« That Had To Hurt | Main | Economics And Me »
October 04, 2006
Books
David Brooks argues that one indicator that conservatism is running out of steam is a distinct paucity of "big, impactful books" on the right. He reminisces about the good ol' days, the 80's and 90's, when George Gilder, Alan Bloom, Charles Murray, and others were writing books that fundamentally shifted how conservatives viewed the world. Such books aren't being released lately, he laments.
Well, truth be told, my knowledge of conservative publishing is rather sparse, so I've little more than a suspicion that he's right. But is the left any different? Over the past ten years, and certainly over the past five, it would be simple to point out titles that changed how the left views politics. Books like What's The Matter With Kansas, Don't Think of an Elephant, and even Crashing the Gate offered fairly fundamental insights into the depressing electoral realities facing Democrats. But eliminating the strategic, have there been any really important books for how the left views the world or its problems? If a young liberal came to you and asked for the few titles that would truly change her intellectual outlook, what would you recommend?
October 4, 2006 in Books | Permalink
Comments
First, if a young liberal came to me and asked for titles that would change her intellectual outlook, I would question why she would want to change from liberalism toward anything else.
Anyway, then I might suggest Alterman's "The Book On Bush" & "When President's Lie", followed by Jimmy Carter's latest, and Arthur Schlesinger's latest.
Posted by: SteveAudio | Oct 4, 2006 1:45:45 PM
One reason there were big, impactful books on the right for awhile was the rise of a conservative intellectual class who saw it as their duty to counter the intellectual dominance of liberals. They worked out some ideas that had been relatively neglected intellectually. Now that's been done, so any newer books on the same topics aren't likely to have the same groundbreaking impact. Nothing similar to what happened on the right is happening on the left, of course, so no groundbreaking there now either.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 2:18:45 PM
One reason there were big, impactful books on the right for awhile was the rise of a conservative intellectual class who saw it as their duty to counter the intellectual dominance of liberals
They failed. That's what the last six years tells people.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 4, 2006 2:35:30 PM
I'm not as familiar with Alan Bloom - but George Gilder and Charles Murray even in their heyday had slightly greater intellectual weight than Coulter. Gilder basically masturbated on the page to sound of technology and free market paens. Charles Murray used scientifically and mathematically invalid bullshit to propagate racism. Conservatives have very successful in taking power. But it has nothing to do the kind of brilliance that writes great books.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Oct 4, 2006 2:39:45 PM
I think that there is a paucity of "impactful" books from the left in the last ten years or whatever...but the reason is that the ones that were written decades ago are still startlingly relevant and any liberal book would basically be just a reiteration, a "yeah, what he said."
I would, basically, tell your curious young liberal to go read theyselves some Hofstadter.
Posted by: collin | Oct 4, 2006 2:41:16 PM
But eliminating the strategic, have there been any really important books for how the left views the world or its problems? If a young liberal came to you and asked for the few titles that would truly change her intellectual outlook, what would you recommend?
First of all, as Steve pointed out, I'll assume you meant something more like "what titles would truly sway someone to an accurate, liberal worldview of America's modern political landscape?"
1984. In fact, probably even more importantly than that, "Politics and the English Language," Orwell's straightforward essay on the same ideas, and All the President's Men — today they are even more important than usual, but they should be required reading for everyone who wants to call themselves informed, regardless of which party Rove had felt more at home in. More books — Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Guns, Germs and Steel. Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, but I hesitate because I've only read about half of it. Maybe even The Marriage of Figaro. And there are plenty of other good options, depending on who is the hypothetical "young (reader)" to whom you're offering a book and depending on your own reading experiences — there are a quite a few more books that I'm told would be good but I'm not familiar with enough to recommend them.
Also, I don't see it as a weakness that progressive ideas and liberal ideals are best expressed by books written a long time ago, while right-wingers reformulate their ideas with every change of the political winds. If anything, quite the opposite.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 4, 2006 3:04:15 PM
It came up on the TAPPED thread, so I didn't mention it there, but Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed is probably my first pick.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 4, 2006 3:14:17 PM
The Great Unravelling, if only for its prescient analysis of the radicalism of the Bush-Cheney axis of the Republican party. Krugman's whole point is that people would refuse to believe they would be as radical as they (esp. Cheney, Addington, Gonzales) said they were, until the damage had been done. That book was responsible for a lot of the so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome early in the presidency, and what do you know, Krugman was right.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Oct 4, 2006 3:28:20 PM
Brooks is an idiot. Of course there are no "big" conservative books - the anti-intellectual morons are in charge now - they don't read no friggin' books!
Posted by: CParis | Oct 4, 2006 3:44:45 PM
I'd nominate some of the books on homosexuality--probably Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage.
Posted by: SamChevre | Oct 4, 2006 4:47:08 PM
I'd recommend one to that young liberal that are a few years old -- I only get to these things a little late. How about Guns, Germs and Steel on why societies have developed differently?
With luck, we'll soon get a books that help liberals envision what possibilities might exist to move a more equitable, sustainable economic system in the global village. Maybe from James Galbraith? Who else?
