 | |
 View Larger |
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back By Mickey Edwards ( Oxford University Press, USA )
Release Date: 2008-03-01
Average Customer Rating:
List Price: $21.95
Price: $14.93
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
Availability:
|  Add to Cart |
|
|
Product Description
A leading figure in the American conservative movement for over 40 years, Mickey Edwards was a prominent Republican congressman, a former national chairman of the American Conservative Union, and a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation. When he speaks, conservatives listen.
Now, in this highly provocative and frank volume, Edwards argues loud and clear that conservatives today have abandoned their principles and have become champions of that which they once most feared. The conservative movement--which once nominated Barry Goldwater for President, and later elected Ronald Reagan--was based on a distinctly American kind of conservatism which drew its inspiration directly from the United States Constitution--in particular, an overriding belief in individual liberty and limited government. But today, Edwards argues, the mantle of conservatism has been taken over by people whose beliefs and policies threaten the entire constitutional system of government. By abetting an imperial presidency, he contends, so-called "conservatives" have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon our cherished civil liberties. Today's conservatives endorse unprecedented assertions of government power--from the creation of secret prisons to illegal wiretapping. Once, they fought to protect citizens from government intrusion; today, they seem to recognize few limits on what government can do. The movement that was once the Constitution's--and freedom's--strongest defender is now at risk of becoming its most dangerous enemy. Edwards ends with a blueprint for reclaiming the essence of conservatism in America.
Touching upon many current issues, this passionately argued book concludes that many of today's conservatives seem to have it all backwards. They have turned conservatism upside down--and this book calls them on it.
|
|
A voice in the wilderness
Mickey Edwards review and critique of the modern conservative movement and its Republican party ally excellently reveals the deeply ingrained hypocrisy that controls both the movement and the party. When I finished reading this book, I realized that I am not the raging liberal I've always been labeled to be after all. Rather, I am a TRUE constitutional conservative who merely leans left. His willingness to expose the fact that the emporer has no clothes will, no doubt, vilify him among the party faithful but it makes him a hero and patriot in my book. As he has said many times, he may love his party but he loves his country more. After hearing similar rebukes of the Republican party by Colin Powell when he endorsed Barack Obama, I realized he and Mickey Edwards need to start a new political movement. If that happens, sign me up!
|
 No, Mr. Edwards ( frew01 )
One has to regard a "conservative" feted by liberals and liberal publications from one coast to the other with some trepidation, and that it how I approached this book. I got as far into it as I could stomach, which wasn't far.
Why do liberals like this book so much? Because it advocates putting conservatives back in a tiny little box from whence they will forever be in "principled" opposition to liberal policy, which will rule the day. Edwards is a particularly self-abnegating specimen of a conservative. He has taken the liberal media narrative of the Bush administration with its neocons, its shredding of the constitution, its torturing of suspects, its wiretapping, its violation of terrorist's civil rights, and has swallowed it whole, uncritically. It is from that flawed basis that many of his arguments about the Bush Administration are made, and they are, as a result, worthless and painful to read.
The beginning of wisdom for conservatives is questioning those mainstream narratives, looking beyond them, and making up one's own mind about the meaning behind events with one's feet solidly planted in reality. Regardless of Edward's distaste for anything outside of his rarefied, purified idea of conservatism, actually making conservative ideas matter means winning elections, forming coalitions, making compromises, and making the tough choices of governance.
No, Mr. Edwards, we will not go back into that little box of yours. Conservatism has always evolved, naturally following a consensus of principled thinkers of the day. At one point in history monarchist, at the next point Federalist. Calcification of conservative ideas would be death, the conservatism of tomorrow may be something we can't imagine today, and whether it allows for "big government", or expansionist foreign policy, or whatever, it will always be guided by wisdom, intelligence, experience, tradition, and caution.
|
Outstanding. Simply Outstanding. ( matt@bnpcn.com )
I never had a definition so wrong in my life. I liked the fact the Winston Churchill thought American Conservatives were liberal. We let this current administration change the meaning of a word and in the process, steer us in the wrong direction.
|
Thanks! I needed this.
I've longed for this book. When my high school friend and I reconnected after more than 50 years, he was astonished that I identified myself as a liberal and I was astounded that he called himself a conservative. How could two people who had so much in common be so different in such essential ways? "But your father was a Republican," he said. "Yes, I agreed, but he was a Goldwater Republican. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be voting for today's Republicans."
