Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back

Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back by Marc J. Dunkelman

Progressivism is torn between individual autonomy and the desire for big government solutions. The current result is massively expensive projects that can be easily be derailed by the simplest thing. 

Big Projects reached their zenith during the age of Robert Moses. He had the wherewithal and the budget to do just about anything. He rammed freeways through residential neighborhoods with little regard to who lived there or what they needed. He decided parkways should be for cars and not buses. He built beaches and other amenities with particular people in mind. He got things done. At first, people were happy with the benefits they saw from his megaprojects. The people complaining were seen to be in the way of progress. Eventually his plans got in the way with those in power. This led to greater restrictions on what could be done.

Today things of turned far in the other way. Environmental impact statements require development to explore various different negative impacts of a project. These stretch much beyond the ecological environment to different peoples and groups. Projects are looked at through an equity lens to ensure that some groups are not disproportionately hurt. There are many veto points in the process. There are also many opportunities to file lawsuits to halt a project. Projects often balloon in cost in order to respond to all these complaints. Perversely, wealthy people with deep pockets are most able to stop projects. You can see in Seattle where there are freeway lids over the rich suburbs, but not in the dense city where they would be most useful. The process also favors the status quo. An existing project that harms many people, but benefits a few is hard to change. Even if the benefits would greatly outnumber the harms it is difficult to make changes due to few people that would be impacted by the changes.

The book explores the conflicting Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian impulses. There is a desire for small government to let people do what they want. There is also the desire for big government to help rid society of its ills. The progressive movement has many of both combined together. They want government to protect individual rights and liberties. They also want government ro provide a safety net and implement programs to help people and to provide the needed infrastructure needed. Conservatives, too, have a mixture of both ideals. These two conflicts are what has lead to massive expenses but little benefit. As an example, we want to help the homeless, but give them full autonomy to live how they like. This results in lots of money spent, but little benefit. California would like high speed rail, but has produced almost nothing with all the time and money spent.  China was able to build a great network of high speed rail in the same time. California has been able to maintain and expand the existing freeways despite the environmental degradation caused. As a society, we expect all big organizations and government to be "perfect". Any negative caused is grounds for lawsuits. Alas, this risk aversion has also prevented much good from occuring.

The Korean War: A History

The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings

While subtitled "a history", this book is just as much a meta-history of the Korean war as a history of the conflict itself. There is a significant review of past writings about Korea. It explores how the war was perceived at the time and how perceptions have changed, especially after Vietnam. The actual western "Korean War" is placed as one small chapter in an ongoing conflict between Korea and Japan, with significant Chinese, Russian and American involvement. Korea itself has had well-defined boundaries for centuries. The division between North and South Korea, however, the divicsion between North and South Korea was based on an arbitrary line created by Americans. The North had been dominated by anti-Japanese freedom fighters, while the south had more collaborators. The sides both were filled with corruption and committed numerous atrocities during the conflict. Neither side could really lay claim to the title of "good guys". South Korea has looked into the atrocities with a truth and reconciliation commission. The North remains autocratic and continues to be officially at war with the South. The goals of the Koreans are not the same as the goals of other countries in the conflict. The western forces had little respect for Koreans themselves, and ended up fighting an indeterminate conflict that gets lost between the "success" of World War II and the "failure" of Vietnam. Korea continues to live with this small episode in the ongoing conflict.

Culture in Nazi Germany

Culture in Nazi Germany by Michael H. Kater

Germany had been near the forefront of arts and cultures. Then the Nazis took over. They had chased away artists that were less desirable (such as Jews or sexual deviants.) They also encouraged art to adhere to traditions and to support Nazi ideology. The regime initially supported jazz, but then banned it due to what it stood for. Carmina Burana by Orff is one of the few musical works of significance composed during the era. Much art continued to be created, but has been judged as inferior today. Many of the elite artists were gone and those that remained were lacking in quality. (And in retrospective analysis have a high bar to clear due to the negative position of Nazis.)

Artists are stuck no matter what their position. Many left Germany due to being out of favor with the regime. They had trouble getting work in their new country. (Thomas Mann was a rare exception.) In the US they were treated as enemies until they had citizenship. After the war, many of those that had spent the war in Germany were often blacklisted. For actors, this could be seemingly arbitrary. Artists would try to declare their rejection of Nazism to gain work in the post war period. Some managed to thread the needle and work during and after the Nazi era, those these were rare. Totalitarianism and art do not go together well.

The Starship and the Canoe

The Starship and the Canoe by Kenneth Brower

A father is an astrophysicist who has great ideas for how to create a nuclear powered spaceship to rocket across the universe. The son lives in a treehouse in British Columbia. This book ties their two lives together. Which one is the more practical?