It seems that Professor Guinier’s fundamentalrnpoint of contention is tliat thernpresent system of governance is unfair:rnunfair not because we do not electrnenough blacks to elective office, but becausernblacks do not get what they wantrnwhen it comes time to consider whatrndoes and does not get passed as legislation.rnThis is the point she emphasizes,rntime and again, through the turgid legalrnprose in which so much of this book isrnwritten.rnOne gets the strong impression that,rnin her dismissal of what is generally perceivedrnto have been the Reagan agendarnon civil rights matters. Professor Guinierrnis less concerned with the individualrnvirtues and decentralized power thatrnsupport self-government than she is withrnmaking sure that the people on whosernbehalf she thinks she speaks get theirrnpiece of the action. She thereby indicatesrnthat much of the classical concernsrnof government, namely the preservationrnof a framework of liberty and federalismrnwithin which virtue may be pursued andrnthe highest aspirations of human existencernaccomplished, are not fundamentallyrnof any great interest to her. Suchrncan be inferred from her cavalier dismissalrnof the case made by the Reaganrnadministration against one of her mostrncherished goals, which is to hold the linernagainst federal retrenchment in thernsphere of civil rights, a sphere in which sornmany “gains” have been made in recentrndecades.rnThus, in the course of this book, onernis finally forced to ask whether LanirnGuinier and those who share her concernsrnhave been reading the samernnewspapers and experiencing the samernhistory as the rest of us these past 30rnyears. For, far from having seen the officiallyrndesignated oppressed classesrnamong us receive the short end of thernstick, we have witnessed an era in whichrnbeing “oppressed” has become a lucrativernbusiness. In the name of civil rights,rnour property rights have been invaded,rnour right to speak freely and truthfullyrninfringed, merit has been discarded forrnappearance, and law itself has been madernthe servant of power-maximizing politiciansrnwho would prosecute policemenrnfor doing their job while letting the barbariansrnwho infest our streets run free.rnHeadlines to the contrary, Guinier is norn”quota queen”; her work seeks to go beyondrnthe present order of things. Itrnseems clear, however, that she thinks thernpresent system is an improvement onrnthe way things were. That she could arrivernat a conclusion so different fromrnthat of most of the readers of this journal,rnand indeed most of America, is notrnreason to celebrate our diversity. It is, onrnthe contrary, yet another “firebell in thernnight” heralding the balkanization ofrnAmerica, a development that, ifrnunchecked, will yet vindicate StephenrnDouglas’s prophecies as to where Mr.rnLincoln’s theorizing would lead us.rnBrenan R. Nierman is a lecturer in therndepartment of public and internationalrnaffairs at George Mason University.rnA Child of thernRevolutionrnby Mark G. MalvasirnJohn C. Calhoun: A Biographyrnby Irving H. BartlettrnNew York: W.W.Norton;rn320 pp., $25.00rnIn his engaging biography of John C.rnCalhoun, Irving H. Bartlett remindsrnus that American political culture andrnthe men who made it were not always asrndecadent and corrupt as they are today.rnYet Bartlett’s book is not a partisan manifesto.rnHe is respectful of Calhoun butrnnot always sympathetic to his views, aspirations,rnand achievements.rnOne of Bartlett’s most important andrnoriginal contributions is to show thatrnCalhoun was not sui generis but was, instead,rnthe product of his culture. Calhounrnwas born into the conservative butrnvolatile society of the South Carolinarnbackcountry in 1782. His father, PatrickrnCalhoun, although he died when Johnrnwas a boy of 13, exercised a remarkablerninfluence on his son’s temperament andrnworldview. A stern Scots-Irish Presbyterian,rnPatrick Calhoun taught his childrenrnthat life is a perpetual strugglernagainst evil. He also instilled in them anrnabiding love of liberty and an unqualifiedrnhatred of tyranny. For Patrick Calhoun,rnthe obligations to God, family,rnneighborhood, and country defined thernparameters of private and public life.rnJohn C. Calhoun fully absorbed his father’srnconvictions, preferring throughoutrnhis life study, toil, and duty to frivolity,rnidleness, and self-indulgence.rnBarriett traces Calhoun’s public life asrna backcountry lawyer, state legislator,rncongressman, Vice President, senator,rnand Cabinet official. In examining Calhoun’srnprivate life, Bartlett shows thatrnthe image of the “cast-iron man,” whichrnhas enjoyed remarkable durabilityrnamong historians, utterly misrepresentsrnhis personality. Calhoun was a devotedrnson; an indulgent, even permissive, father;rna dutiful, if somewhat remote, husband;rnand a conscientious planter andrnmaster of slaves.rnBartlett ably reviews Calhoun’s enduringrncontributions to political philosophy,rnhis effort to “place political sciencernon the same solid foundations asrnphysical science.” But Bartlett’s mostrnsubtle and important insights emergernfrom his exploration of the dichotomiesrnthat structured Calhoun’s thought andrncareer. Three themes, or more accuratelyrnthree tensions, dominate the narrative:rnfirst, Calhoun’s effort to reconcilernnationalism and sectionalism; second,rnhis struggle to balance ambition againstrnprinciple; third, his defense of slaveryrnand republicanism.rnLike most other scholars of Jacksonianrnpolitics, Bartlett acknowledges the enthusiasticrnnationalism that characterizedrnCalhoun’s tenure in the House of Representatives.rnUpon entering Congress,rnCalhoun immediately identified himselfrnwith the “war hawks” who supportedrnthe conflict with Great Britain. Afterrnthe War of 1812, Calhoun advocated internalrnimprovements, favored a protectiverntariff, championed a national bank,rnand generally sought “to counteract everyrntendency to disunion.”rnDuring the 1820’s, according to thernfamiliar argument, Calhoun in responsernto the outcrv raised in South Carolinarnagainst the tariff abandoned his earlyrnnationalism and embraced an ardentrnsectionalism. Bartlett does not positrnsuch a sharp divergence between Calhoun’srncommitment to nation and tornsection. In Bartlett’s view, Calhoun wasrnfirst and last “a child of the Revolution.”rnHe revered the Union and his affectionrnfor it never wavered.rnBut Calhoun could not support arnUnion that had become oppressive.rnWhen the government of the UnitedrnStates passed to the control of men morerninterested in using power for their ownrnbenefit than in attending to the good ofrnthe commonwealth, Calhoun sought torn38/CHRONICLESrnrnrn