Customer Reviews

Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't)

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

 

 

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.

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!

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.

Sorry, but I'm just finishing the audiobook, and I find this the most bracing, honest, forward-looking view of Conservatism that I've ever read. The word that best comes to mind in describing my reaction to Gerson's ideas is "thrilling." He's a passionate man who acknowledges mistakes during his time in the Bush administration, but who never backs down from compassion and decency.

Can compassion and decency - "idealism," in the words of Gerson's book - go horribly wrong when forming policy? Yes. We've seen that on both sides of the aisle, and earlier examples soured me completely on the government's role in doing good to and for others. But in recent years, I've had to rethink that. Government CAN be a force for good, when used appropriately. And that's a Conservative view, involving defense spending, war spending (in some cases), and, of course, spending on more immediate needs here at home, like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But it also refuses to turn a blind eye toward a massive humanitarian crisis in Africa, toward Islamic militants, toward regimes based on tyranny.

I'm sorry if that sounds like political "rhetoric" to some. To me, it sounds like common decency. The sooner we acknowledge urgent needs here and abroad, the better for BOTH political parties, and the better for our country as a whole.

Reading this book is like being stuck in church for hours. I'm sorry but don't think it is the job of the government to "tax and give away." I felt like Gerson was using my money to buy his way into heaven.

The American government is not a charity. If I choose to give away money outside the U.S. I will do so myself. It is unfair to force me to do so.

Charity begins at home: YES, fix the three or four poorest states of America so that they will start paying their fair share of taxes. DON'T BOTHER fixing countries that don't pay taxes and will probably attack us as soon as they have the ability.

By the way; people in other countries don't vote for government officials in America. I do.

This is a very well-written book though. Please feel free to write another. I will gladly read it. I admire thinkers of any stripe.

I'm sure that Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, is an earnest, thoughtful individual but his new book, "Heroic Conservatism" adds nothing to the understanding of conservatism except in his narrow, self-promoting view. When the author states that former Watergate convict, Chuck Colson, is the "single most influential person in his life" and then goes on to attach himself to being guided by the teachings of the Catholic church, the reader knows he or she is in for a bumpy ride.

If Gerson hopes that history will be fairer to Bush than journalists have been, he certainly is staking a claim to be the leader of the revisionist history of the Bush administration. His toadying behavior in and around Bush is cause for some unintended humor in the book as he describes one day going out to lunch to avoid the "White House mess". Now, there's a comment worth considering! But one of Gerson's failures is to try to link George Bush to Lincoln, FDR and other presidents as a successful visionary. I think most Americans see the president in a very different light. And Gerson's self-importance is never far off the page and seldom contained...one might have thought that he was heavy into policy making in recent years. Some of the author's conclusions are downright ridiculous. To suggest that the stirring up of the Arab world with America's involvement in Iraq is a "myth" is so unbelievable that one can only assume he's been in the Washington cocoon too long.

"Heroic Conservatism", in the end, lacks a cohesive narrative. Much of the book wanders about looking for a central theme, as if the author thinks he may have stumbled on one. Michael Gerson has made one lasting offering, however...he's allowed us to figure out that "Heroic Conservatism" is as much an oxymoron as "Moral Majority". In time, his views will be relegated to a well-deserved bygone era.

THIS BOOK IS NO MORE THAN A POOR RATIONALIZATION OF TRANSFORMING CONSERVATISM INTO A POORER VERSION OF LIBERALISM.

In the early chapters of this book, Gershon gives fawning, sycophantic praise to George W. Bush's "conservatism." It's a conservatism that involves sending billions of tax dollars to Africa to fight AIDS, poverty, and other things that have absolutely no bearing on America's national interest.

It's a conservatism that thinks it's America's job to spend billions of dollars feeding the hungry and clothing the naked in places OTHER THAN AMERICA.

Gerson also speaks glowingly of Bush's tolerance of illegal aliens, which is all in the name of "compassion," if you believe Bush. The real sinister reason is, of course, the drive down American wages and our standard of living- enter what's called "country club Republicanism," something that conservatives worked many years to purge from the Republican party.

This book is shameful, horrendous, disgusting, and a shill for the "compassionate conservatism" that has obliterated a party and a movement.

The fact that more reviews haven't been posted hear is a testament to its worthlessness and sheer vacuousness.

Today, I heard Michael Gerson on a radio talk show ("Forum" on KQED FM, San Francisco) claiming that, by the time Bush made his 2002 State of the Union remarks about the yellow-cake hoax, there was a "broad consensus" in the government that the reports were true.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The only consensus that mattered, that of the intelligence community, had already determined that the yellow-cake "intelligence" was faked -- it was designed solely to get money for the man who faked the report, Rocco Martino, a one-time Italian intelligence operative (until 1999), whose work since leaving that organization was to procure (legally or illegally) and sell (truthful or bogus) intelligence for a living. Rocco Martino had fallen on hard times, and was desperately trying to sell this intelligence to the French, who knew it was bogus (France actually operates the mining and shipping of the yellow-cake in Niger, and they would have known if 500 tons of the stuff had gone missing!)

A Pentagon official stated that it would have been easier for Iraq to obtain already-processed ore from Congo, where it may well have been easier to keep a transfer secret.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that it would have been impossible even to find a train long enough to carry the 500 tons of the stuff, and even more impossible to find a ship to hold it -- let alone to transfer it, on the high seas, to another impossible-to-find ship.

Ray McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran CIA analyst, said, "The reports made no sense on the face of it...Most of us knew the Iraqis already had yellow-cake. It is a sophisticated process to change it into a very refined state and they didn't have the technology."

Alain Chouet, head of French intelligence at the time, also knew that the vist to Niger of the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican in 1999 had nothing to do with yellow-cake. "In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium." (Los Angeles Times, 2005)

Mr. Gerson is a liar, just like the boss for whom he crafted Orwellian NewSpeak.

Only the die-hard, deluded, true-believers in the disastrous fabrications of the Bush administration regarding Iraq will find anything of interest coming from the liar, Michael Gerson. Deliberate stupidity is a poor basis for a book, and an even poorer basis for a war.

Sources include Unger, Craig; The Fall of the House of Bush, Scribner