Most Helpful Customer Reviews
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A stirring, if flawed, manifesto, February 26, 2008
This review is from: Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Hardcover)
Since becoming a columnist for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson (former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush) has become one of the most piquant pundits in the commentariat. This book reiterates much of the substance of those columns, and is thus somewhat disappointing, as it reveals Gerson to be more a talented journalist than a sustained thinker. Nonetheless, Heroic Conservatism deserves serious attention for its efforts to outline a politics based radically on upholding human dignity.
As Gerson notes, this idea is grounded in both American notions of natural rights and Roman Catholic social teaching, with its tandem emphases on subsidiarity (which favors a decentralized polity in which government does only what civil society cannot) and solidarity (which recognizes the responsibilities that all citizens have for one another, but especially for the most vulnerable; it therefore urges a "preferential option for the poor."). Such a notion overcomes the unnatural bifurcation in American politics between a right that attends almost wholly to limiting government and therefore denies its ability to ameliorate human suffering effectively and a left that has been at the forefront of movements for social justice but is often suspicious of, or impatient with, the efforts of non-governmental institutions like traditional religion, the family, and states and localities. Gerson's call for a political vision that recognizes the legitimate role of the state in providing for the common good while respecting the value of "little platoons" in fostering social and cultural renewal will appeal to those like him who wish to be "pro-life and pro-poor...[who] have often felt homeless in the traditional camps of American politics." This hopeful exercise of the moral imagination now requires a more sustained grounding in philosophy and theology to be a convincing countermanifesto to those of the libertarians and paleo-conservatives whom he rightly chides.
Indeed, Gerson's own question--"in what sense is this approach of mine conservative?"--requires further interrogation. Gerson suggests that because his case for the existence and centrality of human dignity depends on a belief in objective truth and value, it is more likely to achieve a hearing among traditionists than among the postmodern left. That may be true enough in the immediate context, but it is not necessarily so. In "Looking Back on the Spanish War," for instance, democractic socialist George Orwell anticipated Gerson's case that without a belief in objective truth and value, the will-to-power is doomed to triumph. Those animated by Gerson's reflections should think more in terms of creating a politics that transcends the liberal-conservative dichotomy rather than attempting to work within it, even to convert a segment of it. His own heroes--such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Paul II--were transformative leaders precisely because they challenged the popular conventions of their day with larger, more consistent worldviews grounded in everlasting ideals.
Gerson is also so animated by belief in "eternal realities," and his insertion of the permanent things into transient political discourse is welcome. If he, or another thinker, could now work out the details of a politics "elevated by a radical concern for human rights and human dignity" to complement the imaginative architecture offered here and in his columns, the result would be embraced eagerly by those dissatified by the chronic deficiences of American politics. And the hard and unhurried work invested in such a project would be truly heroic.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Conservative thinker I can associate with., May 26, 2009
I'm not a republican (even though I often lean their direction when I vote). I consider myself pro-life, Christian independent. I often find myself in strong disagreement with the republican party, but in his book "Heroic Conservatism", Mr. Gerson presents a view I understand and want to support. I strongly disagree with republicans that claim that government is our problem, and with democrats that believe government is responsible for all the problems. I believe in smart and efficient government that serves his people with care, compassion and respect.
For me, this book was stimulating and thought-provoking. Thank you Mr. Gerson!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointed, March 7, 2008
This review is from: Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Hardcover)
I was disappointed with this book. As a liberal, I was hoping to read a book that would give me a clear understanding of what it means in the post-Bush era to be a conservative. I wanted to understand the conservative vision for the United States. Unfortunately, this book did not satisfy that hope.
In terms of what I did not like about this book, let's put first things first. It is frustrating when an author quotes someone without providing any footnotes. None of the quotes provided any reference. There were some quotes that I found hard to believe. Now I am not saying that the author was not quoting accurately, but I was very interested in seeing the context of the quote. Since there were no footnotes or endnotes it would be difficult to follow up on the quote.
Also, he would state things as if they were facts, but I am not sure of the basis of those facts. For example, he noted that a person was a constitutional expert. Who says? I looked up the person on Google and I found some one with the same name who is a law professor in Florida. Even if that were the right person, which I am not sure, does that make them an expert? I could find no writings by that person. Maybe that person is a constitutional expert, but I see nothing that supports the claim.
All that aside, what I disliked the most about the book is the very heavy bias. It was more of a defense of the Bush administration than anything else. When referring to liberals they were judged most harshly. I would expect that from a liberal, but when evaluating the conservative position the author glossed over some very big moral failings. For example, he referred to what the Bush campaign did to John McCain in 2000 as a "hard fought campaign." Another example is that his evaluation of Iraq is that the "contagion of Liberty" has taken hold and democracy is on the march. Well, recently there have been some political success, but there are huge challenges for democracy and human rights.
What was most disappointing is that there is a lot here where liberals and conservatives can find agreement. In fact, if it were not for Iraq and abortion, this guy would be a liberal. I guess this is why I am so disappointed in this book. It would be great if liberals and conservatives could come together and find those points where we agree and work towards those goals. I had hoped this book would be one step in that direction, but it wasn't.
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}
