robin bradley kar contends that unger's constructive program in "what should legal analysis become?" is inconsistent with his negative criticisms of contemporary american legal interpretation. in his review of the book in the "yale law journal", kar argued that unger's criticism of contemporary legal analysis rests on the idea that we should not rest our interpretations of law upon general "policies of collective welfare and principles of moral and political right," because such reliance works to suppress important parts of the democratic compromises that help advance radical democratic aims. but, kar points out, unger's constructive, positive program rests on "similarly general conceptions of democracy and human nature." kar concludes that "unger's entire work thus provides us with a useful moral about the dangers inherent in interpreting the law through the lens of theory."