- Email: [email protected]
Science funding; Politics and porkbarrel
Brief Reviews “Most of the major foreign policy crises since World War II have occurred in the Third World,” Cingranelli writes, and with this justification he examines presidential attitudes and actions towards the Third World. He categorizes the policies of each twentieth-century president according to the type of values he has sought to promote (nationalist or universal) and to whom he has held himself responsible (his own citizens or the world at large). The result is a four-fold typology: Nationalist, Progressive, Exceptionalist, and Radical Progressive. Applying this typology, the author maintains that the trend among American administrations for nearly the past half-century-a trend he evidently favors-has been toward Progressivism, that is, an administration promoting universally held values while remaining ultimately responsible to its own people. Despite this conclusion, however, Cingranelli places the majority of twentieth-century presidents in the Nationalist camp, including five since World War II. That he places only Truman, Kennedy, and Carter within the Progressive box does little to support his argument that Progressivism is a surging trend, growing ever-stronger since the end of World War II. The author’s approach is nevertheless interesting in that it places U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World in an historical framework while allowing for a comprehensive analysis of its motives and consequences. Tonya L. Ugorett Rogue’s Gallery: America’s Foes From George III to Saddam Hussein. By
Larry Hedrick. Fairfield, Penn.: Btassey’s (U.S.), Inc., 1992. 224 pp. $24.00. Who are America’s enemies? Hedrick answers by assembling essays on thirteen historical figures from George III to Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, the effort falls short of answering its central question in almost every instance. Rogue’s Gallevy’s disappointment lies in its failure to gain an intimate insight into the motives and passions that drove some of America’s most formidable enemies. Hedrick offers only a rehash of historical events central to each subject’s moment in history. The portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II digests World War I without illuminating the complex passions within this tragic figure that drove him into conflict with the United States. The sketch of Joseph Stalin reads more like a cold war history than a portrait of one of the most dangerous and beguiling figures of the twentieth century. In Hedrick’s defense, perhaps these figures are too big to be distilled in brief essays. Nevertheless, he shortchanges his subjects by giving only the barest details of their early lives and paying only cursory attention to their rise to power. These topics, great grist for understanding personal as well as political behavior, are essentially ignored throughout the book. Hedrick doesn’t really know his subjects, and after reading Rogue’s Gallety, neither do we. Jack Thomas Tomarchio Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel. By Joseph P. Manino. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers, 1992. 392 pp. $32.95. Martino’s analysis arrives right on time, when the issue of funding research and getting its results into the marketplace has become a vogue issue. Using statistics and anecdotes, he convincingly shows that no matter what Science
478 I Orbis
Brief Reviews strategy the government uses to direct public funding of science, politics will distort research. If politicians plot the course, funds will be diverted into pork barrel projects. On the other hand, supposedly objective procedures such as the peer review of proposals often merely reinforce current scientific orthodoxy, encourage “Big Science” with questionable payoffs (for example, the multi-billion dollar particle accelerator), and are themselves not immune to political intervention. Better, Martin0 concludes, to seek alternatives that minimize the government’s role in choosing winners and losers. The only flaw in Science Funding is that by trying to provide both an overview of science policy and a critique of it, the book achieves neither as well as it could. The overview of science policy is spotty in some parts (for example, the study of technology transfer policy and the comparison with foreign governments). Moreover, much of this overview does not connect with Martino’s argument to reduce the role of government; he should have concentrated on his central thesis. Even so, this book should be read by all Clinton Administration policy wonks assigned to the science and technology beat. B.B. VIsbns of Empire. By Stephen Prince. Westpon, Conn.: Praeger, 1992. 210 pp. $15.95(paper). Prince, an assistant professor of communication studies, seeks to “provide a close analysis of the political imagery in major categories and genres of American films of the 1980s.” Unfortunately, though his book claims to be an objective study of recent political filmmaking, its point of view is straight from the Nation and Noam Chomsky; indeed Chomsky’s views are cited as expert opinion on human rights and economics. During the Reagan era, the major shtdios released almost 2,000 feature films; for Prince, they prove the grip that Reaganism had on Hollywood. Actually, his own data show that only about twenty of those movies (including Red Dawn, Invasion USA, Top Gun, Rambo II_ had a propatriotism or anti-Soviet quality, or treated the United States military as an organization whose mission is to protect our country rather than plot ugly coups. This is cultural influence? If Reagan had such an influence over Hollywood, why has he been shunned by the creative community since he returned to California in 1989? Why does the Writers Guild of America West open its meetings for new members by denouncing Reagan as an evil man who informed on guild members in the late 194Os? (Of course, no mention is made of communist activity and sympathy in Hollywood at that time.) Prince’s study, while generally well-written, provides yet one more indication that the Left is a sore winner in the battle for popular culture. While 95 percent of the product on PBS and the big screen would please Lenin more than Reagan, the Left apparently will not be satisfied until it controls 100 percent Steven Carter of the means of persuasion.
