Customer Reviews

A Conservative History of the American Left

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I picked this book up a few days ago and was completely unsure what to expect. On the one hand, it had received mostly favorable reviews from relatively reasonable sources and was even being used as inspiration for an essay contest by YAF, meaning that it could not be completely barren. However, on the other hand, the title came off as dangerously polemical, which made me wonder whether the book would merely become a massive exercise in straw-manning along much the same lines as early liberal "histories" of the conservative movement. So it was with great anticipation tempered by a dose of skepticism that I opened the book.

And I literally could not stop reading. This book is brilliantly written - scrupulously fair, extraordinarily perceptive and well-researched. In fact, the very first person I would recommend this book to would be Leftists - so long as they are the honest, self-critical sort who are willing to take a deep probing of their flaws.

Whatever its title might lead you to believe, the book is not purely an exercise in conservative condescension to the Left (though the author does write with a wry, sarcastic tone which often comes off as condescending). Rather, Flynn spends much of his time simply telling the story of the Left, with a minimum of snide commentary (there are exceptions, such as his drippingly disdainful explanation of the ideas of Charles Fourier). This decision to write the book as a relatively disinterested storyteller was brilliant both aesthetically and polemically - the story itself is damning enough without snide comments to support it. Flynn depicts the Left's pastiche of failed experiments, delusional utopians and violent agitators in luminous, vivid colors, but though his brush strokes paint a harsh picture, it is conspicuously not the fault of the painter, for many of the hues he mixes into the picture make his subjects appear not as purely delusional lunatics, but as deeply flawed human beings. One finds oneself relating to some of the most infamous Left-wing bogeymen like Tom Hayden, Emma Goldman and John Reed even as one cringes at the vague, unrealistic and dangerous nature of some of their ideas. This is not to say that Flynn lavishes sympathy on everyone - his description of Huey Newton oozes with moral outrage, revulsion and contempt - but he only blasts a sparse few people, and tries to allow his readers to make up their own mind about the motives of his subjects. As such, the feeling one is left with upon finishing the book is not so much "what a boatload of nutcases" but "there, but for the grace of God, go I." However, this feeling is soon overwhelmed by a deep feeling of intellectual satisfaction as one ponders the truly impressive nature of Flynn's scholarship.

Many people might expect a book with the title of "A Conservative History of the American Left" to be a Coulter style polemic. This book is closer to what you should expect from Tom Sowell or Paul Hollander. Flynn traces the history of leftist idealism/utopianism all the way back to Plymouth Rock. The unrealizable visions that Flynn explores have come in many forms and guises. There are also many aspects of this history that modern leftists do not want to hear about. It turns out the Margaret Sanger, Robert Owen, and John Dewey are not quite as admirable as some like to think.
A Conservative History of the American Left is interesting as a piece of intellectual history. Critics from the left will surely find fault with at least some elements of Flynn's research. Its style is polemical at times. The contents of this book are not entirely unheard of either (I have heard of Pilgrim socialism before). Yet this book proves to be as illuminating as it is provocative. Well done!

With wit and insight Flynn traces the utopians who have longed to change society. Some were merely silly, some were mad, and some evil.

Take the "strange men who founded" (p 47) the Harvard commune. One was a vegetarian who would eat apples one year, crackers the next. There was also a celibate who heard voices, a man once jailed for not bathing, and, of course, a nudist. What fun it must have been at dinner time.

While some idealists were naifs, some were knew just what they were doing. Take Kinsey, whose "impact knew no bounds" (p 253) as a social scientist pushing for freer sexuality. He "shared his wife with co-workers" (p 254} and insisted that children, even babies, enjoyed sex. His source for this claim was pedophiles. I am not making this up.

Then there was Margaret Sanger, a racist who pushed eugenics, a fact never mentioned in Planned Parenthood brochures. Or John Reed (whose life inspired the movie "Reds") who never met a revolutionary he didn't love, but who had a stone heart for the women he used and the masses killed by communists.

By the 1960's the Left "had grown frustrated over the working class's refusal to adhere to the roles Marx" (p 267) wanted. The 60's nevertheless soon swarmed leftist Panthers, Weathermen, hippies, LSD, and agitation over the Vietnam war. Betty Friedan, a red diaper baby, announced that the home was a concentration camp, and the feminist movement was born.

