Customer Reviews

Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused? (An "Uncle Eric" Book)

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

 

 

I really enjoyed this book. It is VERY simple and easy to read and really, everyone should read it no matter your political views. This book seems to have been directed towards children but I'm amazed at how many people I talk to really have no clue as to what Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. are. If you have no clue or even a little bit of political education, the book is very worth the entry level education it provides. This book is a great primer for getting into more complicated political discussions and education.

Is the writer biased? Slightly, but very minimally. He is a great teacher overall.

This short book has really opened my eyes to what I thought I knew. I have a greater perspectives on the differences of the various political views, whether Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Socialist etc.

This is a very quick read in an easy to understand format. I have passed this book on to several people who have enjoyed it as well.

This is a wonderful book which helps you clearly define your political stance, i recommend these books for young students who need to learn about the political parties and adults who think they know all there is all to know about political parties. I myself am a juris naturalist, if you'd like to know what that is then check out this book, i'm amazed at how much knowlege i gained!

p.s i also recommend evaluating books: what would thomas jefferson think about this,and whatever happened to penny candy?

Richard Maybury is "Uncle Eric" and he is writing to his relative who is a student, so what you read is a series of "letters" (like chapters, only more fun!). If you're confused and don't know on which side of the aisle you fall, you won't be after reading this great book! If you're not confused, this book is helpful in teaching others what liberals believe versus what conservatives believe and where their political actions lead. Though there are many books in the series, and I highly recommend them all, this one is fine to read without picking up any of the others.

I agree with Mr. Maybury's assessment of the situation we find ourselves in today in America. I particularly enjoyed finding that he agreed with both Patrick Henry and James Madison and that they both gave an accurate prediction about the upcoming problems, downfalls and failings of an ever-mutating Federalist mentality that is ripping the heart out of our founding principles. It killed the true goal of our founders, which was to allow states and communities to remain diverse, different and unique and economically and socially controlled by the people who lived in them. If you did not agree socially or politically with one community and/or state you could move to another and live comfortably knowing you would be around others with similar beliefs, opinions and characteristic.

In other words they did not want us to become exact mental, emotional and social clones or mere automatons of a Federal Government "1984" mentality run amuck. People like Earl Warren and Warren Burger succeeded in putting us on that destructive hedonistic and anti-American coarse by hijacking the judiciary.

Local control as Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine advocated, would undeniably put the decision making process in the hands of the voters and real-democracy at the lowest levels, they did not believe in Stare Decisis which kills a true ever-changing democracy. They wanted the "one person one vote" majority-rule concept to flourish on a local level, instead of having a federal government, which steals that basic right, concept and liberty at every opportunity by manipulating entities at every level and corrupting the courts.

Certainly government at the federal level was and still is necessary for some very basic issues, like those identified in the Preamble to the Constitution for instance, but never at the level it is at today.

It all comes back to that corrupting influence of power. I found it strange that he did not speak of term-limits as a counterbalancing protection for his Juris Naturalis ideology, the only real protection to saved us from the decline in founding principles as society grew, matured, evolved and became corrupted. A corruption that transformed the philosophy of the people, by the people, and for the people; to one of me, we, our party and an "our cause only mentality."

As much as I enjoyed his wit, humor, intelligent discourse and insight, which will undoubtedly cause me to read the rest of his books, which I highly recommend as a Middle School introduction to all his subjects, I could not possibly agree with all his teachings, opinions and/or assertions. Perhaps it is just that in his attempt to cover so many bases he seemed to have numerous contradictory comments that makes one stop and say wait a minute that is just not true.

For instance he asked, "has anyone ever suggested to you that government may not be necessary?" That is a foolish question today, of coarse it is.

He also asserts for instance that the right wants to stamp out sin and the left wants to stamp out inequality of wealth. These are interesting assertions but facades and falsehoods and assumptions that have no real basis. Those comments could be just as easily phrased like this, "the right wants to make people merit conscious and responsible for their actions by teaching morality and the left wants to rob from those who work to give to those who don't. Both of these statements would be equally as true, but give a completely different impression to the reader.

How can the left be said to believe in stamping out the inequality of wealth when so many of them, and I do mean, many of them, are filthy rich and getting richer every day at the expense of the poor and middle class in America. They are in fact the arrogant Aristocracy of the western civilization so hated by the Middle East. It is not our government or our true American values and culture that the Middle Easterners hate so much, but the liberal rich people and their hedonistic tendencies, policies and activities that irk them so much. When someone asks why Islam hates America it is simply because of liberal ideologies, policies and programs. It is as simple as that.

When I see Ted Turner, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Steven Speilberg, Hugh Hefner and several thousand other left-wing liberal icons give away their millions and/or billions and live on what I make, I will change my opinion of the left. But for today I disagree with Mr. Maybury's assertion about the goal of liberals, wanting to fix any inequalities, they create them.

They want power and the ability to oppress others at any cost and sit in their Eiffel towers dictating socialistic and hedonistic principle and rules of conduct on the rest of us peons. In others words I believe his definition of "Fascist" more aptly fits the modern day liberal than the word "liberal" does, and I would put fascist at the far left end of his scale rather than the right end, but hey it is his book.

There are many other inconsistencies of thought and assertion in his writings, but nothing significant enough to recommend skipping this truly enjoyable book. I have ordered and will most certainly read all the others as well, but with a critical eye. I truly enjoyed his work, with only minimal reservations, because I do read everything with the critical eye he instructs his readers to use.

As a series of books for beginners in politics, social issues and economic studies I can stand by the four star rating and highly recommend his thought provoking comments to those from all political persuasions. After reading this book I would have to classify myself as a Nationalistic Juris Naturalis of the Original "Classical Liberal" Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers Persuasion. Wow, what a mouthfull. Where are you in the mix?

982 Words

This book's title is very misleading; rather an in depth look at what it means to be conservative or liberal it is a tasteless attack on anything thats not a far-right extreme, though the author refers to his type of brain-less conservatism as "juris naturalis" and other stupid psuedonyms.