Summer
1993 I 479
Larry Hedrick. Fairfield, Penn.: Btassey’s (U.S.), Inc., 1992. 224 pp. $24.00. Who are America’s enemies? Hedrick answers by assembling essays on thirteen historical figures from George III to Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, the effort falls short of answering its central question in almost every instance. Rogue’s Gallevy’s disappointment lies in its failure to gain an intimate insight into the motives and passions that drove some of America’s most formidable enemies. Hedrick offers only a rehash of historical events central to each subject’s moment in history. The portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II digests World War I without illuminating the complex passions within this tragic figure that drove him into conflict with the United States. The sketch of Joseph Stalin reads more like a cold war history than a portrait of one of the most dangerous and beguiling figures of the twentieth century. In Hedrick’s defense, perhaps these figures are too big to be distilled in brief essays. Nevertheless, he shortchanges his subjects by giving only the barest details of their early lives and paying only cursory attention to their rise to power. These topics, great grist for understanding personal as well as political behavior, are essentially ignored throughout the book. Hedrick doesn’t really know his subjects, and after reading Rogue’s Gallety, neither do we. Jack Thomas Tomarchio Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel. By Joseph P. Manino. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers, 1992. 392 pp. $32.95. Martino’s analysis arrives right on time, when the issue of funding research and getting its results into the marketplace has become a vogue issue. Using statistics and anecdotes, he convincingly shows that no matter what Science
478 I Orbis
Brief Reviews strategy the government uses to direct public funding of science, politics will distort research. If politicians plot the course, funds will be diverted into pork barrel projects. On the other hand, supposedly objective procedures such as the peer review of proposals often merely reinforce current scientific orthodoxy, encourage “Big Science” with questionable payoffs (for example, the multi-billion dollar particle accelerator), and are themselves not immune to political intervention. Better, Martin0 concludes, to seek alternatives that minimize the government’s role in choosing winners and losers. The only flaw in Science Funding is that by trying to provide both an overview of science policy and a critique of it, the book achieves neither as well as it could. The overview of science policy is spotty in some parts (for example, the study of technology transfer policy and the comparison with foreign governments). Moreover, much of this overview does not connect with Martino’s argument to reduce the role of government; he should have concentrated on his central thesis. Even so, this book should be read by all Clinton Administration policy wonks assigned to the science and technology beat. B.B. VIsbns of Empire. By Stephen Prince. Westpon, Conn.: Praeger, 1992. 210 pp. $15.95(paper). Prince, an assistant professor of communication studies, seeks to “provide a close analysis of the political imagery in major categories and genres of American films of the 1980s.” Unfortunately, though his book claims to be an objective study of recent political filmmaking, its point of view is straight from the Nation and Noam Chomsky; indeed Chomsky’s views are cited as expert opinion on human rights and economics. During the Reagan era, the major shtdios released almost 2,000 feature films; for Prince, they prove the grip that Reaganism had on Hollywood. Actually, his own data show that only about twenty of those movies (including Red Dawn, Invasion USA, Top Gun, Rambo II_ had a propatriotism or anti-Soviet quality, or treated the United States military as an organization whose mission is to protect our country rather than plot ugly coups. This is cultural influence? If Reagan had such an influence over Hollywood, why has he been shunned by the creative community since he returned to California in 1989? Why does the Writers Guild of America West open its meetings for new members by denouncing Reagan as an evil man who informed on guild members in the late 194Os? (Of course, no mention is made of communist activity and sympathy in Hollywood at that time.) Prince’s study, while generally well-written, provides yet one more indication that the Left is a sore winner in the battle for popular culture. While 95 percent of the product on PBS and the big screen would please Lenin more than Reagan, the Left apparently will not be satisfied until it controls 100 percent Steven Carter of the means of persuasion.
Summer
1993 I 479