Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

“That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religions - to religious hatred, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity. Unfortunately, expression such criticism places the nonbeliever at the margins of society. By merely being in touch with reality, he appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors” pg. 57

Let’s be real, Letter to a Christian Nation is not a letter truly addressed to Christians, but we shouldn’t be harboring any illusions that it is either. For one, author Sam Harris admits that he doesn’t expect any hardline Christians to read it. Two, the distinction is in the title itself. Harris is writing to the nation of these United States, a nation which allows a considerable amount of influence derived from religious texts/beliefs into public life, policy, and societal endeavors. So while Harris’ book may be written in a way that addresses fanatical Christians, his true appeal is to moderates and secularists.

Harris is imploring the people of the United States to discover the difference between how we treat people and how we treat their beliefs. Consider how we allow Christian parents to abstain from immunizing their children or how we allow Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from life saving blood transfusions. Do we do this because our nation is allowing religious freedom or are we simply exercising religious tolerance? It seems religious freedom would be allowing these groups to practice their religion free of persecution from the law, but the burden of justifying harmful practices should fall squarely on the believer, not the nation as a whole. Harris outlines countless more examples in this concise argument and one has to believe there are countless more. This is not an offensive riff against religious people, it is a treatise for intellectually honest conversation.

And one does not have to accept Harris’ assertions that there is no God or that the world would be better if everyone stopped believing in one in order to participate in his general premise. Granted, they do need to read between quite a few condescending passages to fully engage, but what simmers underneath is a really important and substantial argument about the way we should structure society. We should want to see society structured in such a way that does not tolerate self-harm or the harming of others or perpetual opposition to legislation, scientific research, and humanitarian effort designed to reduce suffering all on the grounds that it is considered religious freedom and tolerance to so.

There is tremendous benefit to reading Harris’ arguments with this in mind. If you are avoiding his works because you feel he is too offensive or condescending or hot-button, then you are part of the problem Harris feels this nation has. The greatest human and societal achievements haven’t been attained without making swaths of everyday people very uncomfortable, in some cases even murderously angry. It is time we begin to discuss how to be intolerant without cruelty, start with this book.

Evicted by Mattew Desmond

When talking about the housing crises and subsequent recession of ‘08, I used to blame it almost entirely for my parent’s divorce. I’d usually posit that had the market not crashed, employment not taken a nosedive, then my mom and stepdad could have made things work. This was largely an effort to couple a personal affront with a larger criticism of the system. The problem with what I was doing was not relative to the truth of the matter, but more of a problem with using the power of narrative to contextualize flaws in the system. After all, my parent’s divorce was not proof of predatory lending or high stakes debt investments, the only credibility it lent my argument (assuming it is true) was that my life was adversely affected by the housing market crash. This is an example of a strong rhetorical tool overtaking the argument it was meant only to bolster.

I’ll be clear, this is far from what Matthew Desmond does in his book Evicted. Desmond meticulously documents poverty in Milwaukee inner cities and rural trailer parks as only a professional journalist could. While first focusing on two landlords and some tenants, he then magnifies these stories, tracking them into some increasingly dark places. Evicted is an exceptionally important book because of the way in which it documents our country’s failure in dealing with our most vulnerable citizens. These are not sob stories, they are gritty realities meant to frustrate the reader.

Each tenant, or character as you might mistakenly be apt to call them, is extorted by their landlord in the most sickening ways. They are thrown increasingly into drug addiction and poverty as eviction after eviction piles up. The stories are heartbreaking, unfair, and gut wrenching. Every American should read them so they can get a glimpse of the way this country is designed to profit off suffering. The idea is that, unlike regular, middle-class tenants, in order to make a profit off our poorest citizens, the landlord must milk a high number of them for everything they are worth. This makes the eviction a pivotal tool. It allows landlords to remove a tenant at the moment they become unprofitable. The result is a terrifyingly fast carousel of poverty and profit.

