaneous kinship and otherness, identity and difference, and attraction and repulsion in humanity’s relationship to the animal.” The book aims to discuss a small section of the wide variety of ways animals are represented in early Indian Buddhist lit-

erature. She stresses that this treatment is not meant to be comprehensive, “but only to bring forward those categories of animal representations that have been most striking to me and that I believe illustrate the predominant strains of early Buddhist thinking about the animal realm.” To the average reader, the book can be a bit challenging—nearly all of the terms and ideas and works referred to are likely alien to anyone not familiar with the religion and its subject matter can come across as niche at best. Additionally, many Buddhist texts seem to contradict one another, and it can be hard, if not frustrating, to follow Ohnuma’s messages in the face of these incompatibilities. However, I do think that the book is worth reading as a glimpse into a huge

but largely unstudied realm of the human experience as well as a timely reminder to modern readers about what it truly means to be human.

The book is clearly organized into a preface, three parts (each with an introduction and two to three chapters, with every chapter beginning with a relevant quote), a conclusion, and various supplementary materials. Its preface provides a relatively good introduction to the book, introducing readers to the subject of animals in Buddhism and Buddhism compared to other religious traditions, laying out the format of the writing, as well as providing the book’s aim and limitations.

It’s to the point and wastes no time in getting to the meat of the book.

> FEATURES PAGE 8

Alexander Rauda

Executive Editor For nearly 30 years, Professor Colin G. Calloway — the John Kimball, Jr. 1943 Professor of History and Professor of Native American Studies — has expanded the field of Native American History at Dartmouth. Calloway, however, is aware of the baggage associated with “Native American history” in relation to “American history.” In The Indian World of George Washington, he attempts to bridge both together, presenting American history as one dependent on Native American History through the lens of President George Washington. Calloway examines the relationships between the diverse groups of Native Americans and Washington, and ultimately the foundation and early development of the

United States. Calloway also describes how America’s early Indian policies influenced the way in which the executive branch’s constitutional duties are interpreted. Calloway proceeds in a chronological manner — a wise choice considering the depth of the material — allowing the common reader to easily follow along. The relationship between the Native Americans and Washington is one with many twists and turns, with victims and perpetrators on both sides. Calloway claims that Washington, influenced by his years as a land speculator, built a country on Indian land. Washington would die “one of the richest men in America, with his wealth being tied up in land he had spent more than forty years accumulating.”

> FEATURES PAGE 9

AN ERUDITE ENDEAVOR

READING DINESH D’SOUZA

THE CORROSION OF CONSERVATISM

Editor-in-Chief Devon M. Kurtz discusses the value of reading books written

by Dartmouth professors.

Eashwar N. Sivarajan takes a look inside D’Souza’s controversial book Death of a Nation.

Daniel M. Bring explores Max Boot’s critique of American conservatism in the Trump era.

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 6

> FEATURES PAGE 11

2 wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRESHMEN WRITE

WORK

For thirty-five years, The Dartmouth Review has been the College’s only independent newspaper and the only student opinion journal that matters. It is the oldest and most renowned campus commentary publication in the nation and spawned a national movement at the likes of Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and countless others. Our staff members and alumni have won many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, and have been published in the Boston Globe, New York Times, National Review, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Village Voice, New Criterion, and many others.

The Review aims to provide a voice for any student who enjoys challenging brittle and orthodox thinking. We stand for free speech, student rights, and the liberating arts. Whatever your political leanings, we invite you to come steep yourself in campus culture and politics, Dartmouth lore, keen witticisms, and the fun that comes with writing for an audience of thousands. We’re looking for writers, photographers, cartoonists, aspiring business managers, graphic designers, web maestros, and anyone else who wants to learn from Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism.

PONTIFICATE

CONSERVATIVE

SAFE space

“Because every student deserves a safe space”

– Inge-Lise Ameer, Former Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Meetings held Mondays at 6:30 PM at our offices at 32 S. Main Street (next to Lou’s in the lower level office space)

INSIDE THE ISSUE Unfortunate Destiny..............................................................Page 1

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD COME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE MAKING LUDICROUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT US.

The Indian World of George Washington...........................Page 1 Editorial: An Erudite Endeavor.........................................Page 3 Death of a Nation...................................................................Page 6 St. Paul’s Outside the Walls...................................................Page 7 The Abolition of Man.............................................................Page 7 Naked Money........................................................................Page 10 The Corrosion of Conservatism..........................................Page 11

SUBSCRIBE The Dartmouth Review is produced bi-weekly by Dartmouth College undergraduates. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a tax-deductible, non-profit organization.

Please consider helping to support Dartmouth’s only independent newspaper, and perhaps the only voice of reason left here on campus. Yearly print subscriptions start at just $40, for which we will mail each issue directly to your door. Electronic subscriptions cost $25 per year, for which you receive a PDF of The Review in your inbox at press time. Contributions above $40 are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Please include your mailing address and make checks payable to:

Or subscribe online at:

The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370 www.dartreview.com

NIGEL FARAGE READS THE REVIEW.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – January 16, 2019

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to takerank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITORIAL

Editor-in-Chief

An Erudite Endeavor

Devon M. Kurtz

Executive Editors Rachel T. Gambee Alexander Rauda

Editor-at-Large Daniel M. Bring

Associate Editors Brian L. Drisdelle Eashwar N. Sivarajan William G. Jelsma Zachary Z. Wang

Senior Correspondents Joseph R. Torsella

BUSINESS STAFF President Jason B. Ceto

Vice Presidents Jake G. Philhower

ADVISORY Founders

Greg Fossedal, Gordon Haff, Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones

Legal Counsel

Mean-Spirited, Cruel, and Ugly

Board of Trustees

Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooperstein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland Reynolds, William Rusher, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani-Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Sidney Zion

NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life Changed My Life.”

The Editors of The Dartmouth Review welcome correspondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material published previously in The Review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length. Please submit letters to the editor by mail or email: editor@dartreview.com Or by mail at:

The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370

Please direct all complaints to: editor@thedartmouth.com

We are graced with only a accord. But more than that, I found handful of years at the College on that there was communal value the Hill, so it is of considerable in reading Professor Lim’s book importance to figure out the best simply because he is a member of ways in which to spend them. For my own academic community — those more motivated among us, by reading and interacting with his the question of how to maximize research, I felt closer to Dartmouth. our brief intellectual interlude For freshman Dartmouth can seem at the College is perhaps most imposing and even isolating at pressing of all. first. But by reading Lim’s book, Each winter break, the staff of I felt like an active member of The Dartmouth Review returns to Dartmouth — concomitant with their homes with a book in hand. that was a sense of belonging that These books — most of which are I had not previously experienced. written by Dartmouth professors This effective purpose, more than — make up the subject matter just the intellectual exercise, is for our annual book review issue. why there is accountable value Among my favorite issues that the in reading a professor’s book, Review publishes, especially for those the book review lonely freshmen issue is a casual but among us. valuable intellectual Even those experience for all books that might who partake. But it be disagreeable is a shame that for can still have most of us it is the considerable only time that we impact on our actually read books experience at

by Dartmouth the College. professors unless When reading they are on our former Visiting syllabi. Most Professor Mark Dartmouth Bray’s manifesto students that I have Antifa: The AntiDevon M. Kurtz spoken with have Fascist Handbook, never read an unassigned book by I quickly realized there was a Dartmouth professor, outside little to be gained from the book of skimming the descriptions of intellectually. Still, articulating the ones displayed in King Arthur my issues with his book gave me Flour. When I reflect on the books the confidence to independently and articles that I have read while criticize a scholarly work — while a student at Dartmouth, the ones in my case I did so in a formal that I would consider the most review, one need not do more formative — and which I can recall than simply discuss the book in the most detail — are those with a friend to simulate the same that were written by Dartmouth experience. Criticizing scholarly professors. Thus, I find the rarity of works is a regular part of the this experience among students to curriculum for many students at be unfortunate, if not unsettling.

Dartmouth, but certainly not all.

Thinking back to my freshman Without the limitations on scope year, I can vividly recall my or formal structure of a class, this decision to review Professor Engsupplementary exercise offers Beng Lim’s book Brown Boys and expanded avenues for inquiry and, Rice Queens. An unlikely choice obviously, learning. But because for a student of conservative it is still a text related to the persuasion, many fellow Reviewers Dartmouth community, it is still jested that I would be spending grounded in the rigor of an elite my winter break in intellectual academic community.

