"Liberalism is as distinct a tradition as exists in political history, but it suffers from being a practice before it is an ideology, a temperament and a tone and a way of managing the world more than a fixed set of beliefs."
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."
That sounds like a very bad straw man.
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.
I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).
In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it, or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."
The author has been in psychological treatment. Has spent time drawing nudes in his leisure. He has questioned the values of his own society. Has lived a charmed life here and abroad.
I do not think his brand of liberalism can be very accommodating towards Christian morals and values.
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.
I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).
In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it, or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."
It's an old traditional conservative assessment of modern liberalism. I think I saw it on All in the Family.
Well you will have to wait till I get my copy in the mail as you're the first one to let me know about it.
I guess I should get out a little more but considering you're just a great North West Guy, I'll gladly take the news about this book from you
Ordering right now
Still a show which represents relevant social commentary even today some half century later!
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.
Goodbye.From the endorsements I get the impression he is not a strong Christian patriotic American capitalist.
From the endorsements I get the impression he is not a strong Christian patriotic American capitalist.
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.
I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).
In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.
Neoliberal economic policies only feel good to the privileged few on the receiving end of the societal wealth redistribution.
"This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They dident start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue."
Nationally syndicated column number 518, "And Here’s How It All Happened" (1932), as published in the Tulsa Daily World, 5 December 1932.
The author has been in psychological treatment. Has spent time drawing nudes in his leisure. He has questioned the values of his own society. Has lived a charmed life here and abroad.
I do not think his brand of liberalism can be very accommodating towards Christian morals and values.
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.
Because most conservatives have no facts. They believe in ideology over reality. The opposite of what the guy describes as liberal. They don't address real problems
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?