The Moral Center: How We Can Reclaim Our Country from Die-Hard Extremists, Rogue Corporations, Hollywood Hacks, and Pretend Patriots

by David Callahan

Book Overview

Nothing's the matter with Kansas: Americans voting their values are responding to a real moral crisis. And in this forceful follow-up to The Cheating Culture, David Callahan argues that the problems... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0151011516
• ISBN13: 9780151011513
• Release Date: January 2006
• Publisher: Houghton Mifflin
• Length: 260 Pages
• Weight: 0.95 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 5.5" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Important and entertaining.

Author David Callahan has written a book that champions a new way to look at widespread American values from a progressive's perspective. The book is highly readable and full of information, statistics and, pertinent trivia. I learned a lot by reading the book and also was challenged in some of my beliefs. I do hope that Mr. Callahan will continue to write useful books like this one.

about time!

I mean of course I have not read this book yet since it has not been released. But I greatly look forward to having SOMEONE point out to the world that for most reasonable peole in our culture, the greatest moral crises in this country are NOT about abortion and gay marriage but rather concern deeper issues such as our overly profit-oriented and inadequate healthcare system, the devastating effects of abject materialism, political and corporate dishonesty and the ethics of war. It is about time someone point this out and I am pre-ordering this book now.

A new vision and strategy is needed

THE MORAL CENTER: HOW WE CAN RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY FROM DIE-HARD EXTREMISTS, ROGUE CORPORATIONS, HOLLYWOOD HACKS, AND PRETEND PATRIOTS argues that underlying concerns such as eroding values, and the rise of greed, are the real problems neither party is addressing in political campaigns. A new vision and strategy is needed based on acknowledgment of this underlying erosion: one provided in THE MORAL CENTER, which argues for change in the face of polarized differences which paralyze both parties and reduce effective strategies. Diane C. Donovan California Bookwatch

"A liberal with a new emphasis on old values."

The author addresses a difficult theme, couched as it is in the entrenched rhetoric of today's politics, Conservative, Democrat, right and left. Yet at the heart of this argument is a call to return to the traditional values that are inclusive rather than exclusive. While the right champions a return to religion and family values, the left is mired in a definition that fails to bring them into the conversation. And at the heart of all is the free market, the cornerstone of personal liberty, the success of which depends upon the pursuit of self-interest. The question posed: are traditional values a match for unfettered capitalism? Liberals have morphed into the ubiquitous "me generation" and social responsibility, although an intended consequence of the equation, is left languishing by the road in a rush of consumerism. The result is a proliferation of Care-Not's (as opposed to Cares), the Cares unable to make themselves heard, suffering a pervasive moral anxiety that has no apparent remedy. Repeatedly offering a narrow interpretation of the problem, Democrats struggle to articulate a moral solution. As middle class insecurity grows with international competition, technology and corporations siphoning off the future, the economy must be dire for people to respond to this threat. At the same time, purchasing items at incredibly low prices has become pervasive, even though these prices are the result of global economics. We come to the premise of the book: Democrats or a new Third party can submit a moral agenda to restore America's values and politics. To this end, the following chapters address family, sex, media, crime, work, poverty and patriotism, establishing "a workable balance between freedom and responsibility." The dynamic of the culture wars, tradition vs. modernism, misses the point in the current debate, where the real culprit is the free market. Any change in this culture that confronts the pertinent issues must be synonymous with real values for Americans, those we readily embrace, rather than the pandering of extreme ideologies. In essence, the author is asking us to put aside our differences, responding to the current divisiveness with an appreciation for the spirit of change for the better good. Neither party comes off well, the Democrats inarticulate, stuck in past decades of grandeur, the Republicans riding a wave of popularity with the marriage of evangelical fervor and a free market unhindered by social responsibility. A fine idea and well put, but not likely to be heard by either party in the current climate. Luan Gaines/ 2006.

Whose morals? Whose outrage? Whose solution?

From the very beginning, no one in America ever went wrong by questioning the morals of their fellow citizens or urging more virtue upon them. This book continues that proud tradition. Callahan is amazed that "In the 2000 election, 9 out of 10 of Kentucky's poorest counties voted for George W. Bush". Why are they poor? People are poor because they consistently make wrong choices in life, from dropping out of school to having babies to spending money on beer instead of books. Most significant, perhaps, is the willingness to settle disputes by punishment instead of help, understanding, sympathy or friendly persuasion. There are two basic moral approaches to life: "Hit 'em or hug 'em". Conservatives generally favour "hit 'em", such as the War on Iraq. It's direct decisive action without a bunch of namby-pampy soft talk, friendly persuasion and appeals to a "brotherhood" of wimps. Conservatives want to "get things done" even if corners are cut. Liberals are generally the opposite. Bush's torture policies, which he calls "tough but safe", are an example. Suppose it prevents an attack similar to the World Trade Center destruction? I've yet to hear any Liberal explain why an appeal to "brotherhood" is better, even at the cost of not stopping such an attack. But, if torture works even once, conservatives would enshrine it as a new amendment to the Constitution. Now, who's "morals" do we choose? This reflects the fundamental problem in books such as this: "morals" are based either on idealism (e.g. religion) or a pragmatic "what works" in the real world. Callahan takes a Puritan/Liberal approach, which I believe is more effective in the long run. Pragmatic/Conservativism also has benefits; e.g. a negotiator who "lies" to end a potentially fatal hostage situation without anyone being hurt. For example: In 1960, about 10 percent of college students "cheated". Today, about 70 percent do so. This is "age compression". A 20's-something cheater may ruin a career that otherwise may not have been ruined until their 50's. It eliminates cheaters faster from the pool of potential executives. That's bad? Ignored morals do eventually bite you in the butt. Morals are important, and Callahan is like Elmer Gantry in his ability to list faults, follies, sins and outrages. But, judgment is also important. Bush is criticized about his torture policies, pre-emptive wars, terrorism, axis of evil, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. Yet, everything from waging war to blocking stem cell research is supported by his born-again Christian morality. Bush is a very "moral" man. Sometimes, even the best morals are not enough, as the worsening situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere indicates. As an effete Eastern preppie with a thin coat of Texas desert varnish, it seems Bush never heard of the old Arizona saying, "Don't insult seven men if all you're carrying is a six shooter." Despite its faults of generalities and in