Hell. But, to my pleasant surprise, While many texts can facilitate Lim’s book managed to enthrall this same tempering of critical me. I admit that I had to learn skills and imbuing of the quite a bit about Orientalism and confidence to apply those skills, queer theory to even get past the there are few that permit one introduction, but I found the to easily sit down and discuss experience immensely valuable. that text with its author. Perhaps There was certainly value in having more than all other benefits, to learn about an academic area this degree of accessibility — as that I might not have much interest simple as sending an intra-campus in. And as I said in my review two email — is the greatest benefit years ago, I would recommend of reading the books written by the book to any conservative Dartmouth professors. To forego with an interest in imperialism such a beneficial addition to the and Southeast Asia who might be Dartmouth experience seems far reluctant to pick it up of their own worse than merely a shame.

4 wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK IN REVIEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN LINGERS On January 12, 2019, the partial shutdown of the federal government became the longest in United States history, surpassing the Clinton–Gingrich 21 day stand-off of 1995-96. Although the official shutdown of one-third of the federal government began on December 22 of last year, the problem can be traced to October 1, 2018. This date, which marks the start of the federal government’s fiscal year, Congress failed to pass all twelve of the annual appropriations bills needed to fund the government.

Since then, Congress and the president had kept the entire federal government open by passing bills that provided temporary funding. This short-term solution ended in mid-December when President Trump refused to sign a Republican-passed appropriations bill and demanded Congress include $5.7 billion dollars to pay for building a wall along America’s southern border.

Concerns are increasing about furloughed government workers and as to when they will be compensated for the work, which many continue to do throughout the closure. There are nine unfunded departments and several agencies including the Department of Agriculture, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration. Since the beginning of the year, there has been particular concern surrounding the Federal Aviation Commission, with some TSA agents calling in sick and other reports of inadequate airplane inspections due to a lack of personnel. Media attention has also focused on overflowing trash and a number of missing persons in many of the country’s national parks.

Since returning from their holiday break, top lawmakers have met on more than one occasion with the president to try and strike a deal. Prior to January 2, Democrats offered to appropriate $1.6 billion toward border security, but not specifically for a wall. The president doubled down on his request, claiming he would not settle for less than $5 billion.

On January 9, the president addressed the nation from the Oval Office during which he claimed that the southern border was in crisis, and Speaker Pelosi and Senate minority leader Schumer offered their rebuttal in their own live broadcast to the nation.

There are rumors that the president and his administration are planning to declare a “national emergency” at the southern border and use natural disaster aid resources to fund part of the border wall; on January 11, the president, at least temporarily, put these rumors to rest. There is little evidence that either side has any intention of conceding or coming to a compromise in the near future.

FORMER DARTMOUTH PRESIDENT JIM KIM RESIGNS FROM WORLD BANK On January 7, Jim Yong Kim announced he would resign from his post as President of the World Bank at the beginning of next month, with reports suggesting he is going to join Global Infrastructure Partners, a Private Equity firm in New York City.

The World Bank provides loans to countries for capital projects, and Kim was its first leader to have no professional background in either politics or finance. The naturalized American was born in South Korea and immigrated to the United States at the

age of five. After graduating from Brown University in 1982, Kim co-founded Partners in Health, a non-profit whose stated goal is “to bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need of them” in 1987. He went on to obtain Ph.D. in anthropology and an M.D. from Harvard before teaching at Harvard Medical School until 2009.

In New England, however, Kim is probably best known for serving as the seventeenth President of The College from 2009 to 2012. During his relatively short tenure, he partnered Dartmouth with his non-profit in order to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and made considerable advances in addressing sexual violence on campus. Perhaps it was his purported commitment to helping the less fortunate that drove President Obama to nominate him to head the Bank. Upon his confirmation, he left The College ostensibly to try to reduce poverty in the world.

Like at Dartmouth, Kim was extremely unpopular at the World Bank. Many speculated his re-appointment in 2016 was a serious mistake, with some accusing him of acting out of self-interest during his first term. Kim’s resignation is probably a breath of fresh air to many employees at the Bank, and certainly reinforces the stereotype that regardless of one’s intentions when entering Dartmouth, they will eventually end up working in the financial sector.

COLLEGE ANNOUNCES NEW C3I INTIATIVE On January 3rd, President Hanlon emailed campus an outline of his new initiative entitled The Campus Climate and Culture Initiative. This program, called C3I for short, will endeavor to “foster healthy, professional, and nurturing relationships among faculty, staff, and students.” C3I comes as a direct response to the reported sexual misconduct of three former Dartmouth professors that has received considerable national attention in recent months. In his announcement, President Hanlon referred to these events as “powerful accounts of sexual misconduct,” stating that they had “profound” effect on campus.

This was a marked divergence in tone from Hanlon’s earlier statement to campus regarding the case in which he had defended the College’s actions in the processing of sexual misconduct claims against these faculty members.

President Hanlon’s address also announced that C3I was to be regarded as the third pillar in his plan to “create a more welcoming, inclusive, and equitable environment for all Dartmouth students, faculty, and staff.” The first two pillars are Moving Dartmouth Forward, which addresses high-risk and exclusionary behavior on campus, and Inclusive Excellence, which attempts to foster diversity at Dartmouth.

C3I is modeled on guidelines given by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine following their recent report entitled “Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.” This report enumerated the extensive negative impact that sexual misconduct can have on women studying specifically in the sciences, however President Hanlon stated that for the purposes of C3I this study is considered entirely applicable to the mistreatment of women studying in all academic disciplines. In accordance with this study, all departments on campus will undergo a “climate review” to evaluate the health of interpersonal relationships in the department. These climate reviews will be conducted by Abigail Stewart, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and a specialist in community building in academic envi-

ronments. President Hanlon also plans to revise all college policies regarding sexual conduct and recraft them for maximum clarity as well as instituting mandatory Title IX and anti-violence education for all faculty and staff members. Finally, President Hanlon promised to commit the resources necessary to address the problem of sexual misconduct, most notably pledging to expand the Title IX office and mental-health counseling resources on campus.

COLLEGE HOSTS POLICE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON ACTIVE SHOOTER RESPONSES On January 8, the Collis Governing Board (CGB) invited Hanover Police Chief Charles Dennis and Captain Bodanza to deliver a presentation on “Civilian Response in Active Shooter Events (CRASE)” presumably because of the recent shooting near the Sigma Delta sorority. They began the talk by listing many of the recent school shootings and highlighting the fact that the police might not always show up on time. The purpose of the event was to teach students some “pre-planned techniques” that are easy to remember in high-stress situations.

Instead of the cliché “Run, Hide, Fight,” the officers called the three possible responses “Avoid, Deny, Defend” partially since it’s an easy acronym to remember, and partially because running across a field during a shooting is not particularly useful. Captain Bodanza then spoke about research that suggested that being prepared for a shooting increases one’s chance of survival, before talking about how humans rational brains tend to devolve into lizard-like instinctual ones during times of stress. Chief Dennis proceeded to show a video of a fire in Rhode Island to illustrate the importance of the first seconds after the disaster to survival, and the audio from Captain Sully Sullenberger’s spectacular landing of a plane in the Hudson River to exemplify the cruciality of preparation.

Finally, the police officers showed a choreographed skit idealizing ersatz optimism during a mass shooting, presumably so potential victims do not “freeze” when attacked. To conclude their talk, the officers demonstrated a few unorthodox methods for survival like pretending to be dead as Kristina Anderson did during the UVA shooting.

Overall, the presentation certainly helped the approximately thirty people in attendance to cope with the shock of November’s shooting. It is unfortunate more people did not take the initiative to learn about A.D.D. One would think that since the presentation involved important information that they would have wanted more people to attend. Only time will tell if they will hold future presentations considering that the collective memory of the shootings has already disappeared from the mind of most Dartmouth denizens.

DARTMOUTH BASKETBALL WINS FIRST IVY LEAGUE OPENER IN 12 YEARS In recent years, the Dartmouth Men’s basketball team has frequently had a record which rivaled that of the Washington Generals as opposed to a competitive collegiate basketball team. Each of the team’s last two seasons finished at an abysmal 7–20 record while finishing last in the Ivy League both years.

The Dartmouth Review

wednesday – January 16, 2019

Eashwar N. Sivarajan Philip R. Swanson The 2018 campaign was especially difficult for their team as they lost Evan Boudreaux ‘19, their top forward, going into the season. Boudreaux announced before the season that he would be sitting out the season and graduating a year early before playing the next two years elsewhere. This devastating news brought a dark cloud over the 2017–2018 campaign, and as a result the team never really seemed to recover. The Big Green have turned it around with the new season however, at about the halfway point in their schedule they are 10–7, and a perfect 1–0 in the Ivy League after posting a convincing 81–63 defeat over Harvard University. Chris Knight ’21 led the team with 20 points shooting 8 of 10 from the floor. The Big Green are riding high as Saturday’s win delivered the first win in an Ivy League Opener in 12 years. Guard Brendan Barry ’20 has generated some buzz nationally as he is currently one of the most efficient 3 point shooters in the country shooting 51.8% from behind the arc. Ian Sistare ’20 and James Foye ’20 are both also shooting nearly 50% from behind the 3-point line. This newfound success in Hanover on the basketball court has been a bit out of the blue, especially considering what the team had to go through with Boudreaux’s departure. Nevertheless, there is a certain excitement about the basketball team on campus that flannel night couldn’t seem to create during the losing seasons of the past. The team has a long road ahead of them, but if Saturday is any indication of how the season is going to go, the Big Green might be able to make history and return to the NCAA Tournament with an Ivy League title.

