Bork Rejection

The book isn't awful because Bork criticizes university professors (and I'm one), or because Bork criticizes atheists (I'm one), or because Bork criticizes pro-choicers (I'm one of those, too). It's awful because it's illogical, incoherent, uninformed, and inaccurate.

The main thrust of Bork's argument is that two of the most fundamental principles of democracy (namely, egalitarianism and liberty) have been taken to extremes by the bogeyman he calls the "modern liberal", and the very survival of human civilization is threatened as a result. Modern liberalism is a "corrosive agent". According to Bork, "[m]odern liberals ... have a need to lie, and do so abundantly, since many Americans would not like their actual agenda." Chief among the culprits, Bork says, are the universities, feminists, homosexuals, artists, and, of course, atheists and church-state separatists. . . .

Bork maunders on and on about the supposed usurpation of the democratic process by the judiciary, so you might think Bork is a fan of democracy. The truth is that Bork is an elitist. By this, I don't mean he thinks excellence should be rewarded. I mean that he thinks the great unwashed masses have little or no reasoning ability of their own. To ensure morality, then, the masses must be protected and tranquilized. They must be protected by censoring expression that could harm them. They must be tranquilized, Bork says, with religion: "For most people, only revealed religion can supply the premises from which the prescriptions of morality can be deduced."

Religion is necessary, Bork says, because only religion can maintain social order. . . .

By mouthing all the bigotry of the religious right, from anti-evolutionism to anti-homosexuality to anti-choice on abortion, Bork illustrates the truth of William James' famous quip, "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

America as a nation is rapidly deteriorating from within. In Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Robert H. Bork analyzes the likely cause for this decay: the modern liberal philosophies of radical egalitarianism (belief in equality of outcomes rather than in equality of opportunity) and radical individualism (belief in removing all limits to the individual pursuit of pleasure).

Bork shows clearly and concisely how radical individualism necessarily pushes society toward hedonism, isolation, discontentment, and ultimately, chaos. Radical egalitarianism, on the other hand, leads to a socialistic society in which rewards are distributed on the basis of race, gender, class, or other arbitrary factors, rather than on the basis of character, merit, or achievement.

<<snip>>
According to Bork, the effects of modern liberalism most likely wouldn't have been so severe had it not been for the role that the runaway judiciary system played in this ideological revolution. He argues that by taking stands on numerous moral and cultural issues never intended for judicial review, the Supreme Court has effectively changed and even re-written the Constitution according to the political agenda of modern liberalism. Unfortunately there are no legitimate checks and balances against the judiciary's politically-charged activism, short of legislatively reigning in the judiciary by means of a constitutional amendment. Whether America has the stomach to pursue such a strategy remains to be seen.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah doesn't offer any firm conclusions regarding the future of America. The book does, however, suggest that societies sliding into decay can potentially turn around, and that there might indeed be some reasons to hope. One such reason, according to Bork, is the rise "of an energetic, optimistic, and politically sophisticated religious conservatism."
<<snip>>

America as a nation is rapidly deteriorating from within.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Rich Lowry says it's time for some Republican senators to pay a visit to the president and tell him to withdraw the nomination. "In the John Roberts nomination, a modified stealth strategy reached its height, giving the Court what is likely to be a conservative chief justice for the next 30 years," Lowry writes. "In the Harriet Miers nomination, the stealth strategy has all but collapsed, producing what might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency."

Jeffrey Shallit is a Canadian so I doubt that he has little personally invested in whether or not Bork became a justice or the impact of his political views. I would not consider the review Debra-Law posted a rant.

Scott Bulmahan, the reviewer posted by Slkshock writes for Townhall.com a forthrightly right wing online Republican journal, as might be seen from this example of their editorial policy:

Townhall Editors: "Republican leadership must embrace not only the specific proposals of Operation Offset, but also the philosophy behind it. A battle between two free spending, big government parties is one that Republicans will never win. Limited government must once again become a hallmark of the Republican Party - even if that is something George W. Bush is unwilling to embrace. "

While I do not think Bulmahn's review is a rant, I would not consider it unbiased either.

[ Look at his typical letters to the editor and you will quickly conclude that he falls quite left of center in the political spectrum.

slkshock7 wrote:

[ Look at his typical letters to the editor and you will quickly conclude that he falls quite left of center in the political spectrum.

The center of Canadian politics is to the left of what Americans would regard as a centrist position. It would help if Shallit were first judged within his own political context before comparing him to a US political context.