Reviews round-up

The critics' verdicts on Nelson Mandela, Nadine Gordimer and a critique of the modern media.

Conversations with Myself by Nelson Mandela

Peter Godwin gives a highly laudatory account of Conversations with Myself in the Observer, describing it as a self-portrait of "a man devoid of self-pity, who is immune to the temptations of self-aggrandisement". Godwin praises the book for containing "substantive political insights" on the negotiations to end apartheid, but notes that it is also filled with "unexpectedly lighthearted moments".

Graham Boynton, in his Telegraph review, is less glowing in his still fulsome praise, complaining of the "unnecessary foreword by Barack Obama" and the "strange traces of Harvard-speak throughout", the legacy of Mandela's American ghostwriter, Richard Stenghel. Boynton is, however, impressed by the book's ability to jump "from the mundane ... to the historic ... with barely a breath taken" and says it offers a thorough account of the "extraordinarily self-disciplined" Mandela.

Alec Russell, in the Financial Times, concurs, saluting Conversations with Myself as a "splendid finale to the Mandela literature".

The Return of the Public by Dan Hind

Writing in the Guardian, Roy Greenslade describes Hind's critique of the modern media as a "superb analysis of the way in which citizens have lost power in a political and economic system built around the free market".

John Lloyd, in the Financial Times, is more equivocal, pointing out that "Hind wildly overestimates the appetite for information and revelation, as he does the ability of journalism to create the kind of public he wants" but accepting that "there is something large-hearted in the view that the facts will not just set us free, but allow us to be fuller citizens".

In the Independent, Boyd Tonkin is largely positive, semi-ironically praising the "near-theological splendour of his opprobrium", though acknowledging that Hind's schemes to harness "the ultra-involved citizens of tomorrow" sometimes seem "fanciful or utopian".

Life Times: Stories 1952-2007 by Nadine Gordimer

In the Telegraph, Ruth Scurr is impressed that Gordimer's stories are both "deeply embedded in the social, political or historical context that gave rise to them" and yet seem "almost undated in content, style or tone". The first and final stories in this collection "provide a more meaningful frame to Gordimer's work than any stark set of dates".

Penelope Lively, though, writing in the Financial Times, is perplexed as to why the stories are "clumped according to collection but not dated". While, according to Lively, the inclusion of certain stories suggests that "perhaps sometimes she just wrote too much", this collection still illustrates Gordimer's "extraordinary capacity to summon up a time, a place, a people".

Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Donald Trump wants to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency - can he?

"Epa, Epa, Eeeepaaaaa" – Grampa Simpson.

 

There have been countless jokes about US President Donald Trump’s aversion to academic work, with many comparing him to an infant. The Daily Show created a browser extension aptly named “Make Trump Tweets Eight Again” that converts the font of Potus’ tweets to crayon scrawlings. Indeed, it is absurd that – even without the childish font – one particular bill that was introduced within the first month of Trump taking office looked just as puerile. Proposed by Matt Gaetz, a Republican who had been in Congress for barely a month, “H.R. 861” was only one sentence long:

“The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018”.

If this seems like a stunt, that is because Gaetz is unlikely to actually achieve his stated aim. Drafting such a short bill without any co-sponsors – and leaving it to a novice Congressman to present – is hardly the best strategy to ensure a bill will pass. 

Still, Republicans' distrust for environmental protections is well-known - long-running cartoon show The Simpsons even did a send up of the Epa where the agency had its own private army. So what else makes H.R. 861 implausible?

Well, the 10-word-long statement neglects to address the fact that many federal environmental laws assume the existence of or defer to the Epa. In the event that the Epa was abolished, all of these laws – from the 1946 Atomic Energy Act to the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – would need to be amended. Preferably, a way of doing this would be included in the bill itself.

Additionally, for the bill to be accepted in the Senate there would have to be eight Democratic senators who agreed with its premise. This is an awkward demand when not even all Republicans back Trump. The man Trum appointed to the helm of the Epa, Scott Pruitt, is particularly divisive because of his long opposition to the agency. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said that she was hostile to the appointment of a man who was “so manifestly opposed to the mission of the agency” that he had sued the Epa 14 times. Polls from 2016 and 2017 suggests that most Americans would be also be opposed to the agency’s termination.

But if Trump is incapable of entirely eliminating the Epa, he has other ways of rendering it futile. In January, Potus banned the Epa and National Park Services from “providing updates on social media or to reporters”, and this Friday, Trump plans to “switch off” the government’s largest citizen-linked data site – the Epa’s Open Data Web Service. This is vital not just for storing and displaying information on climate change, but also as an accessible way of civilians viewing details of local environmental changes – such as chemical spills. Given the administration’s recent announcement of his intention to repeal existing safeguards, such as those to stabilise the climate and protect the environment, defunding this public data tool is possibly an attempt to decrease awareness of Trump’s forthcoming actions.

There was also a recent update to the webpage of the Epa's Office of Science and Technology, which saw all references to “science-based” work removed, in favour of an emphasis on “national economically and technologically achievable standards”. 

Trump’s reshuffle of the Epa's priorities puts the onus on economic activity at the expense of public health and environmental safety. Pruitt, who is also eager to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain, spoke in an interview of his desire to “exit” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. He was led to this conclusion because of his belief that the agreement means “contracting our economy to serve and really satisfy Europe, and China, and India”.

 

Rather than outright closure of the Epa, its influence and funding are being leached away. H.R. 861 might be a subtle version of one of Potus’ Twitter taunts – empty and outrageous – but it is by no means the only way to drastically alter the Epa’s landscape. With Pruitt as Epa Administrator, the organisation may become a caricature of itself – as in The Simpsons Movie. Let us hope that the #resistance movements started by “Rogue” Epa and National Parks social media accounts are able to stave off the vultures until there is “Hope” once more.

 

Anjuli R. K. Shere is a 2016/17 Wellcome Scholar and science intern at the New Statesman

0800 7318496