Rachel T. Gambee Evita H. Brown

CARTOON

“Dartmouth: Producing fine students for 250 Years; Producing finer double legacies since 1972”

CARTOON

DARTMOUTH ANNOUNCES “CALL TO SERVE”

On January 10, the administration kicked off an year-long celebration of the College’s sesquicentenary, though they preferred to call it Dartmouth’s 250th anniversary. Held at Baker-Berry Library, the event was surprisingly well-attended given its generic nature. After Cheryl Bascomb ‘82 and Professor Donald Pease, who were in charge of organizing the celebrations, spoke about the greatness of the College and delivered a brief overview of the events to come, President Hanlon declaimed his prepared remarks on the College’s ethnic diversity and “dynamic nature.” Aside from Prof. Pease’s hilarious remark that “administrators are involved in the most significant aspect of a liberal arts education,” the kickoff was relatively uneventful, but for the advertisement of the “Call to Serve.”

Billed as a way to “honor Dartmouth’s legacy of leadership in public service and goodwill,” the Call to Serve asks members of the Dartmouth community to collectively contribute 250,000 hours of community service this year in honor of it being the 250th year since Eleazar Wheelock founded a small college in rural New Hampshire. An invitation extended to all students and alumni of the College as well as to those of Tuck, Thayer, Geisel, and Guarini schools, the program promoting volunteerism includes projects ranging from “serving meals” to partnering with Cradles to Crayons to provide young children in need with school supplies and basic necessities.

In addition to these, the Dartmouth community is encouraged to organize their own projects in order to give back to the communities which, directly and indirectly, made them — and by extension, Dartmouth — what it is. President Hanlon and his administration have declared their intention to better the culture at the College, and to their credit, the Call to Serve does precisely that. It remains to be seen if the students of Dartmouth will live up to expectations.

5

“I only say sinking halves and respecting wom-ex-en.... just to be safe!”

CARTOON

“Why does everyone love this Webster guy? I saw in Baker that he was a slave owner.”

6 wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Death of a Nation

Eashwar N. Sivarajan

Associate Editor

Few people were surprised when Dinesh D’Souza released his latest political documentary in August of last year, like he has done every two years since 2012. Even fewer were shocked that the book that accompanied it provocatively compared President Trump to Abraham Lincoln, since D’Souza has built a career centered around infuriating the political left, albeit usually exhibiting the intelligence befitting an alumnus of The College. And absolutely nobody was amazed that every major left-leaning outlet and individual despised the book for its unapologetic — and at times unnecessary — opposition to the party of liberalism.

Dinesh D’Souza ‘83 edited the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review between 1985 and 1987, before serving in the Reagan White House as a policy advisor in 1987 and 1988.

The author of such conservative classics as Illiberal Education and The End of Racism, D’Souza used to be the John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and served as a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University until 2007.

Mr. Sivarajan is a sophomore at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

Given D’Souza’s impeccable conservative credentials, it is almost certain he sees President Trump for what he is: the chimeric amalgamation of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, driven by an unknown ideology that is guided only by the caprices of the people, and devoid of any knowledge of the history of conservatism in the United States — though his relationships with Hugh Hefner and the New York elite are sufficient evidence he knows quite a bit about the liberalism Mr. D’Souza so despises.

So why then does he equate the current President to the Great Emancipator? His past would suggest it is not out of some undying loyalty to the man who pardoned him — it isn’t hard to picture him honoring Cruz in a similar fashion had the Texan won — but out of spite towards to the Democrats. The man most hated by the Left must be likened to one of America’s most beloved Presidents precisely because it is the polar opposite of what the Left would like to be true.

The only thing the two Presidents have in common, prima facie, is their protectionist economic policy. Even a deeper exploration of the individuals reveals little in common between the Lincoln, the epitome of moral fortitude, and Trump, a man whose myriad indiscretions are legend-

ary. The reader understands D’Souza’s point only when he realizes the comparison of Trump to Lincoln has little do with either man, and is instead a comparison of the Democrats during the two periods, even though the author tries to disguise it in an attempt to maximize provocation.

The book serves as a historical analysis of the Democratic Party from its tacit validation of slavery, to its explicit support for white supremacy, to its overt racism, to its support for civil rights legislation, and finally to its endorsement of multiculturalism.

D’Souza strains to extract from these a single notion, a simple principle that has defined the Democratic Party from Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama. He partially succeeds by demonstrating a plausible link between every major Democratic leader and an earlier one which, when coupled with the similarities he establishes between Jackson and Van Buren, implies modern Democrats possess something in common with their 19th century predecessors. The book’s central thesis is similar to that of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, although unlike Goldberg’s focus on the liberal ideology, D’Souza looks at the political party which has historically adhered to said ideology. Unlike Liberal Fascism, wherein Goldberg highlights, as the name suggest, similarities between the ideologies of liberalism and fascism and tries to convince his audience of the existence of a common totalitarian temptation, Death of a Nation sets itself the less lofty goal of trying to demonstrate that modern Democrats, the party of the Left, share something in common with their slave-owning precursors.

Though the author succeeds, his polemic brilliance occasionally serves as a poor substitute for the well-researched intellectualism he displayed in his early books.

For instance, when Mr. D’Souza lists prominent Dixiecrats who remained with the party after the ‘60s, he mentions a “Senator William Murray,” a man whose existence is questionable, a fact that while utterly irrelevant to D’Souza’s argument provides fodder for the intellectually dishonest leftist ideologues who seek only to decry the book as propaganda. He also lists some people who did not live to see the passage of the civil rights bills and at times, the invective against the Dem-

ocratic Party appears to devolve into to unnecessary vituperation. Further, D’Souza seems to suggest that the Republican Party is the party of civil rights, even though he himself has advocated for its repeal of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The confusion could have easily been resolved had the author spent a few more pages outlining the obvious fact that while conservatives might have had other reasons for voting against the legislation, big-government Democrats’ opposition to the bill could only have been due to their disbelief in civil rights for their black constituents. Likewise, D’Souza could have substantiated more of his plausible, though not entirely obvious, arguments. Death of a Nation, unfortunately, was a few hundred pages too short, which the author must have realized. His failure to be thorough indicates his target audience is different from that of his first two major successes, people who care little for detail but are intrigued by the central premise of the book.

Dinesh D’Souza now writes for Sean Hannity’s viewers, not for Roger Scruton’s readers.

However, the question remains as to what brought about this shift. It is not often that one abandons the high-brow conservatism of James Burnham for the low-brow conservatism of Rush Limbaugh. In fact, D’Souza may very well be the first prominent conservative to do so. Has he transformed into a huckster, as Ross Douthat claims? Does he only care about profit, and is willing to compromise his beliefs for more money? Unlikely, but possible. However, one needs to operate from the assumption that the author’s writing documents his thoughts, because the contrary assumption reduces reading to a meaningless exercise in comprehension.

Like in The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Mr. D’Souza tries to distill his opponents’ philosophy into a single thought, ideally one that elicits a negative emotion in the minds of men.

In President Obama’s case, it was Kenyan anti-colonialism.

In the case of the Democratic Party, it was the ideology of the slave-master, the caricature of evil in the eyes of many Americans. In both books, the thesis is plausible, but more hypothesis than theory. It appears D’Souza, sometime in the last ten years, forsook the green pastures of intellectual

thought in favor of a larger audience.

D’Souza hates liberalism with every fiber of his being, evident by the fact that he once said he had more in common with Islamists than with liberals. But this visceral hatred was not shared by most prominent conservatives, and D’Souza left the Hoover Institution in 2007, and has since been intentionally distancing himself from the mainstream conservative movement, much like former-professor Jeffrey Hart ‘51. A speechwriter for Nixon and Reagan, Hart tore into George W. Bush’s Republican Party and correctly accused the Grand Old Party of succumbing to Rousseau-republicanism and “Bushism” of poisoning conservatism itself.

It is hard to imagine him saying anything different about “Trumpism”. While his mentor denounced the decline of conservatism, D’Souza has historically said little about the Republican Party, instead fixing his gaze upon liberalism and the Democrats that champion it, striving for political victories in an age of intellectually-bankrupt conservatism.

