Most Helpful Customer Reviews
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Informative, though not always persuasive, April 22, 2009
This review is from: The Future of Liberalism (Hardcover)
The Future of Liberalism
The Future of Liberalism is a competent history of core liberal ideas. It is wide ranging, in both the issues and theorists it addresses. Wolfe covers big name thinkers (Kant, Mill, and so on) but also includes numerous lesser-known figures, and he refers to about as many conservatives as he does liberals.
Wolfe stresses that the aim of liberalism is to give people the power to choose and shape their own lives. In a typical chapter he plays off a liberal representative against someone who proposed more or less the opposite ideas; Kant versus Rousseau or Benjamin Constant versus Carl Schmitt, for example. He mixes in contemporary political figures to illustrate his chief points. This is primarily intellectual history, so do not expect much in the way of programmatic proposals (health care, energy, the environment, etc.) or analysis of electoral politics. On the other hand, you will learn a great deal about Wolfe's own political beliefs and his reasons for them.
In my judgment, Wolfe's reasoning is less sound on certain key matters than it is on others. I am a bit baffled, for example, at how vehemently he objects to "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology." He sets up an overly simplified dichotomy between nature and nurture and argues that it is culture that has made man what he is. He is critical of anyone who suggests that genetic inheritance has some effect on moral behavior, for instance, and he concludes that such ideas necessarily support the political right. He does not acknowledge the arguments made by Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, and others for how a Darwinian view of nature can buttress the political left, and Wolfe makes really no case here to scientifically challenge the kinds of findings he finds so objectionable.
Contemporary conservatives and some liberals as well are likely to object to Wolfe's ready acceptance of the role of government. He sees government as a sort of countervailing power that stands up for the mass of the governed against powerful interests, but he offers only minimal insight into who influences the state through lobbying and campaign finance. He seems to think that it is only conservatives who cannot govern competently, that you must believe in what you are called upon to do in order to do it well (think Katrina). But he offers no evidence that liberals, who for Wolfe offer better policies, are any more managerially competent to execute those policies.
Wolfe claims that Francis Fukuyama went too far in proclaiming the triumph of liberalism in the modern world in The End of History and the Last Man, but he comes perilously close to the same position himself. The essence of modernity is that it wants to expand freedom and equality, Wolfe asserts. It would take a different book than this one to be wholly convincing on that point.
Even though I found myself questioning these and certain other of Wolfe's positions, I found his treatments of several aspects of liberal political theory to be nuanced and informative; the chapters on freedom of speech and freedom of religion are good examples. I think that no matter what one's political beliefs or background in political thought might be, most readers will learn at least some things of value from The Future of Liberalism.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A vivid contribution, November 16, 2009
This review is from: The Future of Liberalism (Hardcover)
On the sharp cover of this book is a red arrow pointing proudly upward. The text inside, however, is not that straightforward. Alan Wolfe is a liberal in the classical sense, building on the heritage of Locke, Mill, Dewey (in 1934 Dewey delivered a lecture with the title "The Future of Liberalism."), and others. In a chapter called "In Praise of Artifice," Wolfe opposes Kant to Rousseau and decidedly opts for Kant with his "artificial" approach as opposed to the latter's emphasis on "nature." Here the trouble starts. The perennial discussion Nature/Nurture rears its head again. After all those articles, books and debates, one would have thought the matter more or less settled. Behaviourism has been soundly refuted; we certainly are no blank slates. On the other hand, we are no slaves to our genes either. Nor have evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists contended that this were the case. The dichotomy is a false one. In NATURE VIA NURTURE (2003) Matt Ridley explains why. In a discussion on John Tooby and Leda Cosmides he says that the search for "genes for war" is bound to fail, but the contrary dogmatic insistence that war is a pure product of culture...is equally foolish"(p.245). Quoting eight scientists on both sides of the fence, he states that they nevertheless believe roughly the same thing. Human nature comes from an interaction of nature with nurture; Nature versus Nurture is dead.
It's as if Wolfe never read the last sentences in Richard Dawkins's THE SELFISH GENE which he by the way incredibly dates to 1989. And if he read it he seemingly doesn't believe a word of it. Here's what Dawkins has to say: "We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (The Selfish Gene 1976, p. 215). This is, by the way, were Frans de Waal criticized Dawkins for being dualistic and un-Darwinian. Be that as it may, one cannot miss the optimistic tone of this final chord. No Doom and Gloom there!
It's hard to fathom why Wolfe characterizes sociobiology as "the most popular form of illiberalism" (p.173). Could it possibly be the case that he considers it to be same the thing as Social Darwinism? It also seems misplaced to drag Daniel Dennet into this, who with his FREEDOM EVOLVES (2003) posits a strong case for the existence of a free will.