Yes, Brooks is just an idiot. Anyone who things Murray is a "thinker" of any kind is a slipshod propagandist.
Posted by: janinsanfran | Oct 4, 2006 4:49:03 PM
It's been sometime since I've read this, and it just sneaks under the 10 year mark, but what about Richard Rorty's "Achieving Our Country"? He's interested in returning to the heyday of capital P Progressive solidarity, but if I remember correctly, he uses his post-modern world view to justify a lot of this. Again, massively reductive and it's been a while, but this seems like a serious book, even if it hasn't always been taken seriously.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 4, 2006 4:52:31 PM
"False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism"
by John Gray. Gray influenced Margaret Thatcher but here he does an about face and rejects the philospophy that there is a market-driven solution for any and every problem.
The lead Amazon review summarizes: "False Dawn argues that, far from bringing about economic paradise, global capitalism, left unchecked, 'could well destroy liberal civilization.'"
http://www.amazon.com/False-Dawn-Delusions-Global-Capitalism/dp/1565845927/sr=1-1/qid=1159994772/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0384912-4234541?ie=UTF8&s=books
Posted by: SteveE | Oct 4, 2006 4:53:34 PM
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, also by Jared Diamond, might be more on point.
Posted by: JR | Oct 4, 2006 4:54:17 PM
Jared Diamond has three votes already, so I shall not add to them. I like him fine, but really, if you don't already at least know his arguments and the basic data, you're not worth convincing or you're sixteen years old.
Orwell is always a good name, though I would eschew 1984 for Homage to Catalonia. Orwell was always a journalist first, and Catalonia is both his journalism's finest moment and a caution to both right and left and anyone about reality versus ideology.
But really, the book every political person should read that most don't, right, left, or center, remains Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (available free online for all to read).
Last, and in so doing I rather talk my book, but I just love Hull & White. One general failing I find among partisans of all stripes is a lack of grounding in reality. If Orwell isn't enough, Hull surely is.
Posted by: wcw | Oct 4, 2006 5:58:34 PM
a distinct paucity of "big, impactful books" on the right
Another indicator that conservatism is running out of steam is that Brooks is now one of its smarter representatives, and he uses (and thinks) in words like "impactful". Can you imagine William Buckley ever doing that kind of blunt violence to the English language?
Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 4, 2006 6:30:47 PM
It's in my dictionary (Webster's 3rd New International).
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 7:27:57 PM
How young? If we're talking "Congressional Page" young, then I'd recommend anything by Daniel Quinn. Ishmael is a good place to start.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 4, 2006 8:09:34 PM
It's in my dictionary (Webster's 3rd New International).
The perils of descriptive dictionaries. Webster's Third also allows "impact" as a transitive and intransitive verb. But 95% of the American Heritage Usage Panel disapproves.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 4, 2006 8:26:19 PM
That is curious. I agree with the rest of the usage note on "imapct" as a verb in wondering why there are objections to such a logical and well established usage and predicting that it will be increasingly accepted without reservations. Garner's Modern American Usage rejects "impactful" on the basis of the objection to "impact" as a verb, which latter objection he supports by claiming that "affect" and "influence" already fill the same role. I disagree, seeing different connotations--"impact" carries more punch, naturally.
In any case, "impactful" is also listed in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11th, the most commonly used standard, and, going back a ways, my old Random House Unabridged.
Think of it this way. On this point Brooks is more liberal than you are!
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 10:00:11 PM
Think of it this way. On this point Brooks is more liberal than you are!
Geez, Sanpete, way to go for the jugular. Absolutely brutal.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 4, 2006 10:06:27 PM
Usage wars are tough business.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 4, 2006 10:23:41 PM
I'm gonna second Rorty's Achieving our country. The way he justifies old school labor progressivism while accepting THERE IS NO TRUTH, and REALITY IS ALL REPERSENTATIONS is just $$ for anyone who likes liberalism and philosophy. The way he totally jacks anyone who thinks emancipation for the working class is through Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida, Nietzsche etc is inspiring to any good liberal. I think, however, the greatest point of his book is necessity of loving america. Us of the left, liberals and progressives, must recognize that America in the early 20th century was ground zero for progressive ideas, that it contains seeds of greatness, that we can in fact built a fair, good society. Yeah, anyone who says they're a member of the left needs to read it, inspiring stuff.
Posted by: Matt Z | Oct 4, 2006 10:28:48 PM
A word can be listed in the dictionary while at the same time being extremely awkward and rather faux-pretentious to use. I don't care if "impactful" appears within a long list of words published somewhere. It still sounds contrived, like using "task" as a verb.
Posted by: Constantine | Oct 4, 2006 10:33:29 PM
I second Nickle and Dimed. Changed the way I think about and look at wage earners.
And I know this one doesn't fit into the "recent" category, but I am heartily recommeding It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. Bit by bit. Ever so slowly. Liberty eroding.
Posted by: san antone rose | Oct 4, 2006 11:05:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.