tions. Those problems arose becausenfew people in government offices—nelected, appointed or hired—saw anythingnin the civil-rights movementnwhich would be of advantage to theirncareers, should they become involved.nThe first crack in the hear-nothing-donothingnshell of Washington came fromnan election campaign rather than fromnsomeone enforcing existing laws regardingncivil rights. Only when votesncounted could the civil-rights and warprotestnmovements get the ear of thenbureaucracy and officialdom situatednon the Potomac. There is possibly anlesson here for historians interestednin the Vietnam era in particular and innthe idea of civilian support for militarynventures generally. It is not altogethernclear that the Vietnam conflict was asnunpopular as contemporary thought believes.nIt is arguable that civilian supportnfor the Asian campaign diminishednbecause of the violence—threatened ornactual—of the protests and not becausenof the logic or reason behind the protests.nEqually, it could be argued thatncivilian support for military venturesnmay be overestimated because of thenimplied threat of violence in governmentnactions which could be takennagainst those who speak openly in resistancento war.nWhile Fire in the Streets is an educationnin liberal thinkings it also bringsnto light the flaw in the liberal approach.nThat flaw is that government is simplynan inappropriate vehicle to use to solvenproblems which require volimtary cooperationnif there is to be any real solution.nThis reviewer has lived many yearsnin the South, which was the startingnpoint for much of the civil-rights movement.nThe racial problems are still verynmuch with us, in the South and elsewhere.nIt is true that these problemsnhave changed, but the changes are notnnecessarily for the better. In turningnto government for solutions (politicizingnthe issues), there could never be anynoutcome that was truly a solution. Inncivil rights, of course, governments atnZGunChronicles of Culttirenthe state and local levels were perpetuatorsnof the difficulties. Simply gettingnthe repressive laws off the books—gettingngovernment out of the problem—nwould have been an excellent start. Butnto think that racial harmony could evernbe attained by coercing private citizensnto work or associate together is to mistakensomething fundamental aboutnhuman nature. The end result is thatnminority groups have a peculiar ideanof “rights” and what will come of possessingnthose rights. Unquestionably,nsome opportunities have been openednto blacks that the old state and localnlaws would not have allowed. However,nresistance to true advancement on thenpart of minorities is very much presentnbecause those minorities are widelynperceived to possess special privileges.nIt is in my self-interest to hire and promotenthe person best qualified for a jobnregardless of his race, and that economicnincentive will do wonders to promoteneconomic and social opportunity. Whenna person is forced to do something, evennif it is in his own self-interest, therenvery quickly appears a stubbornness, anresistance to cooperating in any substantivenway. The result is one of frustrationnfor everyone and disappointmentnfor minorities who thought that opportunitynwas to be theirs in fact. In additionnto the frustrations and disappointments,nthe use of government coercionnto force the issue has postponed truenintegration of society for years. Thenpoint is that the modern liberal does notnyet realize that government is, by itsnvery nature, ineffective in dealing withnsuch problems and that a continuingnuse of government in such situationsnwill only lead to more frustration, disappointmentnand delay in arriving atnvalid solutions.nFire in the Streets is an education innthe liberal perspective, as describednabove. It is also a prick to the consciencenbecause Viorst brings to the reader thenreality of the problems which gave risento the civil-rights movement. Fewnwhites have considered how they wouldnreact to a sheriff standing by while theynnnwere being beaten. So, while Fire isnevidence of how inappropriate it is tonuse government coercion to solve socialnproblems, it is also a reminder that therenis no such thing as “benign neglect”nwhen it comes to the conditions innwhich others are living. We have a responsibilitynto our fellow man, not tonmarch in the streets, but rather to conductnour own affairs in a just and uprightnmanner. We know that injusticenwill never be eradicated, but we’ie notneven moving in the right direction whennwe stand idly by and allow government’sncoercive powers to perpetuate socialnproblems.nH owever, Fire in the Streets is, atnthe very least, an educational volume.nIt is not a history of a decade or biographicalnsketches of the people Viorstnhas interviewed. It is not a seriousnchronology of the civil-rights or protestnmovements, although it does have somenclaim to being an intellectual history ofnthe liberal perspective in the 1960’s.nThe main theme of Fire is rather a practicalnlesson. It is an account of the follynof trying to use coercive means to solvensocial problems. This book should servenas a reminder to student and businessmannalike that asking for help fromnUncle in Washington is the easy waynout, but it is really no way out at all.nPolitics is a destructive and divisivenforce. It takes a lot of effort—energy,nthought, planning and learning—toncreate, to evolve genuine solutions tonserious problems. And while not meaningnto detract from the seriousness ofnthe movements, nor from the dedicationnof the demonstrators, it has to benobserved that anyone can march. DnFor informationnon ordering bacl( issuesnof Chronicles of Culture … write:nRocl