Though his political opinions land him squarely in the camp of the conservative mainstream, he still tries to shake off the label of stereotypical conservativism. Only the cloak of populism could shield D’Souza from being associated with the movement which all but expelled him ostensibly for daring to propose an alternative to the ludicrously-named War on Terror in his book The Enemy at Home.

In a lot of ways, Death of a Nation is the perfect book for the 21st century. It does just enough to “trigger” the left, doesn’t do enough to avoid condemnation from many intellectual conservatives, and is inundated with praise for President Trump, not all of it justified. Dinesh D’Souza has adapted his writing to reflect the conservatism of the Trumpian era, perhaps in all its perversity. His principled conservative critics who add their voices to the tempest of liberal excoriations fail to recognize the many social forces which run against them. For better or worse, D’Souza’s Death of a Nation reflects the most politically feasible manifestation of conservatism in present-day America and the man does an admirable job of revealing the strain of evil that to this day continues to haunt the Democratic Party, not that many will care.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – January 16, 2019

7

FEATURES

St. Paul’s Outside the Walls Ishaan H. Jajodia

Contributor

St. Paul’s Outside the Walls is a magnificent edifice whose life has been scarred many times over. The most recent disaster in this slowly unfolding tragedy was a fire started by a careless carpenter repairing the roof — “In doing so, he ironically consigned his repairs to be the last in a long line and unwittingly he wiped away 1500 years of history.” That is the point of departure for art history Professor Nicola Camerlenghi’s latest book, the monograph St. Paul’s Outside the Walls: A Roman Basilica, from Antiquity to the Modern Era (CUP, 2018).

The early 19th century was a bad time for the Papacy. Pope Pius VII had to bear the brunt of Napoleon, who had the Pope sit behind him during his coronation and do absolutely nothing but sulk. When the bedridden Pius VII thought that he was finally going to the Kingdom of God, he found out that St. Paul’s, where he received his first major assignment as Abbot in 1775, had burned down to the ground on the night of July 15, 1823. A month and five days later, Pius VII was dead.

Soon after, work started on securing donations for the new basilica, which was to be an exact copy of the old one. But which version of the old basilica was to be used? The first Mr. Jajodia is a junior at the College and a contributor at The Dartmouth Review.

building on the site commemorating the apostle Paul had been built on the orders of the 4th century Roman emperor Constantine in 324.

60 years later, the emperors Theodosius, Arcadius, and Valentinian II ordered the old basilica torn down and a basilica larger than St. Peter’s to be built on the site. Camerlenghi traces these evolutions in form of the basilica, weaving it into what was happening two kilometres away, inside the Aurelian walls that demarcated Rome. Eventually, the new basilica was consecrated in 1855, 40 years after the incident.

Camerlenghi’s approach to the problem is unlike any other taken to the study of St. Paul’s. The unique challenge of studying a building that is no longer extant is compounded in many ways by the “new” basilica.

Instead of circumventing this issue, as many scholars in the past have done, Camerlenghi forces himself to engage with the issue — and exploit modern technology as much as he can to further the study of the basilica. Examining the basilica as a living entity whose life began once in 324, and once again in 1855, Camerlenghi pushes the reader to examine the relationship between these two buildings more critically — and ultimately questions what the word ‘replica’ itself denotes.

While Freud may be much derided, the one thing he got right was Rome. He proudly proclaims in Civilisation and its Discontents that Rome is “not a human dwell-

ing-place, but a mental entity with just as long and varied a past history: that is, in which nothing once constructed had perished, and all the earlier stages of development had survived alongside the latest.”

Camerlenghi’s book picks up this notion — and in what is probably the best work in a long time on a building of this vintage — tells a story bound by it.

The story of St. Paul’s, in many ways, is also the story of Rome. Constantine’s church, albeit small, signalled the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Theodosius’ basilica was made 60 years later in an attempt to confer upon Paul a similar status to that of Peter, who had the largest basilica in Rome before this. Over the years, popes, monks, and emperors conspire to shape St. Paul’s outside the Walls into what it was. Due to its position as an apostolic papal basilica, St. Paul’s and its dependent communities find themselves able to skirt the neglect (at least, to the extent to which) the rest of Rome suffered from, but, it was truly the Sistine restoration heralded by Pope Sixtus V that pushed the basilica into the centre-stage, almost a century after the return of the Papacy from Avignon, France.

The scope of the journey on which Camerlenghi embarks upon is no less arduous than the voyage of Aeneas. He collated, in an interview, “sculptures, frescos, mosaics, columns, capitals, and inscriptions that are scattered about the church

site, around Rome and in museums across the world” and “combed through archives to collect and catalogue over 1,500 historical images, sketches, prints and photographs and to compile the disparate archaeological excavations conducted at the site over 180 years.” The reconstruction that the book partially rests on is remarkable in its scope, and creates an understanding of evolution over almost two millennia of radical flux.

The building’s long history and spiritual connotations evidently lead to the creation of myths surrounding it that were tacked onto its true historical identity. The Grand Tour resulted in the painter Giovanni Paolo Panini and etcher Giovanni Battista Piranesi creating highly detailed views of the interiors — with some added drama and a good sprinkling of figments of their imagination. Each favoured a particular vision of what the space was like and therefore privileged that in their representations. By separating its historical identity from the reality of the building’s history and clearly defining the two, Camerlenghi understands and reconciles the role of hearsay and myth in the histories that surround a remarkably long-lasting edifice.

One of the other things that Camerlenghi addresses extremely well is the acceptance of loss. The basilica, while considered widely to be a repository of important objects of both spiritual and historical inter-

est, also exerts its own identity. Its inopportune destruction — which one conspiracy theory attributed to the Rothschild family, which had arrived in Rome only five days before the fire — grants the book the power of postulating while being authoritative, an accomplishment that is hard to find in contemporary art history.

Art historians, as a group, tend to be overly sensitive to the loss of the very objects that they study (and, if I may say so, almost venerate). The pinning for the old does exist, but it refuses to overpower and overwhelm the ability to prioritise and present information in a critical manner.

While Camerlenghi’s monograph is singularly centred around a single edifice and its supporting elements, the approach he takes to the digital humanities and to the historiography of such a creation is innovative and inherently valuable to art historians interested in studying buildings with long lives that may or may not be extant in their ‘original’ state. A building that could do with similar attention is the Great Library of Alexandria, which too was confined to the fate of flames, albeit by Julius Caesar in 49 BC. In a way, the comparison is certainly apt, for the book seems predicated on unravelling the palimpsest that both Rome and the building represent in their own ways. This complex unpacking is, at its heart, a process that Camerlenghi once proclaimed on the top of the Janiculum Hill as “reading the stones.”

incredibly applicable to the lives of young students, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to Lewis’s Christian beliefs.

The Abolition of Man was not intended to be a book at all; C.S. Lewis delivered it as a series of three evening lectures at King’s College in 1943. The three lectures, entitled “Men Without Chests,” “The Way,” and “The Abolition of Man” now comprise the three chapters of the book. The first lecture “Men Without Chests” is a rebuke of two teachers whom Lewis refers to as Gaius and Titius and their publication “The Green Book.”

Lewis adopted these pseudonyms in order to preserve the anonymity of the men and book he was critiquing, now largely believed to have been Alexander King and Martin Kently and their publication The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing. Lewis’s choice to use to pseudonyms in his critique had an unintended consequence: expanding the application of Lewis’s argument.

Instead of being a specific condemnation of King and Kently, “Men Without Chests” is now a critique of philosophical folly in the education system of the whole. The primary philosophy folly that Lewis identified in “The Green Book” is a callous dismissal of values. He takes issue with a seemingly innocuous

passage in which Gaius and Titius criticize English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s description of a waterfall as sublime. Gaius and Titius argue that there is nothing about the waterfall that is objectively “sublime” in the same what that is could be called objectively large. They conclude that the adjective “sublime” does not describe the waterfall, but rather Coleridge’s feelings towards the waterfall, and therefore should be omitted from his description. Lewis argues that this conclusion, when carried to its fullest philosophical extent (as a young student is always want to do) will result in the dismissal of value itself.

Lewis asks his readers to not dismiss him as pedantic, but rather to consider the proposition for themselves. If values such as sublimity or beauty or bravery are not measurably qualities that can be entirely objectively applied to any object, then Gaius and Titius relegate to mere whims of the writer.

Under the best circumstances, the young students reading The Green Book will take the text at face value and will merely regard these values as unworthy of their attention; under the worst they will dismiss value from their consciousness entirely in a misguided attempt at self refinement. This endeavor to be led solely by the rational

or the objective, Lewis argues, is like a body whose mind is strong buts whose supportive chest withers away, hence the title of the chapter “Men Without Chests.”

In the next two chapters, “The Way” and “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis details the potential ramifications should Gaius and Titius amature philosophy gain traction in society.

