to the order of subjective perceptionn(thus, IQ scores tell us nothing aboutnintelligence because intelligence itselfnrefers to many more things than thenability to do well on objective tests,nwhile poll results depend on the questionsnthe pollsters ask), then assertnthat the state ought to reconstitute socialnreality along egalitarian lines andnclaim that opponents of this policy havenonly their own self-interest at heart.nThis strategy keeps the need for demonstratingnintimate knowledge of the issuesnto a minimum by disguising the lack ofnknowledge behind a drumfire of polemic.nThe point here is not that the evidencenGreen is examining cannot be questioned,nespecially that concerning comparativenIQ levels, but that the issuesnare complex and need reasoned analysis,nnot just sustained polemic.nAndrew Hacker has written in thenNew York Review of Books, “Geneticninheritance has always appealed to thenconservatives, who invoke it withoutnapology . . . Perhaps it is a hiddennfear of the left that, on this count atnleast, the right could just be right.”nYet the issue is not only whether inequalitynis the result of genetic structurenor some cultural determinant,nthough that is the one that engages mostnparticipants in the debate. The issue fornthe 80’s is to what extent can and shouldnthe federal government use its coercivenpowers—not just to enforce equal rightsnunder the law, but to enforce an actualndegree of uniformity of class and economicnstatus. The fact is that a decadenor more of government attempts tonenforce an equality of condition havenfailed, and that is what is responsiblenfor the rise of a counterrevolution. Butnalong with political opposition comes annattempt to explain why the policy ofnenforced equality has failed, which isnwhy consideration is now being givennto evidence from biology and sociologynthat was ignored before. That is somethingnthat concerns liberals, conservativesnand anyone else who wants tonunderstand the limits of both the powernand authority of government. The newninterest in explanations of inequalitynhas come about as a result of the failurento enforce a real condition of equalitynand is apparent on the left as well asnthe right.nvTreen does not see the argumentsnof his opponents as explanations, however,nbut only as rationalizations, andnthis makes his book a failure. He failsnnot only because he relies overmuch onnpolemic, but also because he has nothingnnew to say. Above all, Green fails becausenof his Marxism. That Green is anMarxist is indicated by his many referencesnto him and the easy, almost automaticnway in which he uses Marx’snthought as a touchstone of social reality.nHow old-fashioned Marx’s theories arenand how inapplicable to the conditionsnof the late 20th century are highlightednby Green’s book. No mention is made ofnthe middle class, for example, nor isnany knowledge of modern managementnor production techniques revealed;nGreen writes the way Marx did, as ifnthere were only robber-baron capitalistsnand oppressed factory workers performingnmindless tasks in horrid conditions.nMarxism has always been anpolemicist’s philosophy, full of angernand self-righteousness, but in the oldndays, at least, you could expect a realnif biased knowledge of current economicnprocesses. Reality has outgrown Marx’snphilosophy, however, and Green hasnnot updated it. Without its theoreticalnunderpinnings intact, all that is left ofnMarxism is spite, something that cannbe seen in the way that Green treatsnhis opponents.nIt is not enough, for example, to trynto demolish the arguments of MiltonnFriedman; Friedman himself must bendestroyed. Thus Friedman (and anyonenelse with whom Green disagrees), isnnot respected as a scholar or as a man;nhis motives are brought under attackasnif one who opposes socialism must benin the pay of Standard Oil. If I seem tonexaggerate, let me quote: the issue, believenit or not, is a distinction Friedmannhas made between the state’s preservingnnnEducation in AmericanThe model teacher, as definednby Mr. Joseph Featherstonenin the New York TirrtesnBook Review:nHe is in favor of unmaskingnwhat’s wrong withnthe United States, andnagainst indoctrination.n”law and order” and “protecting ournfreedom . . . from our fellow citizens.”nGreen’s conclusion: “The whole phraseologynthus reeks of the Star Chamber,nthe witch-hunt, the repressive apparatusnof loyalty-security programs, and thensecret police with their Red Squads.”nThere is more, a page and a half, innfact. Milton Friedman, of all people,nperhaps the gentlest economist aroundnin his public utterances; Friedman who,ndespite Green’s disclaimer, is indeednknown as a “friend of liberty”; Friedmannwho, in his PBS television series,nconcluded each program with an openndiscussion with his critics. Would Greennhave done as much?nOne of the advantages of adoptingnthe Marxist position is that it allowsnyou to dismiss your opponents withoutnconsidering their arguments. Marx’sntheory of ideology is the mechanismnhere, for it propounds that an economicnstructure, capitalism in this case, willnpromote its own justification or ideology.nThose who hold it may sincerelynbelieve it, yet it is still just a rationalizationnof the corrupt means by whichncapitalists oppress the workers. Marxistsnhave always argued this way, and Greennemploys the technique to the hilt, fornwhat need is there to take such ideasnseriously, as if they had any basis innobjective reality.” Their only significancenis that acceptance of them blocksnprogressive reform. Of course, thisnmethod of avoiding the thrust of yournopponents’ ideas cuts two ways. If thenrational defense of capitalism can benseen as one class’s justification for exploitingnanother, so too can Marxistnand leftist critiques of Western culturenloi«mbcr/Dccember 1981n