A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government

by Garry Wills

In A Necessary Evil, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Wills shows that distrust of government is embedded deep in the American psyche. From the revolt of the colonies against king & parliament to present-day tax revolts, militia movements & term limits debates, he shows that American antigovernment sentiment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history. By debunking myths about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution & the taming of the frontier, he shows how tendencies to hold our elected government in disdain are misguided.
1 Revolutionary myths.
Minutemen
Term limits
2 Constitutional myths.
Sovereign states
Checking efficiency
Co-equal branches
The uses of faction
Bill of Rights
No standing army
3 Nullifiers.
John Taylor of Caroline: father of nullification
Jefferson: prophet of nullification
Madison: abettor of nullification
Nullification North: Hartford Convention
Nullification South: John C. Calhoun
Academic nullifiers
4 Seceders.
Civil War
5 Insurrectionists.
From Daniel Shays to Timothy McVeigh
Acdemic insurrectionists
6 Vigilantes.
Groups: from regulators to clinic bombings
Individuals: frontier
Individuals: NRA
7 Withdrawers.
Individuals: from Thoreau to Mencken
Groups: from Brook Farm to hippie communes
8 Disobeyers.
From Dr King to SDS
9 A necessary good.
The uses of government
The uses of fear

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Political Science, Government, Current Affairs

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Garry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.

Reviews

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoughtful. Calm. Timely. At once reassuring and challenging. Why we keep historians around, to put the current moment in perspective, again, and to defy self-serving narratives that don't hold up to a moment's scrutiny.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 1 out of 5]

Garry Wills is the Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but this book is only worthy of the book equivalent of a Razzie. At the heart of this book is a strenuous critique of a wide variety of anti-governmental attitudes ranging from militia (the author is particularly contemptuous of the NRA) to those who withdraw from participation in politics, even on religious grounds, but the author's efforts at making government look like a positive good are self-refuting. It is clear that, in general, the author identifies with a set of pro-government values (cosmopolitan, expert, authoritative, efficient, confidential, articulated, progressive, elite, mechanical, duties-oriented, secular, regulatory, delegative, and dividing labor) while many of the anti-government critics the author castigates share a set of values (provincial, amateur, authentic, spontaneous, candid, homogeneous, traditional, populist, organic, rights-oriented, religious, voluntary, participatory, rotating labor) (38). I must admit that I find the second set of values far more appealing than the first, and the author's attempts at putting blame on those who oppose government for the popular mistrust of government come off rather poorly.


The contents of this book are not conducive to pleasant or positive reviewing. It is clear that this book is directed at people who share the author's contempt for those who are hostile to contemporary Progressive government and who dislike being labeled as socialists for supporting Roosevelt's bogus second bill of rights or his socialist four freedoms. This book is not being written for the people described in it, and that is generally fatal to widespread understanding. There are twelve sections of the book, each of them with smaller chapters/sections. The author begins by criticizing minutemen and term limits as revolutionary myths, before tackling a series of constitutional myths on states' rights, co-equal branches of government, a lack of a standing army, and the Bill of Rights. Then the author spends a great deal of time criticizing various nullifiers from Jefferson and Madison and John Taylor of Caroline to the Hartford Convention, John C. Calhoun, and various academic nullifiers. The author then comments on various insurrectionists, vigilante groups and individuals, individual and group withdrawers from political participation, those who promote civic disobedience, who largely being more left-wing, are treated with more respect by the author, before closing with a weak case for government as a necessary good.


One can often tell the strength of a case that someone has by the strategy they approach in making their case. As this author engages in some pretty heavy ad hominem attacks on his conservative opposition, and makes his strongest case for the legitimacy of government [1] in pointing to the evildoing and tyranny of local majorities in states and businesses. The author sounds strangely like the cynical proponents of setting faction against faction that he criticizes as an interpretation of the Federalist Papers in his own cynical placing of a government he views as lacking in credibility because of its secrecy in the absence of accountability or effectiveness against forces of social injustice and corporate malfeasance in the larger society. Even given the presuppositions of the author, and his two-fold division of qualities, the author could have made a far better case for how governments earn trust by respecting tradition, showing candor, being rights-oriented, and seeking the well-being of the general populace. Thus gained, this political capital can be used on rare and important occasions in secrecy by an elite to do what is necessary for the well-being of the people but not well-liked. Garry Wills, though, is not arguing for a federal government that has a lot of political capital. The values he rejects as provincial and hostile to government are reflective of a larger deficit of trust and confidence in government, which can only be regained by loyal service on the part of civil servants. How are the agents of government to perform that loyal service of the interests of the people rather than their own interests and those of their cronies.