First Lewis introduces the concept of the Tao, the sum total of all global value systems, eastern and western, religious and otherwise. Here Lewis acknowledges and indeed lauds the existence of virtues independent of any specific religious or cultural tradition. This independence allows the Tao have such a broad reach that it is entirely comprehensive, so much so that Lewis believes that all ideas fall into one of two categories: within the Tao or without it.

Lewis states that men like Gaius and Titius who counsel skepticism of the Tao are both operating outside of the Tao and outside of basic reason itself.

While he agrees with the sentiment that the mind of a young student should be critical of his surrounding influences, he also argues that this criticism must be used prudently. Used imprudently, an over-zealous student could start chipping away at the Tao while looking

for a more foundational human understanding than these virtues when in fact none exists.

He echos a core American ideal when he states that while the search for evidence is necessary in many fields, there also exist certain truths that are self-evident. A love and understanding of these self-evident truths, the virtues of the Tao are what call man to rise above the base and animalistic world; they are the defining feature of our species.

Thus, an abolition of universal value necessitates the abolition of man.

If students are not sufficiently moved by the desire to preserve man, then perhaps they can be compelled to retain universal values by Lewis’s final argument in this masterpiece.

Lewis calls on students to think of sight as an analogous quality to the knowledge that they claim to speak, as to see something clearly is the best way to know it. Using the same analogy, to look for a justification for knowledge that like the Tao is inherent to society is just a way of seeing through it. Having established this thought experiment Lewis closes remarking, “If you see through everything, then everything is transparent.

But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.”

The Abolition of Man Rachel T. Gambee

Executive Editor

Over the holiday break I found no better way to close 2018 than re-reading C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man. This was particularly meaningful as 2018 marked the 75th anniversary of the book’s publishing. After three-quarters of a century, The Abolition of Man, originally titled The Abolition of Man: Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in Upper Form Schools, has been lauded by literary critics and academics alike. Notably, The National Review and The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, two beloved institutions here at The Review, both rank this work in their top ten best books of the 20th century. Nevertheless, even as C.S. Lewis’s other, more overtly religious works, namely Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce, have enjoyed newfound popularity among groups of young, born-again Christians both at the College and across the country, The Abolition of Man has remained a somewhat obscure love of great-generation academics. This is quite unfortunate as The Abolition of Man, despite its age, remains Ms. Gambee is a sophomore at the College and an executive editor at The Dartmouth Review.

8 Wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Humane Beasts, Beastly Humans > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Part I of the book is titled “Unfortunate Destiny”, matching the book’s title. This section of the work takes a much narrower look at the nature of the animal realm and the unfortunateness of those born into it. The first of two chapters in this section (titled, once again, “Unfortunate Destiny”) discusses the horror of being an animal in the Buddhist cosmos. “To be an animal… is to live a miserable and pathetic existence, to suffer intensely, to lack the intelligence that makes spiritual progress possible, and to die in a state of abject terror, with little hope of ever attaining a higher rebirth.” There are five possible rebirths—god, human, ghosts, animals, and hell-beings.

The first two are brought about by good deeds whereas the latter three are considered (you guessed it) “unfortunate destinies” brought about by immoral deeds. Rebirth into these last three categories is to be avoided at all costs. To be reborn as an animal is to have a fate right next to the torments of hell. “To be an animal” Ohnuma writes, “is to live a short and brutish lifetime replete with suffering; constantly oppressed by ‘hunger, thirst, heat, and cold’; continually devouring and being devoured by others; mindlessly engaging in promiscuity and incest; tormented and enslaved by human beings; lacking in language, reason, intelligence, wisdom, and insight.”

The challenge of being reborn as an animal is, to put it bluntly, that animals are too dumb to be moral or immoral. Though humans are born higher on the cosmic ladder of rebirth, only they are able to commit the five worst sins. Being human is about knowing the difference between right and wrong, of being capable of restraint. Animals lack of intelligence has moral repercussions as they are largely immune to moral or spiritual betterment.

Ohnuma concludes this first chapter by asking “What hope is there, then, for the animal?”

The answer lies in the second half of this section, where she delves into stories of animals redeeming themselves and achieving salvation. Two poignant examples are stories of the suicides of a snake and a buffalo. Each of these animals, by knowingly committing suicide in various ways, release themselves from suffering. Their non-natural suicide asserts the total incompatibility of the animal state with moral agency, self-cultivation, and final release from suffering.

Part II of the work is entitled “When Animals Speak.” In this section, Ohnuma focuses on the animals found in the Pali jatakas. The animals in these stories, Mr. Wang is a junior at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

as opposed to those in Parts I and III, are highly anthropomorphized and capable of advanced speaking abilities. One poignant example of the morbidity of the animal’s fate is in her analysis of Chris Noonan’s 1995 film Babe, wherein she peels back the innocent façade of the movie to reveal the animal’s plight underneath.

The first chapter is entitled “(Human) Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw” followed by a Buddhist quote on human nature: “Human beings say one thing with their mouths and do another thing with their bodies.” The section very much reads like an animal’s version of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy or Gulliver’s Travels, though the stories tend to be more morbid than comedic. Part II is, in my opinion, most poignant to modern readers, as it reminds humans of their capability for cruelty in their actions and institutions. Numerous moral lessons resound to contemporary ears in these stories. One story discusses a king whose chariot has been chewed upon by dogs. Enraged, the king orders that dogs be killed wherever they are seen.

The leader of the dogs approaches the palace and interrogates the king. After a series of questions and responses, the leader of the dogs responds, “Great King, just now you said that because it was dogs who chewed up the leather of your chariot, you have ordered dogs to be executed, commanding that all of them are to be killed, wherever they are seen— and yet now, you are saying that the purebred dogs in your household are not being killed. This being the case, you are following the [four] evil courses of passion, [hatred, delusion, and fear] … A king, when deciding on a punishment, should be [as impartial] as a scale… The dogs who have grown up within this royal household, the purebred dogs endowed with beauty and strength — They are not being executed. This is not true exception; this is the murder of the weak!” By ordering all dogs to be killed instead of the few dogs who committed the crime (and by excluding the palace dogs), the king himself becomes guilty of a crime. Far from administering legal punishments, “he is, in fact, committing ‘murder.’” The other fallacy mentioned is that the king has failed to distinguish between the individual and the species. If an animal can be judged to be guilty, they must have moral agency. If a king then wishes to punish said animal, that animal must be tried as an individual, not as a species.

The king here lumps together the actions of a few individuals into punishments for all of that group.

Part III steps away from moralizing animals and focuses more on the function of animals in relation to the Buddha. Entitled “Animal Doubles of the Buddha,” Part III focuses on the specific individual animals that the Bud-

dha encounters in his travels and categorizes the three based on their relationship to him. This section is the least pleasant to read, as it delves deep into the world of Buddhist literature that most readers are still strangers in.

There is also difficulty in adjusting to animals that are no longer anthropomorphic and capable of speech following the second part.

Nonetheless, the book charges ahead. The three following stories are categorized as animal doubles of the Buddha. In this section, Ohnuma shows that “animal characters allow the epic story to ‘try out alternative plots and personalities’-- they provide ‘a kind of narrative thought experiment’ and present us with ‘possibilities that no mere doubling by means of another human subplot could.’”

The book is certainly an educational experience. More than that, the book transforms the way that the reader sees animals in literature and, consequently, the world. One gains a new respect for the various life forms that inhabit this planet with us, as well as a new drive to distance ourselves from our animalistic tendencies of hatred and unnecessary violence towards our own species, irrational fear and anger, and uncontrollable desire. Though these lessons are valuable and worth

learning, the journey is not necessarily an easy or always enjoyable one. Past the novel nature of the subject matter, the book has other failings. Its organization, though sections are clearly separated, can be confusing and arbitrary at first and readers may find it difficult to keep track. One often becomes lost in the barrage of different stories and forgets why they are there in the first place. While there is sufficient evidence provided, there is little guidance on the author’s part on the significance of each piece. I highly recommend the reader to first read the conclusion (there are no spoilers, I assure you) before engaging with the rest of the text, as it provides a necessary framework. Additionally, many of Ohnuma’s conclusions derived from provided stories are incompatible with various other stories. Animals at one time are subhuman and only capable of base desires with an inability to understand morality but are also capable of moral deeds and greatness and humanity. The process of reading through the book, to a very logical reader, can be infuriating at times. It’s important to note that these issues often arise when dealing with literary traditions. There are rarely any set rules that each writer plays by, and it is difficult draw any perfect

conclusions.

Ohnuma’s supporting material suffers from a general lack of thematic consistency. Some sections focus very much on other scholarly literature about the topic at hand while others focus on moral philosophy and some comments just seem to come from her mind (as when she is discussing the individuality of animals through her dog Dusty). It isn’t so much the case that these examples are ineffective in clarifying certain concepts, but the variation in supporting ideas adds to the frenzy arising from the work’s unclear structure. Despite these reservations, Ohnuma does achieve her goal. It is difficult to communicate about a niche topic in a field most are unfamiliar with, and her target is likely academic as opposed to a lay audience.