It's good to be an optimist but surely you have to acknowledge that our biological nature puts limits to what is humanly possible. This is neither liberal nor conservative; it's just a fact of life. Stating that the aim of popular science books "is to show that leading any kind of life we think we are choosing is impossible" (p. 47) is ludicrous. More accurately would be that most of them try to go after the facts. Some are speculative, to be sure, but to contrast them with religious self-help books and call them "self-incapacitating" is over the top. Talking about religion and belief, it's possible to understand the criticism of the Four Horsemen - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens - without necessarily having to accept that one should respect religious convictions per se and appreciate the belief in miracles "because of their wonder"( p. 184). There's no reference to Hume here; nor to Spinoza.
The arguments of multiculturalist Will Kymlicka are dismissed as being not especially persuasive. This seems a bit unfair in view of this writers efforts in that area for a number of years now. At least philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in his ETHICS OF IDENTITY (2005) engages in an analysis of the tension between individual and group autonomy.
The chapter on Carl Schmitt and Benjamin Constant relates the fascinating story of two different temperaments, one totalitarian and the other liberal. The most disturbing fact being Schmitt's lasting legacy, especially on the contemporary left, including Hardt and Negri as well as Zizek "the dazzling wordsmith." The influence of Constant has been limited, which, however, some writers now try to do something about. With the Lisboan earthquake of 1755 as starting point, Wolfe proceeds to tell his version of the failure of the Bush administration to do anything much about hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. His unsurprising conclusion is that it was due to incompetence but things get interesting when he considers this to have been PLANNED incompetence. From then on follows an exciting exposé of the power struggle between conservatives and democrats with focus on how liberals could, and should, revitalize their heritage. A heritage which, according to Wolfe, is the only real alternative. Liberals should stop being defensive and come out in the open with their strong views on equality and liberty. Wolfe does this with verve and conviction. The last chapter, "Liberalism's Promise," is a veritable who's who of political commentators of the latest years, which makes for positively riveting reading.
With small letters in the Acknowledgements, I noticed the name Jytte Klausen. They are married with three children and she has written an interesting book in its own right, THE ISLAMIC CHALLENGE. Based on interviews throughout Europe it paints a picture of Muslim identity, immigration, integration and so forth (including a short discussion on Kymlicka). This is done with praiseworthy clarity and calmness, lacking in many of the books Wolfe discusses, i.e. Bawer, Berman, Gray.
Having lived in the Netherlands for the past twenty five years, I couldn't help notice Wolfe's misspelling of Pim Fortuyn, the murdered Dutch politician. Even though it's not as bad as for example "Baryck Obyma," it's still a bit careless and doesn't strengthen his arguments. Some of these are convincing, others less so. But, of course, you don't have to agree with everything to like a book. THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM is a vivid contribution to a heated debate and carries many ideas worth contemplating. Perhaps the most commendable effort is the resurrection of the very word "liberal." The time should be over when, in some quarters, it's used as an invective.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A strong contribution to the history of ideas, December 5, 2011
The title of Alan Wolfe's The Future of Liberalism (2008 288 pages) is something of a misnomer because the book is primarily a history, although a history which assures a strong future. Liberalism is alive, well, vibrant, and capable of exciting the imagination and, through its ideals, instrumental in promoting democracy, reason, liberty, equality and creating the good for the most number of people. Wolfe builds an argument for liberalism's superiority over other forms of temperament and thought throughout the book, but, in my opinion, tends to be too apologetic when discussing what he considers liberalism's potential for internal conflicts and inconsistencies. Liberalism seems inconsistent to its opponents only because it is many things, totally coherent within itself and within its goals of an open, equal and just society; its acceptance of differences in opinion, race, nationality, and social status; its openness to new or competing ideas; and its abiding faith in the rule of law. The supposed inconsistency is actually a strength of flexibility. As Emerson pointed out "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Liberalism is about seeing and accepting the world as it is and providing the framework of freedom which allows all people to achieve their own individuality and control over their own choices in life.
Wolfe's book is one of the most thought-provoking I've read recently. As I mentioned above, it's a history of liberalism, examining its many combinations and permutations through time, all resting on the assumption that the freer men are, the greater their opportunities to exercise their own choices to attain a satisfying life free of external controls. Wolfe talks about the changes through time, about the competing ideas which have tried to restrict the growth of reason and the freedom of man: socialism, communism, nationalism, romanticism, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, to name a few. Wolfe defends liberalism deftly, although liberalism needs no defense, and he clearly illustrates its great strength in the face of aggressive and determined opposition and concludes that liberalism has a vibrant future. Although there will always be competition, there is no alternative for men of good faith, reason, and moral humanism.
My single criticism of Wolfe's book is that he defends intellectual liberalism, a political philosophy born in the 18th century, the theoretical underpinnings of the United States Constitution, the handmaiden of democracy, and the shining star in our concept of individual freedom, whereas it has another less intellectualized aspect. It is the altruism contained in the religious admonition to "do unto others as you have them do unto you," and the benign impulses which allow man to get along and cooperate with his fellow man, the prerequisites for civilization. I like Wolfe's history, but liberalism is both an attitude -- an impulse to look out for others --inherent in all us and an intellectualized philosophy. It is at its most effective when both aspects come into play, and I think Wolfe should have emphasized that, although it's a very strong contribution to the history of ideas even with that deficiency. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in a thought-provoking read about political theories
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
