The Hunt for Vulcan by Thomas Levenson

Published by Random House on November 3, 2015

Despite the title, The Hunt for Vulcan is not about the search for Mr. Spock’s home planet. It is, as Thomas Levenson explains, “a cautionary tale: it’s so damn easy to see what one wants or expects to find.” That is just as true for scientists as it is for everyone else.

Vulcan is the name given to a planet that never existed. Levenson traces its origin to theories of celestial motion that Robert Halley and Isaac Newton rather stunningly worked out using, I suppose, quill pens and infant telescopes. After praising Newton and Halley, Levenson tells of subsequent scientists who took up Newton’s quest to construct a mathematical model that would account for the behavior of every object in the universe. Newly discovered objects (Uranus and its wobbly orbit) as well as newly discovered phenomena (Jupiter apparently speeding up in its orbit, Saturn apparently slowing down) inspired refinements of Newton’s model of gravitation. Not all of them were accurate, but Uranus’ wobble led to the discovery of Neptune.

The next scientist who receives extended discussion is tobacco engineer-turned-astronomer Le Verrier. Having predicted Nepture’s discovery in order to account for Uranus’ wobble, Le Verrier concluded that another celestial body would account for Mercury’s precession. That “planet” came to be known as Vulcan. Its existence was widely accepted not only because Le Verrier endorsed it, but because a credible amateur astronomer believed he observed it.

Scientists bent over backwards to believe that Vulcan existed because, without it, something seemed to be amiss in Newton’s theory of gravity. Rather than committing an act of scientific heresy by suggesting that Newton was wrong, scientists embraced Vulcan, and even calculated its orbit, despite the troubling absence of Vulcan from the visible sky. Leave it to Albert Einstein to pop their Newtonian bubble and explain Mercury’s wobble in a way that did not rely on a fictitious planet.

The story of Vulcan is the story of how (some) scientists invent facts to fit observed phenomena into accepted theories to which they steadfastly cling. As Levenson notes, an empirical fact that “refuses to conform to the demands of a theory invalidates that theory, and requires the construction of a new one.” Yet scientists have often found it easier to construct new facts than to abandoned cherished theories -- hence the construction of Vulcan, a planet or group of asteroids (perhaps concealed by the sun’s glare) that must exist if scientists were to keep faith with Newton.

The book is also a tribute to great minds and, by extension, to open minds that are willing to search for new theories when flaws in the old ones become apparent. Yet despite Levenson’s veneration of great minds, he reveals great character flaws (most notably, great egos) that bedevil the best and the brightest ... with the possible exception of Einstein, who seems like a genuinely nice guy. In addition to setting the time and place in each chapter, Levenson scatters interesting biographical facts about the scientists who advanced the understanding of celestial mechanics. (Edison’s contribution to the story consists primarily of shooting a stuffed jackrabbit on a hunting trip.) Perhaps the book strays too far off course when, near the end, it discusses the politics of scientists in World War I, but a little padding is a forgivable sin in a book this short.

When scientists are the intended audience of science writers, I can’t keep up with jargon and math. When a book is so dumbed down that it assumes all nonscientists dropped out of school after seventh grade, I get bored and/or irritated. It always pleases me to find a science writer who uses engaging prose that allows me to grasp (albeit incompletely) concepts about which I know little. Levenson is one of those writers. He writes with passion about the tense joy of observing an eclipse. He is equally passionate about the history of science. That passion, combined with his clarity of expression, makes The Hunt for Vulcan a valuable read for those of us who don’t have degrees in physics. It is even more valuable as a reminder that ideas, once proven wrong, need to be replaced with better ideas.

RECOMMENDED

The Bill of Rights by Carol Berkin

Published by Simon & Schuster on May 5, 2015

Carol Berkin's The Bill of Rights must be read in the context of its subtitle: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties. It is not so much a book about the Bill of Rights as it is a concise history of the adoption of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It is not a legal treatise. The rights themselves are not explored in depth, nor is there a discussion of how courts interpreted those rights after they were adopted. That is not a fault, merely a caution that if you are looking for a book that explains the Bill of Rights, you should look elsewhere.

Berkin's thesis is that the Bill of Rights was "more a political strategy than a statement of America's most cherished values." She argues that the Federalists (primarily James "Jemmy" Madison) wanted to enact a Bill of Rights not so much to protect individual rights (although that was certainly a secondary motivation) as to thwart the Antifederalists who criticized the broad powers that the Constitution gave to the federal government. By limiting the federal government's ability to use its power oppressively or tyrannically through the Bill of Rights, Madison hoped to syphon support from the Antifederalists who wanted to amend the Constitution in ways that would weaken the federal government's power.

