BOOKS
321
have nothing to offer by way of response to such facts other than spouting
platitudes. "Reactionary liberalism," he continues, "corresponds to pseudo–
libertarianism on the right because it ignores government's failures, just as
most Republicans close their eyes to its successes." So we have a check-mate
with the worst excesses of each trend-liberal and conservative-bouncing
off one another. In the meantime, the real work of government isn't getting
done.
There is considerable truth to Weisberg's approach. But the program he
spills the most ink defending, Gatreaux, which was designed originally to
move a small number of black Chicagoans on welfare into white suburbs, has
drawn mixed reviews-from whites and blacks alike. No doubt it has helped
a few, and this should by no means be discounted, but there are real questions
of sustainability over time-placement runs $1500 to $2000 per year and a
"Section 8 certificate" for housing costs around $6000 a year. Its lack of uni–
versality is another issue. The social programs that fare best are those that
apply to everyone, like Social Security. They need not apply in the same way
to everyone: benefits may vary; need-based criteria can be put into place. But
political legitimation for such programs is high. Not so the program Weisberg
defends, especially not in the way he defends it. "Gatreaux works best in
secret. If white bungalow dwellers don't know that the black family moving
onto their block is being put there by a federal program, they are less likely
to object." This is a rather odd thing for a democratic theorist to extol. Surely
there must be a better way to get at the problem of housing segregation!
Along the way, Weisberg makes some strange comparisons and forges
peculiar links. The Gatreaux program-which we don't know much about
because things are best kept more or less secret-gets listed along with pre–
serving the wilderness, Social Security, and the "defeat of Hitler" as a
resounding government success. What's wrong with this picture? One pro–
gram applies to a small number of people and lacks widespread political
legitimacy; a second applies to everyone; the third isn't a policy at all but a
sustained effort to defeat a
military
threat. This isn't a terribly persuasive way
to make one's case. For one thing, foreign policy is intrinsically different from
domestic policy and success. For another, one program-Gatreaux-is a
source of disenchantment, in part because it doesn't really do what it
promised to do on a major scale; the other program---social security-is now
part of the American landscape and routinely accepted as part of govern–
ment's task.
The book is also marred by Weisberg's insistent caricature of the posi–
tions he opposes-whether those of "reactionary liberals" or "libertarian
conservatives." To be sure, such positions are easy enough to mock but a
clearer sense of grappling with the reasons why such positions continue to
hold sway or are on the rise (in the case of libertarianism) would have given
