ing distinctions. Why do not subsidies tonagriculture count with other subsidiesnas social welfare? They are, after all,ntransfer payments meant to preserve thenfamily farm. However, farmers are notnpart of the welfare coalition. They are independentnand capitalistic with oldfashionednvalues. This liberal trio is notninterested in such people. The same attitudencomes through in references tonreindustrialization. The authors wouldnlike to cash in on the widespread concernnover the decline in the country’snindustrial base by blaming business andnby arguing that government planningnwould be more effective. But their programnis aimed at something diBferent.nThey do not wish to advance industry orntechnology since these sectors employn”skilled white male workers already inngreat demand and earning high wages.”nThey envision expanding social servicesnto fulfill “unmet needs” (one of thosenlisted in their Economic Bill of Rights isncable TV at rates the poor can afford)nand to provide jobs filled disproportionatelynby women and minority-groupnmembers. The consumers of such servicesnare the poor; thus afBrmative action meetsnredistribution under central planning.n1 he authors turn the definition ofnpublic goods on its head. Those programsnwhich benefit society as a whole, thentrue public goods, are consigned to then”nonsocial welfare” category. Apparently,ndefending the nation against crime or invasionnprovides little utility, nor doesnthe provision of capital infrastructure.nOnly education counts, which testifiesnto the extent that the education establishmentnhas become a tool of liberalism.nThe legitimate functions of governmentnare to be curtailed. Only programs fornthe correct special interests are truenpublic goods? And redistribution is onlynpart of the program: democracy is to benextended throughout the economy.nDemocratic planning means:nthat investment policy at the local andnnational level wiU no longer be dominatednby a few concentrated industriesnthat control vast sums of capital, nornsolely by private banks and insurancencompanies. There will be more emphasisnon democratic participation—^atnthe community level, the plant level,nat the level of national economicnpolicy.nCarnoy, Shearer, and Rumberger donnot hesitate to call for the nationalizationnof pension fiinds, major banks, andninsurance companies; nor do they shrinknfirom advocating worker ovwiership andnmanagement of industry, consumer controlnof production, and community controlnof business. Capitalism would be essentiallyndead because private capitalnwould cease to exist. What was not taxednaway or borrowed to finance budgetndeficits (already, deficits absorb half ofnall private savings) would be controlledndirecdy by government planners. Democraticnplanning is to control local andnstate governments as well as the nationalngovernment. At the local level, legislationnwould be aimed at preventing businessnmobility and enforcing full employmentnby fiat.nThere is a certain internal logic to thisnprogram. The massive redistributionnprogram would almost assuredly causenthe collapse of the private sector. Onenneed only consider how much theneconomy has already been weakened bynredistribution programs. To control thenconsequences of this, government wouldnIn the Mailnbe compelled to expand its control overnthe entire system. Efficiency, productivity,nand growth would be jettisoned asngoals, but full employment and equalityncould be mandated with a lower overallnstandard of living. Since this would all bendone by “democratic” means, who couldnargue that the revolution was illegitimate?nVox populi, vox Dei!nThe authors base their electoral hopesnon a “rainbow coalition” of minorities,nwomen, poor and low-income workers,nunions, and the “new class” of servicenprofessionals. Since half of the populationnis, by definition, below average innincome, and many of the top half are enthrallednby liberal ideology, there is anpotential majority in such a coalition.nThey cite a handful of victories in then1970’s as harbingers of the new agenwhich win follow the defeat of RonaldnReagan. They tie their plans to the successnof the Democratic Party throughngrass-roots organizing and voter-registrationndrives among the poor, the unemployed,nand minorities. This strategy resemblesnthat used by the far left withinnthe British Labour Party, as does theirnuse of the term “social contract.” Perhapsnthey wiU be just as successful. Then thisnbook, instead of being a manifesto for annew regime, will become, like its Labourncounterpart, referred to by many as “thenlongest suicide note in history.”nGraham Greene by John Spurling; Metfauen; New York. A few dozen p^es for those whonhave little time for scholarship as “entertainments” beckon.nThe Penny Capitalists: A Study ofNineteenlh-Centuty Working-Class Entrepreneursnby John Benson; Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick, ^. A book with insights like:n”For the man with ambition, however, starting to fish generally meant wanting to acquire a boat ofnhis own.”nTell About the South: The Southern Rage to Explain by Fred Hobson; Louisiana StatenUniversity Press; Baton Rouge, LA. Hobson is in a long line of eloquent Southemers.nThe BrinkofAllWeHate:EnglishSatires on Women, 1660-1750 by Felicity A. Nussbaum;nUniversity Press of Kentucky; Lexington, KY. Misogyny revisited.nThe Invention ofFligjht by Susan Neville; University of Georgia Press; Athens, GA. One innthis collection of stories opens, “All that Illinois winter she’d been afraid of a coming ice age.”nPerceptive.nnnNovember 1984n