[1] See, for example:


https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Steve Kierstead]

Characteristic Garry Wills. A detailed, documented exploration of many of the misapprehensions that surround us regarding what the Constitution and the historical record say about the principles on which this nation is founded. He disposes of many of what he calls "Revolutinary Myths" (myths surrounding the Minutemen (volunteer militias versus standing armies) and Term Limits), and "Constitutional Myths" (myths having to do with the various measures built into the Constitution: attitudes towards Sovereign States, the notion that the Constitution was designed to Check Efficiency (i.e., that the branches are supposed to stop one another from doing things), etc.). Then he talks at length about various tacks taken through our history to oppose one or another element of the government. Nullifiers, Seceders, Insurrectionists, Vigilantes, Withdrawers, Disobeyers. Dr King falls into this last category, and Wills cites him as an example of someone who succeeded in his movement at least in part because he opposed not the government per se, but a particular set of laws in which the government had fallen short of its promise.

I particularly liked the section at the end in which Wills argues, with Plato, David Hume, Saint Augustine and others, that government is a "Necessary Good" rather than a "Necessary Evil." Rather than being a sacrifice of "liberty in order to enjoy more security in one's possessions," government is an arrangement by which we are able to more harmoniously work and live with others to enjoy benefits we cannot enjoy by ourselves. We need others and we need rules and conventions to make those interactions flow smoothly (he says it better, of course, and I hope to quote him more completely later, but I'm running out of time here...)

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to read Nixon Agonistes, but this was the only Wills book that the library had. This is extremely good anyway. It starts slowly but builds into a fairly stirring attack on various anti-government wingnuts and a defense of a like, normal consensus government. The people who destroyed our sense of a normal, boring, New Deal consensus government: Gun nuts who don't understand the 2nd amendment, New Left activists who bombed buildings to protest the Vietnam war, and White Nationalists who bought really stupid arguments about state sovereignty.

[Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Compelling read that dispels a lot of myths about the framing of the Constitution, in particular with regard to the framers' supposed reverence for state sovereignty (in fact, it was mostly the opponents of the Constitution's ratification that argued for state sovereignty, and they opposed the Constitution as ratified because it didn't enshrine said sovereignty), checks and balances (the various departments are divided up for the purposes of efficiency, not to offset each other's attempts to maximize power), and guns ("bear arms" did not mean private gun ownership). The parts of the book that address the history of this or that kind of thought (vigilantism, nullification, etc.) aren't quite as good, but the discussing of the framing makes this well worth coming back to.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, a debunking of common, anti-government beliefs in the U.S.A, reads like a series of course lectures for a political science class. Perhaps it was.

In any case, this is a moderate, reasoned defense of the necessity of government with specific reference to the United States of America and its history. Greatest emphasis is on the intentions of the founders and the meaning of the federal constitution.

[J McNett · Rating 4 out of 5]

“How are we to explain the deep-seatedness of the anti-government tradition in our history? I have suggested some of the congruent influences in the course of this book — the lack of a symbolic center (religious or political) at our origins, the air of compromise in our Constitution’s formation, the Jeffersonian suspicion of the Constitution, a jostling of competitive states’ claims, a frontier tradition, the “Lockean” individualism of our political theory, a fervent cult of the gun. All these were added, in overlapping layers, to the general anti-authoritarian instincts of mankind.”

The densest of the three Wills books I’ve now read.
“A Necessary Evil,” as the above quote shows, ambitiously tries to plot the history of anti-governmentalism in our country by examining individual actors, entire regions and whole philosophies. In moving through this history, which the author would posit developed on a serious of false assumptions, Wills tries to make the case of how government can be use and how and in what ways it can best be criticized and attacked. Because he is trying to do so much, the book does not unspool liken “Kennedy Imprisonment” or “Bomb Power.” It is much more academic feeling than those works even though all, obviously, come from a professor.

