Poorer Richard's America: What Would Ben Say? Book

I am dubious about books or essays that purport to write in the style, tone, or intellectual point of view of someone other than the author, especially when the given tome allegedly speaks for a major historical figure. Indeed, this is one of several reasons why I am not a fan of historical fiction. As such, it is fair to note these biases when evaluating my review of Tom Blair's Poorer Richard's America: What Would Ben Say?

The books is basically a series a brief essays and vignettes that are a combination of biographical anecdotes and critiques of contemporary American politics and society all written from the POV of Benjamin Franklin, who has been been drifting about the planet watching since his demise in 1790).

I will grant that my expertise in Franklin's writings is limited, but something about the tone of the book, which was more scolding than anything, made me think of Franklin's Silence Dogood, rather than Poor Richard. Perhaps part of the problem is that while the book's conceit is that it supposed to be a modern day version of Poor Richard's Almanac with its commentary on the politics and society of its day, it is supposedly written in Franklin's voice, including biographical anecdotes.

Something else that bothered me: the book pretends that Franklin has pretty much been observing America from the Beyond since his passing ("I have observed America with keen and curious interest these past centuries…" (XIX) and yet it also takes the approach that Ben is comparing 2010 to the 1780s (e.g., when he talks about Congress he talks about "your Congress" not just "Congress" thus making an explicit comparison between "his" and "ours"). It seems to me that if he had been watching for two centuries plus, he would be a bit more up to speed and write more like a contemporary rather than like a time traveling observer who recently arrived to be wowed and disgusted by television, the state of the Congress, or the size of the national debt. Yes, there are various other observations over time that flesh out, to a degree, the length of Ben's observations, but it still reads like it is supposed to be from 18th Century Franklin's POV rather than from a Franklin with roughly three centuries of observations under his belt. Granted, I am likely being overly critical, if not pedantic, on this point. And, further, one could argue that I am missing the point. Still, I found the anachronistic nature of it all to be more annoying than charming.

There are, I will say, some decent new aphorisms written in the Poor Richard style sprinkled throughout the text along with many of the genuine article.

I would note that the criticisms are fairly broad spectrum. There are critiques of conservative, liberal, neoconservative and other ideas throughout the text. Perhaps the most dominant theme is that which taps into the current zeitgeist: i.e., debt (public and private) and deficit spending. The essays on taxes, and especially that on flag burning, do have a far more conservative slant than anything else, I must say.

Ultimately it was passable: at times making legitimate observations at others being a bit obtuse. Mostly it amounts to a fairly clever way for the author to pontificate on the current state of affairs, even if I didn't think he really pulled it off.

I will conclude with the fact that I found it problematic that there were no references provided whatsoever. I understand that this is, in part, my own academic expectations which do not extend to popular works such as this. Still, it would have been nice to have some sort of appendix with a "for further reading" or somesuch.

Review orignally post at PoliBlog.