Early chapters in The Bill of Rights explore the origins of the tension between federal power and state's rights, an ideological divide that produced notable differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Berkin argues that the need for a strong federal government became apparent after the Revolutionary War, as cooperation among states turned into competitive squabbling that threatened to destroy national unity. Although the Antifederalists lost steam after the first congressional elections gave them minority status in the legislature, Berkin's book traces their attempt to refight the battles they lost at the Constitutional Convention by supporting constitutional amendments that would shift federal power to the states (primarily by limiting the federal power to raise revenues and regulate trade).

Berkin explores the historical context that motivated Madison to urge the protection of rights that had been denied or limited by the British. She also discusses the contentious issue of the limit of federal power, exploding the modern myth that the federal government has only those powers that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution (a proposed Antifederalist amendment containing that exact language was firmly defeated).

After discussing the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Constitution as its replacement, Berkin's story moves to the first Congress and to Madison's championship of the constitutional amendments that later became the Bill of Rights. Madison's proposed amendments were less a Bill of Rights than a series of specific changes to the language of the Constitution, including some that had nothing to do with individual rights. Berkin recounts in detail the fascinating evolution of Madison's document until it became the Bill of Rights that the states ratified.

It is interesting to read about the vigorous debates that affected the wording of rights that are now so familiar, including freedom of religion and its supposed relationship to the right to bear arms. Particularly amusing was the objection that a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments might put an end to the "necessary" punishments of whipping and dismemberment. Also interesting are the so-called "obstructionist tactics" used by the Antifederalists, an accusatory phrase that both political parties wield (with some justification) today.

The story follows the Bill of Rights from the House of Representative to the Senate, which simplified some of Madison's turgid language. Berkin then discusses state ratification of the amendments. Two of the twelve passed by Congress (addressing congressional salaries and the size of the House of Representatives) were rejected by the states, leaving the ten amendments that have become the backbone of America's commitment to individual rights (albeit a commitment that in practice has too often been unsteady). An appendix includes Madison's proposed amendments, the Bill of Rights as adopted, and brief biographies of the first elected senators and representatives.

Berkin suggests that supporters of the Bill of Rights, including Madison, did not envision the crucial role it would play over the course of history in protecting individual rights. Supporters of the Constitution as it was drafted argued that the political process, as controlled by the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances, would be sufficient to prevent the new American government from violating the basic rights of the governed. History shows just how wrong they were. Fortunately, the public understood that "social and cultural majorities" were just as likely to be oppressive as a monarchy. Their fear of majoritarian tyranny translated into reservations about a Constitution that did not protect their fundamental rights. Madison exploited that fear as a means of undercutting the Antifederalists, but regardless of his motivation, the fight Madison waged is a defining moment in American history.

Berkin's book is amply sourced and (although I am no historian) her research seems to be accurate and unbiased. She avoids the dull prose of academia and tells the story in a lively voice. While the mission of this brief book is limited, I think Berkin proves her thesis, making this an insightful contribution to the history of one of the nation's most important founding documents.

RECOMMENDED

Hand Drawn Jokes for Smart Attractive People by Matthew Diffee

Published by Scribner on May 26, 2015

Matthew Diffey's cartoons are regularly published in the New Yorker. Hand Drawn Jokes for Smart Attractive People might be described as a book of cartoons mixed with stand-up comedy. In fact, Diffey tells us that in terms of stand-up comedy, he is just like Chris Rock, except that Rock owns a mansion and Diffy owns some really nice pencils.

Narrative comedy introduces each chapter. The chapters collect (mostly) single-panel cartoons that will appeal to smart, attractive people (like you). Each chapter addresses a particular category of people: doctors, lumberjacks, pet owners, people in relationships, old people, people with tattoos, etc. Diffey sometimes mixes in multiple-panel cartoons and occasionally graces the bottom of a page with a sketch of someone delivering a one-liner.

My favorite cartoon: a seedy looking guy says to a florist "I want some flowers that say, `Here, have some friggin' flowers'." First runner up: a doorman says to a hooker, "And will he know what this is regarding?" Other highlights include an interview with a pretentious potato chip critic and a two page guide that will help you identify the religion that is best for you. But really, there are too many outstanding cartoons and jokes in this book to make it easy to single out any part of it. It's all pretty funny.