[Tim Lacy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, thought-provoking book. Even when I disagreed with some of Wills' thinking, I appreciated the thesis, evident in the list provided on p. 38 (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1999 edition). Wills returns, again and again to the list to buttress points he makes about myths (Revolutionary, Constitutional), nullifiers, seceders, insurrectionists, vigilantes, withdrawers, and disobeyers. I appreciated the last full chapter, focused on the tension between efficiency versus accountability in government activities. I gave this four rather than five stars because the conclusion felt a bit narrow, providing just a summary of the book rather than some speculation for future corrections based on the history just covered. Despite being written in 1999, this twenty-year-old book applies as much in 2019. - TL

[Michael Huang · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well researched collection of evidence about what the role of the government is supposed to be since the founding of the nation. I read the book while listening also to Chernow’s Hamilton and the two complement each other in telling a similar story. The role of government is always a nuanced issue that defies simple caricatures. Yet for political expediency, people use simple sound bites and slogans to rally the troop. (E.g., “Governments are best that govern the least.”) Unfortunately this feeds into cynicism that doesn’t help find good solutions. I wish more people would read books like this before they express their beliefs and opinions strongly. But that’s probably wishful thinking.

[James Wilcox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book of political philosophy that attempts to answer the question of why Americans distrust the government. Using the words of the Founding Fathers to great effect Garry Wills goes to great length to explain how so much of the founders intent, and actual words, have been misinterpreted by so many. It is hard not to think better of our governmental system and the people who strive to work within that system after reading this book.

[Chris Brimmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Okay constitutional originalists, 2nd Amendment ammosexuals, wingnut sovereign citizens and anti-government conservatives of all stripes, if you want to be taken seriously and not viewed by sane people as just another meme troll intellectually wacking off in their parent's basement, these are the arguments you must address and refute. Good luck.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the last chapter, the uses of fear, which describes the secrecy of government and how that fuels antigovernment sentiment. Mostly we just hold onto myths of our found that aren’t totally accurate. I like how he compared the secrets of government through the religious priest metaphor. Interesting

[Pat McDermott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although published in 1999, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government is very much a book for today. Using a framework of government values and anti-government values, Wills begins with a survey of revolutionary and constitutional myths. He examines the nullifiers, the seceders, and goes on to insurrectionists, vigilantes, withdrawers, and disobeyers. Very worthwhile.

[Nate Hendrix · Rating 1 out of 5]

I saw Josh Lyman carrying this book at work and it seemed interesting. I got 75 pages in before I gave up on this book. The subject seemed interesting, especially considering what is going on now, but I just couldn't get into it. Sorry Josh.

[William Sariego · Rating 1 out of 5]

AKA a liberal manifesto for hating America.

[Eric Grunder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans love to hate on their government. Garry Wills has a few theories why.

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A necessary evil is an outstanding book that I would recommend to anyone looking for a political book. Author Garry Willis talks about the various political views of the American government. A necessary evil is a great book about questioning different myths, slogans, and ideologies that make you questioning the American Government and their roll they have in everyday life. He uses many different articles that come from “liberal” and “conservative” ideals and questioned their left and rightness. He reads many different letters coming from late 20th century politicians all the way back to some of the founding fathers. All of these different factors make this book a must read for political science major, a future politician, or just anybody who has some time to read a good book. In the beginning of the book, he starts to talk about the Revolutionary war. Gary Willis does not believe in the success of the minutemen or the militia but likes to believe that George Washington professionalizing the continental army made the war easier to win. Garry Willis than begins to discuss the six myths of the constitution. He starts off by stating that the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with joint sovereignty. The founding fathers wanted the federal government to have constitutional supremacy. The second myth that Willis argues against is the myth that the federal government was supposed to be inefficient so that no work got done. Because of this, the government had lessoned its chance of potential tyranny. He believes that the government wanted to be capable of pursuing of the public good efficiency. “Public good efficiency is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.” The third myth that is talked about is the three different branches in the American Government. Willis is talking about the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the government. Willis talks about how the three branches of government help weaken the overall effect of the federal government. The fourth myth that is talked about is the multitude of factions that were put in place in an attempt to hurt the federal government. James Madison wrote in his book The Federalist No. 10 that the factions are having a huge effect by crippling the federal government. The fifth myth that is talked about is that the bill of rights being added to the constitution. All Willis said this did was do little with diminishing federal power but had more to do with limiting power that states have. The final myth that Willis talks about is that the constitution allows the need the foreseeing for the army. This is just an example of one chapter in Willis’ book a Necessary Evil. A few of what the chapters are about are revolutionary myths, constitutional myths, nullifiers, seceders, Insurrectionist, Vigilantes, Withdrawers, Disobeyers, and A Necessary good. Overall this book was a great read and I’d recommend to anyone.