In the end, Flynn finds "this is a book more about dreams than about reality...Setbacks cause enthusiasts to repackage but never to reassess" (p. 371). Leftists continue to seek human and worldwide perfection. And, frequently, the rest of us have to clean up the messes left behind.

It's a pity this book has been marketed so heavily as a "conservative" book, because it is in fact much more interesting than that. Yes, it has an agenda - on the other hand, it is straightforward about it, and frankly much less than, say, Zinn's and many, many others. But Flynn has done very interesting work on the early history of the American left, and his interviews with living figures from the 60s - Todd Gitlin and many more - are extremely interesting and good. Among his main points? First, that the American left has done best when it has emphasized its Americanness and its roots in an egalitarian American culture, leaving aside ideologies from abroad in favor of a trade union, reformist agenda. Second, the most important matter of inequality in the US has never been class as such, but race, and the fact and legacy of slavery. This is not quite what you would expect from a "conservative" book - far from it, in fact - but he makes a strong case for it, and for seeing this as a crucial reason why the importation of European ideologies such as communism did not seem well suited to the actual conditions of inequality in America. (The book also makes a pointed attack on the history of "progressivism" in America, somewhat along the lines of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, but more scholarly.)

I checked this book out from the library too but wouldn't mind owning it. Not because it's a conservative book but it does offer insight and a valid alternative to conventional wisdom about American reformists, progressives, and American history.

It is loaded with information about American history in light of the Leftist movements dating back to the early 19th century. Some of that early history seems a little sketchy compared to the author's writing about the 20th century Left, but then again, the 20th century was probably had much more supporting documentation anyway.

To anyone who may read this, this book does not dismiss American ideals or idealism in general, but rather shows how badly corrupted many reform and progressive movements become. Mostly though, it is about the reckless leaders of these movements who created so much havoc within their groups and the country as a whole. They have repeated mistake after mistake as though they were genetically programmed for disaster.

I can guarantee that anyone with an open mind will learn a great deal after reading even half of this book. The author's writing style is very easy to read and comprehend. But don't think this is just another conservative book trashing the Left. It's very well researched.

A Conservative History of the American Left is a terrific book bearing a title that will, unfortunately, keep the very people who need to read it from doing so. As other reviewers have asserted, Daniel Flynn's work is highly readable and very difficult to put down. I thought I already knew much about many of the figures, groups and events covered and yet Flynn continually surprised me with interesting revelations - many of them tiny - and new insights. History offers many ironies and Flynn never seems to miss this point. Overall, A Conservative History of the American Left is both splendid history and great entertainment.

This is a book for anyone who is sincerely interested in learning about hard core left wing ideology and left wing social engineering. For open minded people who are interested in understanding what it means to take care of people's every need, imagined or real, as a way to control them. Better to be free and have to pay for your own healthcare than get services for "free" but have no liberty. Flynn is an intelligent writer, does not engage in name calling, and presents a reasoned and accurate history of the left.

In this highly entertaining read, the author reveals that the American Left is older than Karl Marx, has never been monolithic and that it's characterized by attitude. There is continuity of ideas from the past to the present. Likewise, the Religious Left goes back a long way although modern mainstream Leftism is a secular faith. Broadly speaking its distinguishing features have always been Utopianism and the rejection of the norm & society as it exists. It tended to be anti-family and it was always the future that mattered; `Change' thus fits the mould exactly.

The book opens with the `Backwoods Millennialists', the Pilgrims & their short-lived collectivist experiment. Robert Owen's New Harmony community rejected marriage, property & religion and then there was Charles Fourier who founded Brook Farm, Massachusetts. The author calls the deviant John Noyes of the Oneida Community a `Bible Communist,' and distinguishes various subdivisions like pre-war reformers, immigrant anarchists, knights of labor, prairie populists, white-collar reds, patriotic progressives, missionaries of the social gospel & single tax advocates.

There were always two main currents: the radicals & the reformers, the force left versus the freedom left or the puritan versus the cowboy. In proper political terms, that would be the authoritarian & the libertarian strains. Between the wars, there were early feminists, red, white & blue reds, new dealers & artists in uniform plus communism was imported to America, drawing fierce reactions from other strains.