Following the conclusion of the book, the lay reader still leaves with a basic understanding of some of the various ways animals are represented in Buddhist literature. As Ohnuma notes, “while animals remained distinct from human beings through their lack of language, animals themselves became a language through which Buddhist authors could speak—and, on occasion, animals themselves could be heard.”

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – January 16, 2019

9

FEATURES

The Indian World of George Washington > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 But Calloway states that his purpose is neither to whitewash nor demonize Washington. He does this by presenting a balanced book, filled with well-integrated sources and quotations, and a keen sense for analyzing the underlying currents of the time. To leave this book without a changed perspective in America’s early history is to not have read the book at all.

Calloway’s writing is neither flowery nor stale. Instead, he strives for historical accuracy, which he does excellently. The book is split into three parts, “Part One: Learning Curves,” “Part Two: The Other Revolution,” and “Part Three: The First President and The First Americans.” None of the sections are especially long, and Calloway presents great detail, using pictures, maps, and diagrams throughout. He also includes a considerable collection of images that enables the reader to visualize the people and places involved. Both the structure and writing style of the book are suitable and would do many a great favor in demonstrating how to write a history book that is digestible and not flamboyant.

Both the Native Americans and Washington are given their due introductions. While some readers might think this is an autobiography of Washington with some Indian elements thrown in, it is not. Instead, it simply uses Washington as an anchor and — considering Washington’s instrumental influence in establishing America — as a metonym for America itself.

From Washington’s early interactions with Native Americans until his death, he was always learning about Indian diplomacy which informed his approach to foreign policy. At the beginning of his career, Native Americans rather than Washington, held the upper-hand in the relationship. This was most evidenced by his dealings with the French, where he had to secure Indian allies in order to successfully achieve his mission. The Indians were not easily fooled and had their own diplomatic methodology. They too were nationalists, and always sought to preserve their sovereignty, leading to changing alliances with France, England, Spain, and in the future, the United States.

The French and Indian War, or the Seven-Years War, broke out due to Tanaghrisson, a Seneca. “‘In reality,’ concluded [David] Dixon, ‘it was an aged Seneca sachem who began the first of the World Wars,’” and furthermore it was “an aged Seneca” who created the circumstances in which Washington was to Mr. Rauda is a sophomore at the College and an executive editor at The Dartmouth Review.

earn his fame in the French and Indian War. However, his lack of experience during the war also led to blunders, most notably the surrender of Fort Necessity.

Calloway also notes that it was here, in Washington’s dealings with Indians, that the virtues of the future president were first exemplified. His dealings with Indians also caused Washington to realize the grave positioning of America at the time of its founding. To put it simply, they were surrounded: the English to the North and on the seas, the Spanish to the South and later the Southeast, the French to the North and West, and with the Indians along the Western border. For the young nation to survive, Calloway observes, it needed to secure its borders. It is here where the Indians played a huge role, albeit indirectly, in the interpretation of the Constitution.

Due to the precarious nature of border security, America needed to negotiate treaties with the surrounding nations.

The first treaty America negotiated was with the Creeks in the South. Article II of the Constitution allows the president, with “advise and consent of the Senate,” to negotiate treaties. Washington and his advisors interpreted this as actively working with the Senate during the negotiation of the treaty, meaning that writing treaties was interpreted as a collaborative effort between the executive branch and the legislative branch. However, Washington’s visit to the Senate was so disastrous — partly because the Senate was dumbfounded by his presence — that Washington vowed to never ask for their input ever again. Because of this treaty with the Creeks, the president gives the finalized treaty to the Senate, and the treaty drafting process remains an uncooperative one. Another event that revolutionized the checks and balances of the government is when Washington asked for an expedition in the Northwest territory to enforce order in newly gained territory. However, this territory was anything but empty, as when the British gave this territory to the Americans in the Treaty of Paris, they gave a territory that belonged to Native Americans. When the United States Army marched in, they were attacked by surprise and the resulting battle ended in a complete disaster, infamously called St. Clair’s Defeat, and was labelled as America’s worst defeat. The fiasco was so calamitous that this led to the first investigation of the executive branch by the legislative branch.

For a while, Washington’s advisors sought to claim what is now known as “executive privilege” in the name of “national security” in order to prevent the executive branch from being found guilty of anything. However,

WASHINGTON AT TRENTON By John Trumbull Washington ended up producing the documents, and the investigation did not result in any sort of punishment, but rather declared that there was a lack of judgement somewhere along the hierarchy. The controversial privilege was first conceived in the aftermath of an American defeat to Native Americans.

Given that troops were underprepared, this showed America that it needed a standing military, and thus it needed a stronger federal government.

Calloway then proceeds to discuss how the creation of this strong federal government was spearheaded by Hamilton, who shared many of Washington’s views. This strong federal government, responsible for levying taxes and raising an army, was also done in order to push for Indian lands where diplomacy had failed. More interestingly, this also created a rift between northern and southern states, and between state governments and the federal government.

At the time of St. Clair’s defeat, many Southerners asked themselves why Washington had sent troops to secure the Northern border, but not the Southern border. These debates were also amplified by the question of expansion, which, while having Washington’s full support, at

Image courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art

times was at odds with the Indian policies of some states. It is not a great leap, therefore, as Calloway implies, that Native Americans played a considerable role in the development of federalism in early America.

Calloway provides a unique historical insight to the men in the book, by presenting diary entries where they ask themselves, or at least question, how these events will be portrayed in the future. These thoughts are reminiscent of what Irving Kristol said in “The American Revolution as a Successful Revolution.” “We are arrogant and condescending toward all ancestors because we are so convinced we understand them better than they understood themselves,” spoke Kristol at an AEI lecture series for the Bicentennial of the United States. Calloway shines a light on the thoughts of Henry Knox, first Secretary of War and close advisor to Washington on the Native treaties, who wrote in his diary that the result of a violent seizure of Indian lands would lead to “a stain on the national reputation of America.” But perhaps, the most relevant reflection that Knox wrote was the following: “The United States may have the verdict of mankind against them; for men are ever ready to espouse the

cause of those who appear to be oppressed provided their interference may cost them nothing.”

The fact that these men themselves reflected upon their policies and their legacies, allows readers and historians to view these men as people rather than just historical figures.

The Indian World of George Washington contributes greatly to the growing national discourse on the morality of the actions by George Washington, his circle of advisors, and his successors. As Calloway notes, however, Washington did share a vision for the collaboration of Indians and Americans, which while it involved the destruction of Indian identity, also provided an exit for communities who were dying. A more idealistic policy, “the nation-to-nations relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes today,” Calloway notes, “resembles that which Washington, in many of his writings and some of his policies, aspired to establish.” At no point in the book did Calloway entangle himself in tying the contents of the book with current debates. Yet, in reading the book, Calloway expertly allows the readers to form their own conclusions, no matter how difficult those might be in the end.

10 Wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Naked Money: A Revealing Look at Our Financial System

Brian Drisdelle

Associate Editor

For the average person, money is something of almost absurd simplicity. It’s a piece of paper emblazoned with some old guy’s portrait, helping people turn their work hours at McKinsey into Bean Boots and Canada Goose jackets. Does it really warrant any more thinking than that? Money holds some sort of value and can be exchanged for things. It’s such a fundamental facet of Western culture that to most, the concept never could warrant too much scrutiny.

To put it simply, Professor Wheelan’s book takes that notion by the throat and thrusts it under the guillotine. Something so purportedly elementary — a fundamental aspect of everyday life — is revealed to be so spectacularly complex. The opening pages present some of currency’s craziest antics, debunking any common preconceptions off the bat and setting a blank slate off of which Wheelan builds entirely new definition of money. He manages to take something outwardly simple, render it outrageously complicated, and then slowly put the pieces back together in a more coherent fashion — an immense undertaking, but one which he is able to accomplish with an awesome lucidity. Suddenly, money becomes more than just a piece of paper.

Naked Money is inseparable Mr. Drisdelle is a sophomore at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

from Wheelan’s personality.

His tone is lighthearted and colloquial, making his work an easy read for any reasonable adult. He’s particularly talented at distracting readers from the academic nature of his writing.

With innumerable references to his kids and family – even a run-in with his daughter’s controversial boyfriend — he comes across, well, as a dad, not the typical breed of insipid academic. While this certainly does a great deal to transform money-talk from Wall Street jargon into comprehensible English, it definitely creates some obstacles for Wheelan as a writer. Only on a select few occasions does he trip on the temptation of a trite remarks and dad-jokes, but regardless, he successfully circumvents the ordinary lecture-like style that all-too-commonly embodies academic boringness.

