(click on ads for more details)

The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty by David Myers– a Professor of Psychology at Hope College (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 2000). Reviewed by D. Eric Schansberg (8-06-01)

In one sense, this is a book that would make any economist happy. In describing the material and spiritual “state of the union”, Myers uses a framework of “on one hand...” and “on the other hand...” Harry Truman once remarked that he wanted a one-armed economist, to avoid hearing that combination. But here, it is a pleasing characteristic, as Myers provides a thorough and mostly-balanced survey of the relevant research on crucial and often controversial topics.

Myers opens with a question that frames the dilemma: are we better off than we were 40 years ago? In a word, he answers ‘yes’ in terms of material well-being and ‘no’ in terms of moral and emotional well-being– what he describes as a seeming paradox. “Never has a culture experienced such physical comfort combined with such psychological misery.” (p. 138).

Myers gives the reader a guided tour, referring to ample theoretical and empirical work, current events and statistics, and at times, proposals for government and private activism. His topics are widely varied– sexuality, marriage and family, crime, materialism, individualism, entertainment and the media, education and its impact on values, and the role of faith– just to provide a terse overview. He documents familiar and not-so-familiar indicators. He quotes a wide range of people– from Hillary Clinton to Charles Murray, from Jesse Jackson to William Bennett. The book is eminently readable and scrupulously documented (although the 105 pages of endnotes could have been crammed into many fewer pages). In sum, it is a must-read for social scientists with broad interests as well as more casual observers of current events.

Christians will find further reason to enjoy and respect Myers’ book given that his religious faith informs his worldview. This is most evident in his passion for the vulnerable in our society paired with his unwillingness to downplay personal responsibility– sadly, a too-rare combination. Both optimists and pessimists will find anecdotal and statistical fodder to bolster their views. (Myers is guardedly optimistic in view of what he sees as improvements since the early 1990s and an increase in efforts to address society’s social problems.) Careful thinkers will be impressed by the way he understands and explains both statistics (working hard to distinguish between correlation and causation) and the attempts of social scientists to determine cause and effect.

All that said, Myers’ effort is unnecessarily annoying at times, especially when the author submits to the common fallacy that everyone is an economist. His understanding of cause and effect outside of his discipline is standard, but limited– much as if I were to write a book on some aspect of social psychology after reading a few books on the topic. The result: at times, the economic analysis is lacking and the political analysis is naive or too hopeful. Of course, it would be difficult for him to write well about this subject without passionate personal views, but unfortunately those views are not as well informed as his understanding of the academic literature.

The book is sprinkled with examples, but in this context, a brief list will have to suffice. From the realm of economics, he exhibits the common confusions about: CEO salaries, the impact of the minimum wage and other mandated benefits (p. 146-147,155); firms looking for the cheapest labor independent of productivity concerns (p. 154); spread-the-work proposals (p. 155); and over-population and natural resource depletion (p. 185). From the realm of political economy, he assumes that taxes typically ‘advance the common good’ (p. 162); he ignores the possibility that government can destroy community by taking the place of local and voluntary arrangements (see: Charles Murray’s In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government); and he is overly concerned about the particular need for virtue within democracy and capitalism– when the absence of virtue is surely a greater problem when larger government dictates that people have more power over others!

Discussion of other policy proposals is notably absent for such a comprehensive book. There is no mention of drug legalization as a way to deal with one of the ‘swamps’ he wants to drain. He ignores the “school choice” movement, although those reforms would solve the problems he mentions more naturally and avoid other problems which would likely follow from his solutions. And ironically, he mentions child care vouchers favorably! (p. 281) He calls for an end to ‘politics without principle’ (p. 9), but then does nothing to discuss the contexts under which government is a legitimate means, even to agreed-upon ends. (The most egregious example of this is his apology for China’s one child policy [p. 58-59], which concludes with “Where there is cultural will, there is a way.” See also: his seeming advocacy of complete gun control [p. 120-124].)

Finally, a few modest complaints about some of Myers’ terminology. He refers to the moral crisis as a ‘social recession’– a nice label, except it implies the need for national and governmental solutions. Elsewhere, he takes issue with ‘libertarian values’, but he is referring only to an individualism that is often libertine, rather than libertarianism as a political philosophy. In fact, it is the individualism he decries, when manifested in political markets, which is one of the chief reasons our economy deviates so significantly from the libertarian ideal. He picks up the libertarian theme as well with his overgeneralization of the political left as civil libertarians and the political right as economic libertarians. Then, he singles out the NRA as an example of what he calls ‘special interest libertarians’. And counter to all of this bad or inconsistent libertarianism, he argues instead for communitarianism as a “third way”. (For those unaware of that label, think of a moderate with some spine.) But even this is left fuzzy, since communitarians disagree over the extent to which “community” should be sought through coercive vs. voluntary means. (See: p. 190-191's list of questions– should those be pursued voluntarily or mandated by law?)

Independent of all of the labels, my hope would be that Myers’ principle concerns are not with the freedom of individualism per se, but rather, what is done with that freedom. That he is not as enthused about communitarianism (however defined) as he is with what it proxies– love, respect, and concern for others. After all, we are all individuals created uniquely by God and designed for freedom. As Paul writes, “For we are God’s workmanship (literally, “masterpiece”), created in Christ Jesus to do good works...It is for freedom that Christ has set us free...You were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.” (Ephesians 2:10, Galatians 5:1,13)