RECOMMENDED

The Case Against the Supreme Court by Erwin Chemerinsky

Published by Viking on September 25, 2014

Erwin Chemerinksy says that his goal in writing The Case Against the Supreme Court was to determine whether the Supreme Court has made society better or worse. I would argue that legislatures have the primary job of making society better or worse since "better" and "worse" usually involve policy judgments that elected officials should make. The Supreme Court's job is not to make policy but to enforce the values that underlie the Constitution by assuring that the other branches of government do not exceed their constitutional authority or violate rights that the Constitution protects. I understand Chemerinsky's point -- when the Court does those things, it makes society better; when it fails, it makes society worse -- but I'm not sure I agree with his larger point that the institution should be faulted because the Justices who serve on it have so often been gutless and short-sighted.

I can't fault Chemerinksy's observation that the Supreme Court has often failed in its critical tasks. The Court too often sides with the government in conflicts with individuals, even when the government abuses it power, and with corporations in conflicts with consumers. The Justices often give too little weight to the Constitution's core values and too much to popular political opinion. But a different outcome in a couple of close presidential elections (including the election that the Court shamefully decided in Bush v. Gore) would have resulted in majorities on the Court that would probably have produced fewer disappointing decisions. Chemerinsky recognizes that, of course, but I think his disappointment with the Court as an institution is really a disappointment with the majorities that have often controlled it.

To illustrate his argument, Chemerinsky claims to set aside ideology and to concentrate on decisions the Court rendered that are contrary to American values as understood by liberals and conservatives alike. He is only partially successful in that endeavor. Yes, nearly everyone agrees that Dred Scott (requiring the return of a slave who reached a "free" state) and Korematsu (upholding Japanese internment camps) and Plessy (upholding racial segregation) and Buck (permitting the involuntary sterilization of the "feeble minded") were not only incorrect but horrible decisions. There is less consensus about the Lochner era decisions (invalidating government regulation of wages and hours and child labor) but most people now agree that the power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to police employment practices and workplace safety. Nearly half the book, however, is devoted to more recent cases that sharply divide the right and the left. I can't say that Chemerinsky is able to set ideology aside when he discusses the Roberts court, but that discussion takes up a good bit of the book.

Although I largely agree with Chemerinsky on questions of social policy, I have trouble with his reasoning. Chererinsky rarely asks whether the Court's decisions followed the law, but asks instead whether the Court made society better or worse by upholding or striking down particular laws. I found it easy to agree with many of his conclusions but not so easy to agree that it the Court's job to decide a case based on whether its decision will make society better or worse. The real question is whether a law or act is consistent with the Constitution and with the values the Framers embodied within it. Keeping guns out of schools is good social policy but using the Commerce Clause to regulate conduct that has nothing to do with interstate commerce is not.

It also strikes me that the Court has, in the recent past, made some important yet controversial decisions that Chemerinsky would probably agree make society better (such as protecting the right to confront witnesses and striking down mandatory sentencing laws that deprive defendants of jury trials). Chemerinsky ignores many of those cases, although he does acknowledge the decision to uphold Obamacare and to strike down laws that discriminate against same-sex couples -- cases that undermine his argument that "the Court" (rather than specific majorities) has failed the country as an institution.

Part 3 looks into the future and asks what we can do about the Supreme Court, a question that seems largely rhetorical. He comes down against the notion of doing away with the Supreme Court, a disastrous view that is advocated by some respected law professors and a whole lot of yahoos. Even a bad Supreme Court is better than no Supreme Court, given the frequency with which legislatures try to circumvent the Constitution. His primary arguments for reform (merit selection for Justices, stop pretending that ideology plays no role in the confirmation process, and term limits), if implemented, would provide no guarantee that the Court's decisions would be any better.

Despite my reservations about the conclusions it draws, I enjoyed reading The Case Against the Supreme Court. It is particularly useful as a cathartic howl of pain regarding court decisions that elevate corporate interests above human interests. The book is lively and free of legal jargon. Anyone with at least a moderate interest in politics, history, or law should find the book to be useful and engaging, even if (like me) they do not necessarily agree with its premise.

RECOMMENDED

Lincoln's Gamble by Todd Brewster

Published by Scribner on September 9, 2014

More than 23,000 books have been written about President Lincoln, attesting to the important role he plays in the American imagination. Todd Brewster notes that some biographers of Lincoln have revered him as the second coming of Christ while others have portrayed him as a devious scoundrel.