Altogether, Wheelan’s quirks turn a college economics class into an engaging read.

However, while the text flows smoothly, the subject matter itself may not the most accessible. Having studied macroeconomics before reading the book, some of the terminology used up-front could fathomably be somewhat confusing to somebody new to the topic.

The first few pages certainly invoked some callbacks to my class with Professor Freyrer — one of Wheelan’s colleagues listed in the foreword — and that itself is a sign that there might be some unintended prerequisite knowledge. Still, I nonetheless contend that Naked Money is a great choice for

anyone interested in the topic, maybe even without prior experience.

Now, being interested in economics is certainly different than being willing to read a 300-page book on money, but if there’s one thing that stands out from the first page of Wheelan’s work, it’s that he is quite talented at continuously catching the reader’s attention.

His writing is peppered with humorous analogies and cultural references, which makes the text relatable. For instance, he teleports readers to a bar in ‘90s Zimbabwe to explain the disasters of a deflationary spiral: “Let me interrupt your reverie about falling beer prices and allow you to contemplate a less attractive chain of events,” he asks. And this inclusion isn’t alone; Wheelan does well at representing complex ideas with familiar concepts. But, speaking of the inclusion of beer specifically, one of my favorite references — and certainly one with an almost uncanny predictive value — is located in his discussion of a theoretical rice-farming economy to explain credit failure: “We now rejoin our farming hamlet, where the village council has appointed a Rice Panic Inquest Commission, Elizabeth Warren is running for chief elder, and angry farmers with pitchforks have surrounded the rice storehouses.”

Unfortunately for Elizabeth Warren, there’s no mention of beer in this rice economy.

How now will she connect with those young rice-farming voters?

On the subject of politicians, well, it’s relatively obvious that Wheelan has a good deal of contempt for them, and that sentiment rears its head recurrently throughout his work.

The most fervent instance is his discussion of former Congressman Ron Paul’s influen-

derstands why politicians are taking these stances in the first place. Wheelan had prefaced all of these discussions advocating for strong, independent central banking, and he even mentioned the almost absurd amount of power invested in the Fed chairman as a result.

What he failed to acknowledge was that, while the Federal Reserve has tremendous potential to be an incredible asset to this country, it equally has the potential to ruin it, never mind that the reigns are out of the hands of the American citizenry and under the con-

Naked Money is an engaging read that outlines world currency systems with stellar clarity. I would strongly recommend Professor Wheelan’s book to anybody interested in the topic. trol of unelected bureaucrats.

He even outlines how the Fed enormously exacerbated the Great Depression, talks about their historical lack of transparency, and yet he continues to shed little sympathy upon the skeptics. Any conservative opposition to the United States’ central bank has always been principally a power issue — perhaps no other post in the American government has the potential to turn more tyrannical, even unintentionally — and that’s reasonably quite intimidating to those who continuously advocate for smaller, more transparent government.

Again, Wheelan makes some great arguments, but they wholly fail to counter the underlying dissent, and I think that takes away from the wider credibility of his work.

Another critique of mine, which may be rendered entirely invalid in due time, is his praise of Ben Bernanke for his actions during the 2008 recession, and certainly his advocation for quantitative easing

Unfortunately for Elizabeth Warren, there’s no mention of beer in this rice economy. How now will she connect with those young rice-farming voters? tial book End the Fed, where he makes his case against the titular proposition. I’m not going to argue that Wheelan doesn’t present some solid contentions, and in fact I think that he makes some very good points, but I altogether wish that this section was never included.

While I certainly wouldn’t call the segment partisan, I think his approach to it has the potential to alienate some readers. Similar is the case when he quotes Ted Cruz defending the gold standard after a chapter of telling his audience that it’s an utterly awful idea. It’s not that his points aren’t valid, but it’s that he completely misun-

man might be revealed to have done everything completely wrong after a couple decades’ worth of time. Again, I would argue that Wheelan could profit from leaving out more subjective judgements from his descriptions of public figures; in some cases, it’s alienating, and in other cases, it can be confusing, but either way, I don’t think it’s entirely befitting of an introductory-type book altogether.

With all things considered, my criticisms tend to be minor nitpicks instead of major reworkings; Professor Whee-

as a form of ameliorating it.

Surprisingly enough, Wheelan doesn’t shy away from pointing out the ways in which the Fed’s aggressive policy could fuel future turmoil, though he clumps them all at the end of the book after a whole couple hundred pages’ worth of praise. The tone all throughout seemed to be that Bernanke had done an objectively good job, and then he throws in at the end that the results are still up in the air. Especially after contending so strongly that the Fed’s critics are misguided, it was almost disorienting to hear him say that the book’s model Federal Reserve Chair-

lan has authored a beautiful guidebook to the inner workings of currency, something that the world could probably use much more of. It’s stunning the degree to which the factors that he discusses affect the daily life of the average individual, and it’s scary that Americans don’t know more about the system in which they’re quite literally staking their entire livelihoods.

It’s certainly much more dynamic than I ever could have expected and, if more everyday people knew more of the power vested in the unelected officials at the Federal Reserve, they would likely have a permanently altered view of the cash in their pockets.

Of course, Wheelan’s intention was never to scare — he certainly didn’t render me any more skeptical of government — but the reality is that there’s a lot more to the dollar bill, and the concept of currency in general, than I ever could have expected. There’s undoubtedly a lot more that the standard American ought to know.

Naked Money is an engaging read that outlines world currency systems with stellar clarity. I would strongly recommend Professor Wheelan’s book to anybody interested in the topic. Even if the subject of economics doesn’t sound all too appealing, Wheelan does a remarkable job of tying in the subject matter to contemporary life, offering a world-altering perspective and incredible revelation into how little people truly know about one of society’s most important cornerstones. It’s a must-read introduction for anyone seeking fiscal awareness, a revealing crash-course on the basic fundamentals of world economies, and it will truly leave readers wondering how they went for so long knowing ohso little.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – January 16, 2019 11

FEATURES

The Corrosion of Conservatism

Daniel Bring

Editor-at-Large

In the case of Max Boot’s latest book, the subtitle, Why I Left the Right, serves its contents more accurately than its main title, The Corrosion of Conservatism. The work is essentially and emphatically a personal narrative, not a robust, philosophical analysis of modern American conservatism.

The book is a hurried overview of Boot’s intellectual roots as a contrarian teenager and charts his course amidst the conservative intelligentsia through the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and into the first year or so of the Trump administration.

Boot, the noted military historian (Savage Wars of Peace, 2002) and professional journalist, writes fluidly and engagingly.

Though I occasionally found myself groaning under the weight of heavy-handed diction — Ted Cruz’s “oleaginous manner,” for instance — I did not lose interest.

This sense of captivation is to his credit because I found his intellectual dishonesty and causticity genuinely abhorrent.

Boot, once at the literary heart of the hawkish Republican Party in the early 2000s, now finds himself a man without a party.

His story begins with a prologue that reads like a lengthy Facebook post from the morning of November 9, 2016 and details his mixing of wine and sleeping pills on the night of the election to get to bed. His cavalier attitude toward potential mixed-drug Mr. Bring is a sophomore at the College and Editor-at-Large to The Dartmouth Review.

toxicity foreshadows other poor decisions on his part.

After that not-exactly-propitious beginning, Boot manages to salvage something of the reader’s interest in his first titled chapter, “The Education of a Conservative.” He comes off as most sympathetic and relatable in this chapter, in which he details his provocative, literary youth and admiration for President Reagan. After the following chapter, which charts his integration within the conservative journalistic establishment, the rest of the book devolves into tired and emotional vitriol, splashed at President Trump and every one of his “willing accomplices,” as well as those who are merely complacent with the present regime.

Boot descends over the span of the next few brief yet exhausting chapters into a dizzying display of bemusement and ill-articulated anger.

In one chapter, entitled “The Cost of Capitulation,” he enumerates the particular sins of President Trump and his “accomplices.” In one of this chapter’s sections, he levels a charge of racism against Trump. Among his other spurious evidence is the questionable assertion that Trump’s public mistreatment of “rich African American athletes” protesting the national anthem at football games constitutes racism. This nonsensical claim (See “fallacy of composition”) makes use of the most common smear tactics, which is to say that criticizing an individual is equivalent to criticizing their much broader identity.

In another chapter, Boot makes some common yet convincing arguments that some of Trump’s boasts about his presidency’s success are embellishments. He points out that the President has had little impact on the economy’s recent success, that the mounting deficits are a serious issue, and that the nation’s trade policy is dangerous.

These are all points that I will readily concede, and if Boot had stuck to the facts, he could’ve laid out a more compelling argument in the rest of the book. But instead, he falls backs on ideology and anger.