Why Flynn lumps the Beats with the Left is inexplicable. Perhaps by lifestyle, as Libertines & Bohemians? Well, Alan Ginsberg was surely liberal but neither William Burroughs nor Jack Kerouac deserves the pigeon-hole. Kerouac was an American patriot that mostly agreed with the government of the day & Burroughs an extreme libertarian who had a family; neither of them were utopianists. Nor was Ken Kesey! To Flynn they represent the freedom left; the next generation did claim their legacy.

Then déjà vu - the 1960s New Left was the same as the old, he argues, with their slogans of the personal being the political and their great society visions. They do seem to have successfully completed the `long march through the institutions,' today controlling much of academia. Multiculturalism, political correctness & moral relativism are the results. The investigation is completed by a look at the 9/12 Left & the author's conclusions.

An intriguing array of characters appears, some of whom were mere eccentrics or libertines, others of whom were psychopaths. The deviant William Kinsey & the racist Margaret Sanger were amongst the more sinister types. It's interesting to note that none of those that caused mayhem ever showed any remorse. Amongst the perennial ideas of the movement are the concepts of the brotherhood of man, human perfection on this earth, equality and the pursuit of desires without consequences. The rebellion against reality persists, the old platitudes recur and the failed experiments are attempted again & again.

The movement may indeed be broadly defined as secular Salvationist with an enduring appeal. Although it has caused damage, the American sense of life/national character has hitherto prevented it from wreaking the havoc & misery there that Europe, Asia & Africa experienced in the Century of Horrors.

This absorbing, well-researched work concludes with an impressive bibliography and an index. For more information & other perspectives I recommend Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, the various works by David Horowitz & Leftism Revisited by Erik von Kuhnelt-Liddihn.

very detailed and interesting, not light reading. i didn't realize how many times various forms of socialism has been tried in the USA. a better title would be the history of the left.

Mr. Flynn has written a very interesting, readable, and useful history of the American left. Mr. Flynn stresses that the left is basically against what is, and becomes hostile to the most natural and spontaneous human institutions - the family, marriage, and the free market. Mr. Flynn describes quite a few differing leftist groups and how they failed to achieve their sought for utopia. He provides quite a bit of interesting information. In particular the extensive damage done by the Rosenberg spy ring was new to this reviewer.

Mr. Flynn is particularly good at describing the interesting personalities of the American left. Such people include John Reed, John Noyes, and many others. A lot of them are not particularly admirable, and some are real stinkers. Mr. Flynn has done a lot of historical research to adequately describe the lives of these individuals.

However Mr. Flynn does have an Achilles heel - ignorance of macroeconomics. This is apparent when he attempts to discuss the economics of the new deal. Mr. Flynn is right that the National Recovery Act and other acts of over regulation by Franklin Roosevelt and his administration hindered the economy. However Mr. Flynn neglects to mention the economy was worse when President Hoover left office. He does not understand the basic problem of the great depression which was deflation, or the too small supply of money. As described by Peter Temin Lessons from the Great Depression (Lionel Robbins Lectures), Gene Smiley Rethinking the Great Depression (American Ways Series), and Barry Eichengreen Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, 1919-1939 (NBER Series on Long-Term Factors in Economic Development) the prevailing gold standard insured that reduction of the money supply, deflation, and recession were the only reliable means to keep the foreign balance of payments in balance. Franklin Roosevelt, unlike Hoover and Daniel Flynn, realized this and moved away from the gold standard. Economist Christina Romer has demonstrated that the extra gold now available from the ending of the gold standard was used as a high power money input into the federal reserve system. Thus the rising money supply brought about some recovery. Unemployment declined during the Roosevelt from the Hoover administration high, particularly when the employees of the Works Progress Administration are counted as employed, not unemployed. Mr. Flynn should have studied and referenced the economists previously cited rather than the journalist John T. Flynn.

This discussion is not to idolize Franklin Roosevelt, his errors in judgment, his often obfuscation of economic and other issues, his political machinations, and later egregious violations of civil liberties during World War II. But to be factual the writer should allow for the successes of the new deal.

But everything considered this book is quite good.