[William Korn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The jacket cover tells us that Wills explains why it is that Americans don't trust their own government, and he does do that. He explains (in the introduction) two very different schools of thought on how government should be. One is: provincial, amateur, authentic, candid, homogeneous, traditional, popular, organic, rights-oriented, religious, voluntary, participatory, and rotational. The other is: cosmopolitan, expert, authoritative, efficient, confidential, articulated in its parts, progressive, elite, mechanical, duties-oriented,secular, regulatory, and delegative, with a division of labor. He classifies the first group as being "anti-government" in reference to the government formed by the Constitution, and the second as being "pro-government".

However, the greatest part of the book is a point-by-point refutation of the revisionist views of the Constitution, it's founders, and the Bill of Rights that have come out of the right wing, particularly the religious right wing, over the last 20-30 years -- from the separation of church and state to the Second Amendment.

Wills is not shy about where he is coming from. He is a unabashed (although not doctrinaire) liberal, and there's no question of which view of government he thinks is better. What makes the book worthwhile is how carefully he explains why the right wing is wrong, and how they managed to invert the Constitution and those who made it to match their own version of what they wanted American government to be right.

As usual, when Wills has not totally lost his perspective (as he unfortunately does when railing against the Catholic Church), he does a very good job of presenting the material. Unless you're inextricably attached to one side or the other of this latter-day debate over what government is and should be in the U.S., you're like to learn something useful by reading it.

[David Ellena · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really interesting look at what government actually means to our society. It makes you rethink what the role of government is and how it developed. good read in these uncertain times.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed and comprehensive debunking of the popular American idea that government is a "necessary evil" in the founders' mind, following by an analysis of the threads of anti-governmentalism throughout American history. The book is a bit out of date. It was written in the 1990s, so missed out on all the examples from the past 13 years or so (not to mention the D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision, that essentially adopted the view of the second amendment that Willis debunks in this book). I got a bit bogged down in the middle, but I feel like I learned a lot. I just wish he had written it more recently. Or maybe I should have read this one ten years ago, which is probably around when I bought the book.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

The thesis of the book is that the basis of the distrust inherent in many of the citizenry cannot be found in the Constitution. Most of the founders believed in a strong central government and did not have the same fear of a centralized power that many of their contemporaries and much of the modern citizenry have. Basically, if you irrationally fear the government don't look to the founders for support.
The book does have a nice flow to it. It is broken down into smaller chapters highlighting revolutionary and modern concerns regarding government power. Highly recommended. It explains much of our current politics

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first, I found myself thinking that reading this book was "a necessary evil", but I started enjoying it more towards the end. It's a good academic book, very informative, and very well cited. However, you should have at least a basic understanding of US history if you want to attempt to follow the book at all. This book also claims to be a history of American's distrust of the government. Personally, I think this is a bit of a misnomer, it should be a history of American's misunderstanding of the government. All in all, I'm glad I read the book.

[Janet Biehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd recommend Wills's book to anyone wishing to better understand American anti-governmentalism. He unpacks the myths and historical misunderstandings on which some of it is based (including certain actions of not only Jefferson but Madison), its psychology, its roots in Locke, and more. I found it illuminating, and as a former anarchist, I appreciated its closing affirmation that even though most governments have failings and inevitably bring out our normal anti-authoritarian impulses, government itself is a positive good, and our lives would be wretched without it.

[Joseph · Rating 1 out of 5]

A terrible and misleading book from the writing on the back. I thought it was going to be what the inside of the government agency and why we actually need them and what they have done within the US and outside the US borders, but it wasn't even close. There was no flow to the book and really couldn't wait until it was done. I actually think I didn't finish it because it was that bad.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was pretty good. It debunks a lot of myths that are floating around out there about the founding of this country and the role of government. I especially liked the author's discussion of the 2nd Amendment and the anti-government rhetoric of the NRA and other pro-gun groups.

[Jay Holmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very scholarly and thorough look at the historical distrust of federal government and the story of federalism in our early history.

[!Tæmbuŝu]

KOBOBOOKS

[Kristal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written.

[Stephen Gosling]

Excellent

[Jon-Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

^this as we say today on the Internet.