The Wish for Kings

Nikki Stiller

Lapham argues that 'a selfish ruling oligarchycomprised of elite elements of all major institutionsespecially the media and governmenthas made [the United States] a nation of favor-seeking courtiersnot unlike those of the court of Versailles under Louis XIV. This quest for privilege has engendered public apathy while gridlocking change and vitalityrequisites for all functioning democracies.' —Library Journal

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly

In this erudite polemic, Harper's editor Lapham charges that the United States is run by a selfish oligarchy, a ruling elite that preaches democracy and a free market but that actually makes the economy dependent on systematic price-fixing, noncompetitive bidding and federal subsidies. In place of democratic dialogue, the oligarchy promotes the ``courtier spirit.'' Courtiers--lawyers, politicians, celebrities, corporate brass--promulgate ``welcome lies'' and sustain the illusion of progress while helping to maintain the status quo. Lapham ( Money and Class in America ) blasts a ``timid and reactionary'' news media, which poses as watchdog but acts as lapdog to the ruling and possessing classes. He finds the courtier spirit ascendant in Washington patronage and waste. In a forceful, cautionary book, Lapham characterizes President Clinton as a potential mandarin who could fulfill America's ``wish for kings,'' fostering the illusion of change while relieving the populace of the hard work of democratic participation. (June)

Library Journal

Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine , gives a gloomy, pessimistic assessment of the state of American democracy. A selfish ruling oligarchy, comprised of elite elements of all major institutions, especially the media and government, has made us a nation of favor-seeking courtiers, not unlike those of the court of Versailles under Louis XIV. This quest for privilege has engendered public apathy while gridlocking change and vitality, requisites for all functioning democracies. Lapham holds accountable the education system, the publishing industry, Congress, all three 1992 presidential candidates, the Ford Foundation, and the other less-than-perfect institutions that inhabit the political landscape. Not afraid to name names, Lapham reserves notable contempt for former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. This brutally frank, controversial, and often absorbing update of William Greider's Who Will Tell the People ( LJ 5/1/92) includes not-to-be missed anecdotal end notes that illuminate the text. Especially recommended for public libraries. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 10/1/92.-- Karl Helicher, Upper Merion Twp. Lib., King of Prussia, Pa.

Gilbert Taylor

Publishing is the currency in which the political elite trafficks--to which Lapham bears horrified witness. "For candor, against cant" might be his scolding slogan for these five caustic essays on the 1992 presidential contest, dealing with the habits of subservience within the elite, the pantomine of politics in the capital, the "court gazettes" (the "Times", "Post", and "Journal") that lead the press pack, and, lastly, the exaltation of fame and celebrity. These are his topics, all reflections of his core theme that our political/intellectual class has abdicated independent thought in favor of a higher hypocrisy of self-advancement and the award of sinecures. A discomforting writer with a sardonic, sarcastic flair for the arch turn of phrase, Lapham earns his place with other culturo-political curmudgeons (like Paul Fussel or Robert Nisbet) whose books fall into that group of titles that strips clothes from emperors.

Nikki Stiller

Lapham argues that 'a selfish ruling oligarchy, comprised of elite elements of all major institutions, especially the media and government, has made [the United States] a nation of favor-seeking courtiers, not unlike those of the court of Versailles under Louis XIV. This quest for privilege has engendered public apathy while gridlocking change and vitality, requisites for all functioning democracies.' --Library Journal

Kirkus Reviews

The editor of Harper's and author of Imperial Masquerade (1990), etc., reaches the top of his form in five distinguished essays arguing that too few Americans any longer care or know enough to protect and nurture democratic institutions. "[The] habits of liberty have fallen into disuse," writes Lapham, "and the promise of democracy no longer inspires or exalts a majority of the people lucky enough to have been born under its star." America has devolved into an oligarchy, the argument begins—an argument buttressed with facts, figures, and observations—and the nation's collective frame of mind has changed as well over the past 30 years from that of "democrat" to that of "courtier": from a citizenry that understands government to be what the governed make of it to a citizenry that passively and obsequiously seeks favors and dispensations from the high and unresponsive powers that be. A numbing and closing down of democratic energies and freedoms of discourse is one result of such a situation, since "[very] seldom does anybody hazard a guess or an opinion that might harm his or her chance of advancement," so that, even in the greatest universities, "the range of acceptable opinion bears comparison with the wingspan of a bumblebee." Government itself ("a mock democracy") is excoriated no less than is the "chronic servility" of American journalism in performing its "duties as court chamberlain and archflatterer." And both are part of a nation trapped by a mass media whose vocabulary "doesn't lend itself to the discussion of complicated political issues, much less to moral ambiguity or moments of doubt." The appeal of a candidate like Ross Perot was really the appeal "ofbenevolent despotism," and Lapham's warning that "the wish for kings is the fear of freedom" takes on special power alongside his reminder that "liberty withers and decays unless it's put to use." Eloquent, piercingly intelligent essays crying out against America's Orwellian future.