Book Reviews : Pressures and Protest: The Kennedy Farm Program and the Wheat Referendum of 1963. By DON F. HADWIGER and ROSS B. TALBOT. (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1965. Pp. xx, 336. $2.50 paper.)
| Author | Hugh A. Bone |
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/106591296601900128 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
169
asserting
that
&dquo;individualism
or
progressive
individualism
was
not
an
original
con-
tribution
of
Gandhi.&dquo;
Indeed,
as
he
goes
on
to
say:
&dquo;Individualism
has
been
known
to
world
political
thought
much
before
Gandhi
and
modern
individualism
is
also
earlier
than
Gandhi,
yet
the
contribution
of
Gandhi
lies,
not
in
enunciating
the
prin-
ciple,
but,
in
the
emphasis
he
placed
upon
it
and
at
the
time
when
he
did
it.&dquo;
Such
a
conclusion
seems
to
deny
that
Gandhi
had
made
an
intellectual
contribution
of
the
kind
that
would
entitle
him
to
be
considered
as
a
political
philosopher.
Goyal’s
book
offers
useful
summaries
of
the
theoretical
propositions
advanced
by
Gandhi
at
different
stages
in
his
journalistic
and
political
career,
but
he
does
not
resolve
the
dilemma
of
his
apparent
contradictions
in
a
very
satisfying
way.
It
may
well
be
impossible
to
separate
Gandhi
from
his
times,
or
to
bring
thoughts
infected
by
such
intuitive
and
mystical
notions
as
ahimsa
and
satyagraha
into
the
structure
of
a
systematic
political
philosophy.
There
is
much
in
Gandhi’s
writings
and
actions
to
suggest
that
he
understood
so.
H.
ARTHUR
STEINER
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles
Pressures
and
Protest:
The
Kennedy
Farm
Program
and
the
Wheat
Referendum
of
1963.
By
DON
F.
HADWIGER
and
ROSS
B.
TALBOT.
(San
Francisco:
Chandler
Publishing
Company, 1965.
Pp. xx, 336.
$2.50
paper.)
A
couple
of
lines
in
the
preface
of
this
book
could
invite
an
essay
by
some
behav-
ioralists
and
obscure
entirely
the
substance
and
purpose
of
this
volume.
The
authors
say
&dquo;we
think
the
case
method
can
reconcile ...
opposing
views.
Traditionalists
and
behavioralists
can
both
be
accommodated
within
the
framework
of
the
method
and
we
hope
that
our
study
may
be
at
least
a
slight
contribution
toward
such
rapproche-
ment.&dquo;
Although
the
study
is
admittedly
based
on
more
than
200
interviews,
the
data
obtained
from
them
fail
to
come
through
clearly,
and
the
approach,
techniques
and
manner
of
presentation
are
not
those
commonly
associated
with
behavioral
and
empirical
methodology
including
the
testing
of
hypotheses
and
use
of
quantitative
techniques.
But
if
the
reader
will
accept
another
of
the
authors’
professed
objectives
&dquo;to
write
a
story
which
would
be
lively
and
instructive
for
the
reader
who
relishes
the
zest
and
inspiration
of
American
politics,&dquo;
he
will
see
it
fulfilled
and,
generally,
admirably.
The
college
student
(who
is
the
most
likely
reader)
will
be
impressed
with
the
enormous
complexity
of
agricultural
legislation.
None
of
the
principal
actors
nor
bit
players
appears
to
be
omitted
including
Kennedy
and
his
farm
policy
advisors,
the
several
units
of
the
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
the
congressional
agricul-
tural
committees
and
floor
leaders,
the
Council
of
Economic
Advisors,
lobbyists
and
the
several
farm
organizations.
(The
lengthy
index
attests
to
the
fact
that
almost
no
one
from
Harry
S.
Truman
to
the
Association
of
Virginia
Peanut
and
Hog
Growers
was
overlooked
in
piecing
the
study
together. )
The
role
of
the
House
Rules
Com-
mittee,
public
hearings,
logrolling
and
floor
debate
are,
in
the
main,
adequately
covered.
Despite
logical
organization
and
lucid
prose,
the
reader
at
times
feels
over-
whelmed
by
the
sheer
mass
of
detail
and
description.
To continue reading
Request your trial