Thusly, Boot attacks Trump’s track record on foreign policy, pretending superiority with his supposed “national security expert” status. He condemns Trump for supposedly acquiescing to North Korea and Russia, showing his hawkish preference for war instead of peace. In the rest of the text, he self-consciously distances himself from his former and ardent support for the U.S.-led coalition invasion of Iraq. He states that the majority of Americans, including Trump and many pro-Trump Republicans, also supported the invasion of Iraq.

Sadly, Mr. Boot, millions of people being wrong still doesn’t make you right.

In the book’s closing chapter, “The Origins of Trumpism,” Boot laments that conservatism has not always meant the classical liberalism he thought it meant.

Angrily he declaims the inquisitorial anti-communism of the 1950s and its patron, Senator Joe McCarthy. He blames Republican media and dubious political figures like Sarah Palin for stoking the anger that he feels drives conservatism in this country.

Anger, or perhaps even hatred, is the basis for modern American conservatism in his view. The

and says “I will fight for my principles wherever they may lead me.” This kind of speechifying might play in one of the young Ronald Reagan’s less-acclaimed pictures, but it does not an effective argument make.

And thus ends Boot’s 214-page screed.

Formally, the narrative style fluctuates between autobiographical and conversational, reflective and prescriptive. The book and its arguments remain most agreeable when he restrains himself to a light touch. Boot digresses constantly in his recollections; for example, we learn of his affinity for bagels with smoked salmon. Remarkably, these momentary lapses in his otherwise pained severity are among the book’s most redeeming qualities.

At other points, Boot’s facile anguish at his erstwhile party becomes so acrid that it left a lingering bad taste in this reader’s mouth. In the chapter spanning the 2016 Republican primaries and then the general election, he practically keeps a running tally of which #NeverTrumpers kowtowed to the Donald and who departed indignantly like himself. Sporadically, he launches into invectives against individuals, namely Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza ’83, and institutions, such as Fox News and The Dartmouth Review.

Throughout Corrosion, Boot’s hypocrisy is laughable. He pines for the “open and inclusive conservatism” of the Reagan years, which he believes stands diametrically opposed to “bigoted” Trumpian populist conservatism. Yet he idealizes William F. Buckley, Jr.’s role as a “gatekeeper” to the movement, expelling heterodox thinkers and purifying “movement conservatism.”

He derides Trump supporters, a plurality of this nation politically, as “toadies.” Those with a

Throughout Corrosion , Boot’s hypocrisy is laughable. He pines for the “open and inclusive conservatism” of the Reagan years, which he believes stands diametrically opposed to “bigoted” Trumpian populist conservatism. only anger that emanates from the pages is his own.

Boot’s epilogue, unnecessarily designated as such, offers some of his harshest—and strangest— words. In the case that anyone thought that Boot could end such a jumbled work with some cogent writing, I’m sorry to say he does not. He confesses, “I now ardently wish harm upon my former party because it has become an enabler of Trump….”

For a writer supposedly trying to restore decency to politics, these are hardly conciliatory words.

In potentially the most grandiose final paragraph conceivable, Boot calls himself a “political Ronin,” a samurai without a liege,

firm belief in the integrity of national borders are “nativists,” a 19th-century pejorative recently reapplied to the President and his followers. Though hardly as extreme as labeling them “a basket of deplorables,” Boot’s choice of words belies his frustration with a Republican base that now favors the patriotic populism of the President, instead of Boot’s own aggressive internationalism.

Boot plays it fast and loose with his intellectual integrity and factual responsibility. He condemns conservative outlets for originating fake news, while liberal and left-wing sites like The Daily Kos and cable news channels like CNN have been

as dishonest and nearly as long.

He declares that if Obama had done the things that Trump is doing, Republicans who now laud Trump would’ve lambasted Obama. This is true, but he ignores the fact that it goes both ways: Trump is detested by the Democrats for things that they would’ve applauded in Obama’s presidency, such as withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan.

Stretching logic and history to their breaking point, Boot likens Trump’s participation in WWE events to Caligula’s blooddrenched Colosseum gladiatorial antics. He states that Nero’s killing of Christians after the Roman fire of 64 A.D. was a “precursor of the kind of scapegoating of minorities that Trump specializes in.” It is a shame to see an accomplished, popular military historian sink so low in his sophistry.

Most egregiously, he compares Trump’s rise among the American conservative elite to that of Adolf Hitler in the Weimar Republic. This common comparison is particularly vexing because one would hope a refugee from religious persecution in the Soviet Union like Max Boot would understand the distinction. Instead, he uses his lived experience to justify his animus against the former real estate developer, who is allegedly quite like the Soviet apparatchiks from whom he fled. Boot wavers on these troubling comparisons later on, but his original intention is clear.

Max Boot himself is indicative of precisely what he’s trying to prove, “the corrosion of conservatism.” He has been intellectually corroded by political self-interest. I don’t believe that political self-interest is inherently bad, but when it becomes spiteful and tenacious, it is simply tasteless. In Corrosion, he recalls with relish his advisory roles for the McCain, Romney, and Rubio campaigns. One cannot but think that his resentment for the President and the current GOP stems from his track record, all the way back to the invasion of Iraq, of picking the wrong horse.

Unlike Boot’s dense, detail-oriented military histories, this book is hardly worth reading. At best, he doesn’t add anything to the conversation that hasn’t been said more succinctly by George Will, Bill Kristol, and other conservative opponents from the Right. At worst, he indulges in the rhetoric and talking points of the likes of Rachel Maddow and NowThis.

Furthermore, his scornful memoir doesn’t contribute to the civil discourse for which he so longs.

Max Boot still stands to learn from the Iraq War: ardently wishing harm on your adversaries does little to produce meaningful change.

12 wednesday – January 16, 2019

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY ZACHARY Z. WANG

“Cheat your landlord if you can and must, but do not try to shortchange the Muse. It cannot be done. You can’t fake quality any more than you can fake a good meal.”

–William S. Burroughs

“It is the mark of an educated person ot search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it.”

–Aristotle

“To defend what you’ve written is a sign that you are alive.”

–William Zissner

“The purpose of the writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.”

–Albert Camus

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

–Socrates

“Statistically, if you’re reading this sentence, you’re an oddball. The average American spends three minutes a day reading a book. At this moment, you and I are engaged in an essentially antiquated interaction. Welcome, fellow Neanderthal!”

–Dick Meyer

“The road to hell is paved with adverbs.”

–Stephen King

“It is what you read when you don’t have to that determines what you will be when you can’t help it.”

–Oscar Wilde “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil.”

–Plato

“After nourishment, shelter and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world.”

–Philip Pullman “Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out” – William F. Buckley, Jr.

“Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.”

–Theodore Roosevelt “Even a fool learns something once it hits him”

“A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words.”

–Edmund Burke “Quid est veritas?”

–Pontius Pilate

“A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge.”

–George R. R. Martin “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”

–Ray Bradbury “Grinning is something you do when you are entertained in some way, such as reading a good book or watching someone you don’t care for spill orange soda all over themselves” –Lemony Snicket “Reading is an act of civilization; it’s one of the greatest acts of civilization because it takes the free raw material of the mind and builds castles of possibilities.”

–Ben Okri “Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we have ours.”

–John Locke “No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to chosen ignorance.”

–Confucius

“Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read. ” –Groucho Marx

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

STEVE FORBES READS THE REVIEW

To Our Esteemed Colleague Dear old Dartmouth, give a rouse For the young man on the green For the ice and cold around him, And the loyalty he has to his shorts.

For the son of old Dartmouth, For the shins visible to all.

Though ‘round the campus he roams, His shorts and T-Shirt remain.

–Homer

“The first duty of a man is to think for himself.”

–Jose Marti

Ingredients

• Handle of Granite State Vodka, priced at $6.79.

• Leave off jacket, coat, long pants, and dignity.

He has the still North winter all around him, The hill winds asking how he stays warm.

And the Granite State Vodka of New Hampshire In his muscles and his veins.

Literally there is so much Granite State Vodka of New Hampshire In his muscles and his veins.

Dear old Dartmouth Memes for Cold AF Teens, set a watch, lest the world forget about that alcoholic.

Try to stand as sister stands by brother.

Dare a shot for the old warmth.

Greet the world from the hills with a hail and sneakers!

For the son of old Dartmouth, For his poor frostbitten fingers.

Around the world they hear of him His old grimy gym shorts and a lack of coat and dignity.

Around the world they keep for him Their old sad looks and keys To keep their liquor cabinets locked.

He still has the still North in his soul, The vodka on his breath.

And the Granite State Vodka Is made part of him ’til death By cirrhosis.

And frostbite.

Please get a coat. Seriously. It’s like -14 and dropping.

— Scotch Cara