Despite the fact that Desmond litters Eviction with hard numbers and detailed passages on flawed housing policy, it could still be entirely possible for readers to walk away from it thinking greedy landlords are the problem, or the government, or ineffectual social programs. This is because the main focus is on the way the narrative of downtrodden people like Arleen makes us feel, not what systemic policy most likely put her there. While the descriptions of poverty and the cyclical brutality of the inner-city may make us physically wince, they detract and overshadow the brief passages on causation. At the same time, the descriptions are necessary for any reader concerned with living in and creating a just society.

For this reason, Desmond's book is worth reading, but cautiously. It is an excellent ancillary text that lends itself to a worldview already privy to the flaws of capitalism and America's perpetual reliance on poverty for profit. As a conversation starter it runs the risks inherent in narrative style non-fiction, so resist the urge to recommend it to your mother-in-law's book club.

The New Prophets of Capital by Nicole Aschoff

When Whole Foods came to Detroit I remember Kai Ryssdal of NPR’s Marketplace doing an interview with Walter Robb, the CEO of the company at the time. Admittedly, I was on the bandwagon; I thought a Whole Foods in Detroit was a good thing, was part of the revitalization effort happening across the city. Ryssdal, though, posed some difficult questions to a clearly annoyed Robb (who at one point says something along the lines of “that’s why I’m an entrepreneur and you’re just a journalist”). The skepticism Ryssdal expressed was rooted in gentrification and because of Robb’s continued counter to the concerns over high prices always boiling down to “just doing it right” Ryssdal ended up asking him what his plans were to teach the residents of Detroit how to shop at the store.  

This interview profoundly affected me. I began to see the urban revitalization led by Dan Gilbert and his ilk (whom I worked for at the time) as flawed, despite their intentions. At the same time, I had difficulties expressing this skepticism, I wasn’t sure why dumping private capital into economically disadvantaged areas seemed to result in more inequality when the intention and efficiency were in the right places. It was also difficult to explain to fellow suburbanites why I had my doubts about Detroit being labeled as a “comeback city” when they saw the city generating profit in ways it hadn’t for some time.

This was until, very recently, I read The New Profits of Capital by Nicole Aschoff. The New Profits basically breaks down the stories of successful, well-intentioned, entrepreneurs that seek to make the world a better place through capitalist markets. Aschoff focuses on four big players: Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook, John Mackey of Whole Foods, Oprah, and Bill/Melinda Gates.

Each section follows a pattern. The first part generally discusses the subject in a positive light; Sheryl Sandberg breaking barriers as a woman CEO, John Mackey hasn’t taken a paycheck in years and pays his employees profit share, Oprah’s unfettered benevolence, the Gateses wild success in reducing disease worldwide. This is important, Aschoff isn’t a snooty leftist whose aim is to defecate all over the capitalist class for being evil or greedy. She recognizes the importance of understanding each of these individuals as essentially good. For Aschoff, the flaw is in the philosophy.

The next part of each section usually delves into the limitations of capitalist markets to accomplish the endgame of each subject. The ideas here are enlightening and, in many ways, a total game changer. Some key points used against the subjects are that capital - unlike human needs - can’t be satiated, that markets require inequality, and that private capital is undemocratic. There are more about the limits of the individual vs the system (you can’t bootstrap your way out of poverty)  and conscious consumerism as well. Each was backed up by an abundance of sources demonstrating that capitalism necessitates inequality and a certain amount of people left behind.

The final part of each section talks about ways in which society could be constructed, democratically and socialistically, that would serve the needs of people over the needs of capital. Whether or not you believe this is the answer, The New Profits of Capital is certainly worth reading. If only to poke holes in the success stories capitalists are telling in the wake of immense suffering and poverty. I can’t recommend this book enough, I almost wish it were a documentary for fear that too few people will read it.

And just FYI, I emailed Aschoff at editor@jacobinmag.org to request a Part II featuring Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Dan Gilbert, and Sarah Koenig from the podcast Serial. So...fingers crossed.