I've been searching since to find answers to the questions this encounter has raised. One friend, for example, said, "I'm a Republican because I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." But it seemed to me that the Republican for whom he was voting had turned that on its head. I really want a personal understanding of what motivates these conservative friends of mine. Frankly, I have no trouble understanding those who think like me. Of course, who does have difficulty with those who agree with them?
And then comes this wonderful book, for which I am more than grateful. There it is, on page 15: "This book is ... a story of how we `conservatives' have moved from Barry Goldwater and the love of freedom to wiretaps, secret prisons, government intrusion into the most intimate private decisions, and the unprecedented assertion of federal authority and a presidency and bureaucracy that places itself above the law. The movement that once championed strict limits on federal power now recognizes virtually no limits at all. This book will be about how that came to be, how conservatism has become the enemy of all it once stood for and about what must be done to take the movement back from those who have stolen it."
Maybe I could be a conservative.
|
Agree ( john_no_nickname )
I totally agree and cannot add more to the reviews already here. The Republican Party up until about 1990 was a party of optimism ("It's Morning in America"), belief in individual freedom, anti-communism, and belief in a strong national defense, and "getting government off our backs".
Today: a party fixated on tradition and "traditional family values", moralizing, forcing one's personal morality on others, being against science and evolution (!!), and being against abortion choice, and homosexuals. In short, a primitive party that is no longer looking forward, but looking back into the past.
The only thing I can do here is directly site the most recent Texas Republican Party platform. The GOP here in Texas has been taken over by fundamentalist Christians, as the author states. Here are some quotes from their platform (I think that this speaks for itself. This is also a reason that I, a lifelong Republican and huge fan of Ronald Reagan, no longer vote Republican in Texas [my comments in brackets]):
"We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God [this is a theological belief, not a political statement]. Life begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at the point of natural death. All innocent human life must be protected. [whereas, it is o.k., in Texas, to kill people on death row, even if you are not 100% sure they really did the crime !, and then call this law and order].
We understand that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition [no, the 10 Commandments were rules for the ancient Jews, not a basis of freedoms]. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols. [thus, completely removing the wall between church and state].
We support the adoption of the Pledge Protection Act. We decry any unconstitutional act of judicial tyranny that would demand removal of the words "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance [those words: "One Nation Under God" were put into the pledge in 1954, and were not in it before then]. We also demand that the National Motto "In God We Trust" and National Anthem be protected from legislative and judicial attack.
We support the traditional definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman [sorry, transvestites !], which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists.
We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no- fault divorce laws [i.e. taking away another personal choice from the people, and mandating a narrow personal belief system]. For these reasons we support Covenant Marriage [another narrow convention, forced on others], which has proven effective in stemming the tide of divorce [at what cost in personal liberaty ? Where is the evidence ? Effective in what sense ? Keeping people who dislike each other in a loveless marriage ?]. We recommend the following provisions in line with this concept: 1) pre-marital counseling [is that part of "traditional" marriage ? Who is "assaulting marriage" now ?] and, 2) a pre-nuptial agreement that when problems arise within the marriage, both parties will agree to marriage counseling [read: be forced to] with the intent of restoring the marriage to its proper balance and harmony [read: forcing people to stay together, against their wishes].
We believe that the practice of sodomy [defined as ...?] tears at the fabric of society [proof ?], contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths [which ones ?] that have been ordained by God [Judeo-Christian morality is thus to rule over people who are not even religious], recognized by our country's founders [no, Benjamin Franklin was actually kind of a randy devil, and George Washington didn't go to church, and Jefferson called the Bible non-sensical], and shared by the majority of Texans [so, the majority is to dictate to the minority].
We believe, as do the vast majority of Texans, that pornography is repulsive [defined as ?], addictive [evidence, please] and contributes to deviant criminal behavior [again, evidence is lacking here].
We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories [i.e. we want to throw science out the window whenever it conflicts with our primitive religious views], including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law ["we", being non-scientists]; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory [unless of course that "one theory" is ours].
We believe that properly applied capital punishment is legitimate, is an effective deterrent, and should be swift and unencumbered. When applied to the crime of murder, it raises the value of human life. [idiotic statement. Killing people raises the value of life. Plus, everyone knows that Texas's application of the death penalty is anything but "properly applied".
|
|
|
