ficially, Colombian police killed Escobar.rnBut tliere will always be questionsrnabout who was or wasn’t there on that finalrnday. ,’ceording to Bowden, some onrnhand say U.S. Delta 1^’orce operativesrnw ere at the scene; odiers sav it was simplyrna Colombian operation. U.S. SpecialrnForces had spent months training Colombia’srnpolice in the techniques of manhunting.rnFor them, Escobar’s demisernmeant success. But in terms of U.S. polierngoals, it meant nothing. Escobar’srndeath killed the Medellin cartel, but thernCali cartel stepped into the breach, andrnthe drugs continued to tlov’ north.rnAs an investigative journalist, Bowdenrnhad a responsibility to dig up the factsrnand tell a good storv. Bv diose standards,rnKilling Pablo is indisputably a journalisticrnsuccess. There remain. lioweer,rnplent}- of questions for readers to ponder.rnAmerica’s ravenous appetite for cocaine,rncombined with its prohibition ofrnthe srdjstancc, created monsters likernPablo Escobar. Had circumstances beenrndifferent, Escobar might never have beenrnknown outside of Medellin. As it was, hernbecame a threat to democracy and justice.rnThe Americans who hunted Escobar,rnBowden writes, knew that bringingrnhim down would ha’e no impact on thernamount of drugs going north. Thus, ourrnfrondine troops in the drug war realizedrnthc’ were losing, even as the’ beat k^scobar.rnhi f;iet, the campaign against Escobarrnprobabh’ exacerbated die drug problem.rnWliile the hunt was on, members ofrnthe Cali cartel gladlv assisted in bringingrndown Escobar’s Medellin cartel, whoserndestruction helped Cali burrow deeperrninto Colombia’s inshtutions.rnThe men who hunted Escobar justifiedrntheir mission as an effort to weed outrna disgusting human, a man who hadrngrown too big for his britches. But targetingrnobjectionable individuals, whetherrnthey be drug lords or terrorists, is purelyrnsymbolic. Humanit’ is cursed with a vastrnsupplvof men like Escobar—too manvtornkill one at a time. Erom one angle.rnKilling Pablo is the exeihng story of thernliunt for a human pig. From another, it’srnthe storv’ of one more U.S. foreign-policyrnblunder.rnJonathan Kllis writes from Denver.rnLooking for a good book?rnSec reviews online atrnwww. ChroniclesMagfazine.orjjrnCast-iron Manrnby Carey M. RobertsrnCalhoun and Popular Rule:rnThe Political Theory ofrnthe Disqimition and Discoursernby 11. Lee CheekrnColumbia: University’ of Missouri Press;rn202 pp., $29.95rnI ohn C. Calhoun is perhaps the mostrn/ hated historical figure in modern America.rnThere ma’ be others who offer morernsuccinct and intuitive criticisms of America’srninstitutional decay; man- lune ledrnstronger movements tor reform and challengedrnHie ruling establishment in vvavsrnmore forceful than he did. But in thernscholarlv world, where historians and politicalrnscientists arc more obsessed witlirnrace and sex than were their historicalrnsubjects, Calhoun is ilified as die championrnof die Southern planter class. An examplernof modern opinion can be foundrnin an American history textbook, wherernCalhoun’s photograph, taken on thernbrink of his death in 1850, lurks like arnhideous, horned devil—die cidminationrnof an e il that must be purged from thernbody politic. (Calhoun hated that picture.)rnIt is refreshing, then, to find a newrnbook on Calhoun in which the authorrnappreciates the man not just for his politicalrnpresence in antebellum .America butrnfor his philosophical acnih’ as well. Fl.rnFee Cheek’s Calhoun and Popular Rulernexplains Calhoun’s political philosophy,rnwhich was grounded in a realistic appraisalrnof the countr ‘s merits and weaknesses.rnCalhoun’s philosophy of government.rnCheek contends, “should bernunderstood as a reflectie journey towardsrnrecovering genuine popular rulernamidst the national crisis” of the nud-rn19th centur}’.rnCalhoini and Popular Rule explainsrnmany key facets of Calhoun’s politicalrntheon,’: its roots in the European traditionrnof subsidiaritv; its place within a broaderrnSouth Atlantic context; the use of thernplantation as a svnibol of organic comniunih’;rnand its basis in the Declarationrnas well as die Con.stitution. Cheek recommendsrnwe read Calhoun through diernlens of the Jeffersonian or (as he phrasesrnit) South Ariantie political tradition as expoundedrnb’ die Kentuck)- and ‘VirginiarnResolutions of 1798 and die Virginia Reportrnof 1800. At first glance, fiiis seemsrncjnestionable, given the importance ofrnJacksonian politics in shaping Calhoun’srnthought. However, on closer inspection,rnCheek’s framework proves helpfid. LikernClyde Wilson before him. Cheek callsrnCalhoun the last of the Eoimders; anrnequallv credible assessment, however,rnwould be to view him as the last Jeffer-rn.sonian.rnIntegral to Calhoun’s understandingrnwas the Aristotelian and Christian beliefrnthat man is a social creatire, born not inrna mvthical state of nature but dependentrnupon others for his life and sustenance.rnPeople, being incapable of doing evervthiiigrnfor themselves, have to seek assistancernfrom odier people.rnCalhoun advocated a kind of individualismrnthrough the back door, where individualrnare best protected within a solid,rnorganic communitv. ‘Fhere is no roomrnfor equalih within these communities,rnbecause equalitv’ eliminates mutual dependence.rnIf all people were tiie same,rnthey simply would not need each other,rnand die communitv’ would f;ill apart.rnCalhoim denied the possibilitv ofrnatomistic individualism, except as a figmentrnof social-contract theorists’ imagination.rnHis argument, however, did notrnclaim diversity to be impossible; it isrnnierelv to be found in differing communitiesrnrather than in individuals. Calhounrnfeared these communities wouldrngradually move closer together, causingrnsome to forget their essential differencesrnand to accept themselves as representativernof all the rest.rnSocietal pressure can dins lead to a deteriorationrnof libertv’. For diose widiinrnthe South Adantic republican tradition,rn”consolidation” implied more dian just arnpolitical problem; it was a social, intellectual,rnand, indeed, spiritual concern of thernutmost importance. Widiout social institutionsrnto restrain consolidation, libertvrnwould be Calhoun located the sourcernof restraint in faniilv, an historicallv basedrneducation, and tradition, or what herncalled “habit.” Restraint is both personalrnand political, since it involves protectingrnpersonal and communal interests fromrnthe distractions of modem life. A stablernorganic communih—one that supportsrnthe common good — encourages protectionrnof personal interests vv bile promotingrndie good of the communitv. Defendingrnyour interests neeessarilv meansrndefending the social institution in whichrn28/(:HRONICLESrnrnrn