The Fall as seen from The Decline

Charles Peters is an unreconstructed, old fashioned liberal. Now in his tenth decade, he can look back at how and when things changed, with a modicum of perspective. Or so he would like us to think.

His basic argument is sound. Government has changed from being an opportunity, a change agent, and a rewarding life, to the scum of the earth. Where FDR (Peters’ first president) attracted all the best talent, took chances and made gigantic strides, by the 1980s government was the problem, an embarrassment, and barely above Congress in public contempt. No one wants to go into government – except as a lobbyist. We Do Our Part tells how we got there.

The book rapidly degenerates into pop culture. About half way through there is an endless treatise on taste as propounded by glossy magazines in the New York City of the 1970s. There is interminable name dropping, whole lists of them: writers, editors, publishers and the trendy from that era. It is content-free. This is soon overtaken by fashion articles from the 1990s New York Times and various Conde Nast offerings, pushing the posh life. And then radio and tv commentators and show hosts, with special focus on Louis Rukeyser of Wall Street Week – you may or may not recall. He seems to be the poster boy for the new greed. The point is that t we are obsessed with luxury, judging by the media. There’s news. It all sort of ties into selfishness and self-indulgence, as opposed to the good old days of the Depression, when everyone was equally miserable and willing to help others.

Too often, Peters appears to be an apologist for the Democrats. This is unfortunate, because he has been there, seen it all, and knows full well the implications of everything that has happened. Pretending not to (“It wasn’t his fault that …”) cheapens his arguments immeasurably. The unstated causation he implies for everything is unproven, speculative and suspect when it isn’t just blatantly false.

For all that, We Do Our Part remains fascinating - to read the 90 year perspective of someone in the eye of the storm. It is current, perceptive and fast paced. As long as you can distance yourself, as Peters likes to think he has, it makes a fine read.

David Wineberg