Lincoln's Gamble is not a biography. Brewster calls it an attempt to discover the "real" Lincoln by focusing on a slice of his presidency. It succeeds at least to the extent of revealing an important slice of the "real" Lincoln. Brewster paints Lincoln during the last half of 1862 as complex and conflicted, principled and pragmatic, a fence-sitter at war with himself before his better nature triumphed.

The first half of the book describes the ambivalent path to the Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln traveled (in the words of Frederick Douglass) "in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way." Much of the second half addresses Lincoln's approach to the war, his frustration with his generals, his determination to shift the Union's strategy from defense to offense, and his final (albeit limited) decision to free Confederate slaves.

Brewster emphasizes Lincoln's deliberate and lawyerly approach to emancipation. One one hand, while Lincoln shared the prevailing racism of his time, he believed that the core American values of liberty and equality were antithetical to slavery. Despite his belief in equal rights, he plainly did not view black Americans as morally or intellectually equal to white Americans. His preferred outcome would have been an end to slavery while encouraging former slaves to find a new country in which to dwell. On the other hand, Lincoln's foremost concern, as Brewster sees it, was to save the Union. Whether emancipation would further or hinder that goal was a question that constantly vexed him. Had Lincoln been able to negotiate an end to the rebellion by phasing out slavery over several decades while compensating slave owners for their losses, Brewster makes clear that he would have jumped at that chance, his personal opposition to slavery notwithstanding.

Brewster argues that the connection between slavery and the Civil War was critical to Lincoln. Lincoln's reluctance to proclaim an immediate end to slavery was based in part upon his recognition that the Southern economy was dependent upon it. Later, when the war was not going well for the Union, Lincoln concluded that damaging the economy of the South by freeing slaves might hasten a favorable end to the rebellion. Yet even then he feared that freeing slaves would prolong the war and might lead to continued violence both by and against former slaves. It was thus with an ambivalent mixture of resolve and uncertainty that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

The concept of emancipation by presidential proclamation also troubled Lincoln because freeing slaves was arguably beyond his authority. Lincoln recognized that the Constitution, without using the words slave or master, sanctioned slavery by requiring the return of fugitive "laborers" to the "party" to whom their labor was due. Although not using the express term, the Constitution plainly regarded slaves as property. By what legal (as opposed to moral) authority can the president deprive people of their property without compensation and due process of law? While Lincoln (as opposed to Stephen Douglas) did not accept the notion that "state's rights" included the right to enslave, Brewster argues that Lincoln felt an obligation to uphold the law as it was embodied in the Constitution.

Lincoln resolved the dilemma by tying emancipation to the president's constitutional war power authority, a bold but questionable judgment. Moreover, because Lincoln's justification for freeing slaves applied only to states in rebellion and would no longer apply in states that laid down their arms, the Emancipation Proclamation purported to free slaves in Confederate states, but not to end slavery. It took a constitutional amendment for that to happen.

Brewster argues that Lincoln's fretting about the language and legal justification for emancipation was, in the end, largely irrelevant to supporters of abolition, who saw the proclamation as a moral statement rather than the careful legal document that Lincoln drafted. Regardless of (and perhaps contrary to) Lincoln's intent, the proclamation changed the war from an effort to save the Union to a war of liberation. In the end, Lincoln's justification of emancipation as a military necessity proved prophetic, as the loss of slaves sapped the Confederacy's strength while adding thousands of fresh soldiers to the Union's forces.

I'm not sure Lincoln's Gamble adds new insight to Lincoln's character, but after 23,000 Lincoln books, I doubt that would be possible. Lincoln's Gamble is nevertheless full of interesting facts. None of the book's digressions (a brief history of slavery, profiles of various individuals who may have influenced the president's thinking, the role science played in justifying nineteenth century racism, the uncertain evidence of Lincoln's religious beliefs) come across as padding or filler.

The book is balanced. Brewster does not shy away from Lincoln's character flaws or from the damage he did when he made poor decisions (particularly the suspension of habeas corpus). At the same time, he is respectful of the difficult choices Lincoln made during a critical six months in the nation's history. As a good historian should, Brewster relies largely upon contemporary sources and quotes them freely while taking care to evaluate their credibility. He makes clear distinctions between facts that are almost certainly true and those (such as where and when Lincoln began writing the Emancipation Proclamation) that are subject to doubt. Yet his lively narrative does not bog down in the nit-picking of history. He calls upon art and literature to help the reader understand the war and its impact on the nation. Brewster's tone is casual rather than academic, making it easy reading for lay readers (like me) who want to learn something new without wading through dense and dry tomes.

RECOMMENDED