American market is serving more as thernengine for the accelerated growth of otherrncountries than it is for the growth ofrnthe United States.rnThe United States is deindustriahzingrnon the supply, not on the demand, side.rnRising imports are substituting for thernexpansion of domestic capacity, closingrnoff job opportunities during the cyclicalrnupturn and short-circuiting the longtermrngrowth process. Two dire resultsrnfollow: slower growth, which does notrnspread its benefits as widely through society;rnand a shift in industrial capabilities,rnwhich will alter the wodd balance ofrnpower.rnNeither of these effects is the concernrnof the transnational corporations drivingrneconomic policy. Their agenda is advancedrnby the view that, as a nation, thernUnited States is finished, leaving the corporationsrnalone with the capacity tornact—which they can do only in a “worldrnwithout borders.” The sole valid functionrnof Washington, in this view, is tornconvince other governments to follow itsrnlead and abandon any national economicrnor foreign policy that could hinderrnelite private interests.rnGovernments may not, however, shedrntheir responsibility to maximize the prosperityrnand security of their national territoriesrnand citizens; they can only succeedrnor fail in doing so. The Garten approachrnis a recipe for failure: there is no necessityrnto surrender the home market in thernpursuit of foreign customers. Gartenrnconstantly bemoans leverage by BEMs,rnand by European and Asian rivals whornpossess far less power than does the UnitedrnStates. These foreign states do notrnpractice “free trade,” yet they havernincreased their market shares and generatedrnhigh growth rates. They requirerncompanies to locate factories in their territoriesrnand to transfer technology to nativernfirms. They run trade surpluses andrnamass international monetary reserves.rnThis is how business contributes tornnational advancement, as the UnitedrnStates itself proved in an earlier era.rnWhat those in government need to rediscoverrnis both their own sovereignrnstrength and the underlying strength ofrnthe American people. But this will happenrnonly when government is staffed byrnthose whose primary attachment is tornthe country, not to Wall Street.rnWilliam R. Hawkins is Senior ResearchrnAnalyst for Representative DuncanrnHunter (R-CA). The views are his own.rnPlaybackrnbyf.O. TaternRaymond Chandler: A Biographyrnby Tom HineyrnNew York: Atlantic Monthly Press;rn356 pp., $26.00rnThe recent death of Robert Mitchumrnreminds us not only of his appearancernin one of the best film noirs. Out ofrnthe Past, but of his impersonation of therndetective Philip Marlowe in the remakernof Farewell, My Lovely and The Big Sleep.rnMitchum once claimed that, in his earlyrndays, he tended bar for Raymond Ghandlerrnhimself.rnAt times, that must have been a bigrnjob. Tom Hiney has recounted in this,rnthe newest biography of the man, howrnRaymond Ghandler destroyed himselfrnwith alcohol. His literary peers (and juniors),rnsuch as Fitzgerald, Hemingway,rnand Faulkner, knew something aboutrnthat themselves. But self-destructionrnand obsessive abuse did not make Chandlerrnfamous, even if he is known forrnthem now. It is not Tom Hiney’s faultrnthat Chandler’s follies darken and dominaternhis pages—that really was Chandler’srndoing. Indeed, this biographerrnknows well that a successful writer is onernwho can put the best part of himself intornwords—and that Chandler memorablyrndid.rnConsider the ironic proof. As Hineyrnhas noted, a volume entitled In Search ofrnLiterary Los Angeles (1991), disposing ofrnChandler in two paragraphs, dismissesrnhim as “a misanthrope and a bigot,”rnwhich seems a remarkable way to treatrnthe author who virtually created literaryrnLos Angeles. In a similar spirit, JoycernCarol Gates has remarked upon Chandler’srnracism and misogyny, which somernmay find as comforting as I do. Suchrndeprecations, in a context that classifiesrnHawthorne as an oppressor and Melvillernas a wife-beater, are as perversely welcomernas they are obtuse. Tom Hiney hasrnshown how, in context, Chandler was nornadvocate of any white-male utopia.rnFrank MacShane’s Life of RaymondrnChandler, an excellent book, was publishedrnover 20 years ago. The Londonbasedrnjournalist I liney has brought twornparticular credentials to the job of takingrna second look: one is his British background,rnand the other, oddly enough, isrnhis youth. The result is a striking and effectivernbook.rnSince MacShane did his work onrnChandler, which also included editingrnthe letters and notebooks, the reputationrnof his subject has continued to grow.rnGhandler is everywhere. Chandlerismrnseems a way of looking at the world, onernthat is continually revived. We are familiarrnnow with female Philip Marlowes,rnand with black ones. Not long ago,rnChandler’s stories were broadcast on cable.rnChinatown and even Blade Runnerrnwere paraphrases of Chandler. Robert B.rnParker has written “continuations” ofrnChandler—explicitly as well as implicitlyrn—in his Spenser series. Even if werncould evade the continual playback ofrnChandler’s screenplays and of the filmsrnmade from his novels, there would stillrnbe the ineffable and inevitable DeadrnMen Don’t Wear Plaid. But escaping thernmass media by picking up art novelsrnwould not efface Chandlerism, for necessaryrnbooks like Walker Percy’s Lancelotrnand Gilbert Sorrentino’s Mulligan Stewrnannounce an imaginative dependencernon Raymond Chandler that is widespread.rnNow that Chandler has been publishedrnby the Library of America, however,rnnonsense may perhaps be set aside.rnAfter all, his letters and this biographyrnshow Ghandler to have been an old-fashionedrnliberal, as you might expect of arnman born in 1888 and educated at arnpublic school in England. When herncame back to this country, he settled inrnLos Angeles. After time spent in thernCanadian service in the Great War, hernbegan to rise in the oil industry as Americarnboomed in the 1920’s. Chandler wasrnfired in the early 50’s for drinking andrnfaced the crisis of his life. He determinedrnto fulfill the dream of his youth byrnwriting. The question then was, what tornwrite and how to write it?rnChandler’s response was a modestrnone; he would undertake pulp fiction,rnstories of action and violence. And hernwould write for an audience and forrnmoney. Having cleared his mind of pretension,rnhe could get on with the job.rnEventually, he would meld all of the romanticrnyearnings and literary aspirationsrnof his youth with a comprehensive grasprnof the corruptions of urban life to producernnovels that will not die. Tom Hineyrnhas pointed out elements of Farewell, MyrnLovely, The Lady in the Lake, and ThernLittle Sister that derive directly fromrn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn