Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Flawed but interesting, January 11, 2008
This review is from: Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains: The Correlation between Age and Political Philosophy (Paperback)
This is one of those books I liked and hated. And yes I give four stars even if its flawed. Any book that makes me think is good.
Hated because when it comes to rigid liberals and conservatives they are not in the majority. Moderates are. We now have more registered Independents in many states than we have one party registered voters. And we have moderates who will note in one study after the other that they are fiscal conservative but social moderates.
Thus we have a majority who believe in abortion rights, equality for gays/lesbians, school choice, clean air water etc., but who want less government, and thus responsible spending when it comes to spending tax dollars be it on military or subsidies for farmers and big business. Many conservatives also believe in helping families who need WIC/AFDC and other welfare programs, they just don't like that fathers have been banned from the home and that we now have millions of single mother homes, some by choice.
But I like what Bill Gates Sr and Warren buffet both of wealth say concerning taxes. The richest get all the loop holes and thus pay less in the end, and the middle class is shrinking. Remember if you are wealthy, you do pay more in taxes, but then you file your tax returns and take all the deductions and in the end you get more back and thus in the end pay less.
When was the last time you heard any conservative bemoan the fact that Social Security and Medicare are keeping their elderly parents heads above water. When was the last time you heard a conservative demand that all conservatives lead by example and support in full their elderly parents? Likewise when was the last time you heard a true liberal demand that people be allowed to do their own thing as well as assume ALL financial, emotional and physical responsibility for the consequences of their own choices?
Its good that the author notes that government had grown big time under GWBush, and that there is little chance of it being reduced since the government isn't prone to reduction since this means government people out of work, newly built government buildings becoming white elephants and monuments to 'less'. Less scares people, because it equates to poor, inferior and alas fear.
On page 248 he notes 'However, if one takes the fulcrum of the liberal/conservative divide to be the role of government in society, then dictatorships must be on the Left'. I disagree. One need only look at the middle east countries where people don't elect their leaders, which in turn are conservative to the extreme.
He also notes on page 252 that 'conservatism is fundamental to the character of the American people. We look to the heroes and ideals of the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. In short we are a conservative people'. Wrong. the men and women who fought in the American Revolution, including my family members were more libertarian. And they were rebels. And as history shows many of the founding fathers were progressive if one considers the women they had on the side. Alas they were leave me alone to live free.
But its an interesting book and worth a read. Just remember to own a set of drum sticks to remind you to march to your own drummer, a small paint brush to remind you to note paint yourself into a corner, and own your own drum.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Political Transition From Youth Through Maturity, March 28, 2008
This review is from: Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains: The Correlation between Age and Political Philosophy (Paperback)
Author Ron Lipsman serves as a Professor of Mathematics and Associate Dean at the University of Maryland and over the years, he has found himself growing increasingly conservative, much to the disbelief of his colleagues. He wrote this book as a study in political attitudes, with an emphasis on the changes in political thought that often accompany older age. It is widely understood that young people usually tend to be liberal and older people tend to be more conservative. There is some truth to this claim, and all one has to do is observe the people around them or look at voting results and the patterns based on age. There does seem to be a correlation between age and political philosophy, and Lipsman spends his time talking about the difference between conservatives and liberals before showing how they correlate with age and how, more often than not, individuals tend to grow more conservative with each passing year.
This book is very issue- oriented and it attempts to show how and why young and old think the way they do. But the book seems to go a bit far with some of its observations and many will not agree with what the author suggests. Starting with the whole liberal vs. conservative way of thinking, the author draws an idealistic picture that isn't very realistic. In his view, an ideologically pure conservative is someone who believes in minimal government control in any aspect of life. This is fine as an ideological definition, but it bears little or no resemblance to reality. I cannot think of any self- proclaimed Republican conservative who doesn't believe in government control in specific areas- particularly those that involve personal choices that the conservative considers deviant.
Then, there are some specific opinions in this book that seem a little out of place and that don't really add up. One is his talk about Bill Clinton and Clinton's supposed "amoral" behavior. Yes, Clinton lied about his affair with an intern, but George W. Bush's daily lies are far worse in the sense that they directly affect the people. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Bush is the model of moral behavior, but that seems to be the position taken in this book. Bush says he is religious and moral, and that makes it so. The book also states that George W. Bush has been the target of an incredible amount of hate talk when compared to Clinton and the author offers this as proof of liberal immaturity. I think this opinion is due to the author's profession. In a University setting, yes, Bush probably does receive more insults. But from my point of view, the insults hurled toward Clinton when he was president were far worse and far more venomous. They were frequent, they were constant, and many of them made no good sense at all. Bush has received his share of insults, but not nearly to the degree that Clinton did.
Another opinion I found unusual in the moral/immoral debate in this book is the attitude toward certain specific acts. The author feels the United States has lost its way morally and he feels that a conservative mindset is one weapon against this trend. He even offers a list of things that he feels proves the U.S. is in a state of "moral rot" and while some of the things he includes make sense, others are odd choices. Gambling is one of them. How, I would like to know, is gambling a sign of moral deterioration? I know many people who gamble and not one of them is immoral. Gambling can cause problems for some people, but the vast majority of gamblers have no problems at all and consider gambling nothing more than a form of entertainment. What is the difference between spending $100 on slot machines or $100 for an evening of entertainment at an NBA game? Is one less "moral" than the other? I don't see any difference at all.
This book's author is Jewish and he feels that his fellow, liberal Jewish brothers and sisters should switch positions by adopting a conservative viewpoint. He points out that conservatives are generally supportive of Israel as proof of his belief. While it is mostly true that conservatives support Israel, it is also deceiving. What the book doesn't point out is that many of these conservative "supporters" of Israel have an ulterior motive in mind. They only support Israel because they feel that doing so is a requirement based on literal interpretation of the Bible. They don't support Israel because they really love and support Jewish people. Many of these religious conservatives in fact feel that Jews are misguided and will ultimately convert.
One other point I didn't like in this book comes near the end when it talks about conservative and liberal positions using the old left- right, straight line spectrum. More government control is placed on the left side and less government control on the right side. Thus, fascists, communists, and others are really left- wing according to this definition, because they believe in government control. I like that the book correctly points out that fascists, communists, and others are not opposites, like many have tried to claim. But placing them both on the left isn't accurate either. Where does one place a social conservative? Social conservatives want government to control personal decisions. Does that mean they belong on the left? If so, then why do we refer to them as social conservatives? And where does that place social liberals? Social liberals believe in freedom of personal choice without interference from government. Does that mean these liberals are really social conservatives? To avoid all of this confusion, a much more accurate way to assess political thinking and position is the political Nolan Chat: A square- shaped chart that correlates economic freedom/control and personal freedom/control. With the Nolan Chart, it becomes much easier to place individuals in a specific place on the political spectrum.
Now that I have made all of these criticisms, one might expect me to rate this book below average and not recommend it. But I actually like this book for several reasons. First, I like the originality. I have read a large number of political books and this is the first one that tackled the specific subject of age and its correlation to political thought. Second, I like the intellectual discussion. Many of the key points and differences between conservatives and liberals that are mentioned in this book are very true and there are countless examples in the political world that anyone could cite to back them up. Third, I like the fact that the author fully admits that there are many exceptions to the rules. To the author's credit, he fully acknowledges that George W. Bush, with his massive increases in federal spending and deficits, the passing of the Patriot Act, etc., is about as far from a true conservative as a man could be. He also admits that the overall correlation between age and political philosophy, while certainly present, is a weak correlation and there are several exceptions. He also talks on a respectful level and acknowledges that his fellow liberals are just as concerned about the future of the country and want people to prosper as much as possible. The only difference between liberals and conservatives is how to get from point "A" to point "B".
This book speaks in very general terms. I can't think of anyone who fits all of the traits of conservative or liberal that are mentioned in this book. Everyone I know takes positions that cross party lines from time to time. And what the author describes in this book- a conservative as someone who favors very little government in almost all aspect of life- is a type of person that really doesn't exist in today's Republican Party- or at least not among its leadership. Most every Republican I know is a firm believer in government control. The problem is that most Republicans do not consider their brand of control to really be control. They feel that their expansion of government is meant for the moral good of the nation and thus is not really control at all.
Overall, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains is a good book about differences in political philosophy and how one's affiliation is likely to change over time. It makes some assertions that are certain to be met with scrutiny and it speaks in very general terms. But I like the book's intellectual angle and it makes for some solid reading on the different thought processes that make liberals and conservatives tick. I don't agree with everything the author says, but he offers some very good talking points, good organization and explanation of different topics/issues, and some interesting opinions that will give any reader pause for thought.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Good Contribution to the Political Debate, April 26, 2008
This review is from: Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains: The Correlation between Age and Political Philosophy (Paperback)
`Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains' is a very good treatise on political philosophy. The author's primary thesis is that there is a correlation between one's age and political philosophy. Specifically, the author contends that most people tend to be quite liberal when young and generally move in the direction of being more conservative.
Of course, this is not universal, and the book examines the exceptions to the rule as well. The author, Dr. Ron Lipsman, is a mathematician by trade so he brings that unusual perspective to a book about political ideas. He is also Jewish and brings that unique frame of reference. He explained something in the book that has always been a mystery to me namely the very large number of Jewish people who tend to be politically liberal.
Overall, this is very good. There are a couple of not so good things as well. I'll go through these.
First, the good:
1. The connection between one's worldview and positions on issues is examined.
2. He does a great job of outlining the history of the liberal-conservative divide from 1900 through the present.
3. There is a well thought out discussion of the differences between liberals and conservatives on 24 issues.
4. The discussion of the common ground between conservatives and liberals is very good and very little discussed in the current acrimonious climate.
5. He does a solid job of showing why President George W. Bush is not a conservative in spite of his claims to be one.
And, the not so good:
1. The book needs a good editor. There are several glitches in it. One is the misspelled `schmorgasbord' which occurs at least twice.
2. Although liberals and conservatives are two primary groups, they are not the only ones. There is no mention of libertarians or statists, both of which also occur in fairly large numbers. I would encourage the author to bone up a bit on other methods of measuring political philosophy. The traditional left-right is nonsensical. It originated in the parliaments of Europe based on the seating of various parties. It has no real meaning in the United States today. The author seems to get this on some level. He talks about various dictatorial thugs being pretty much the same, e.g. Hitler and Stalin, rather than Hitler being far right and Stalin far left. They were both socialists. I would suggest that there are two systems of measuring political philosophy that are far better. One features tyranny or `ruler's law' on one extreme and anarchy on the other extreme. This one makes far more sense as politics is about the power of government. This scale accounts for that. It is described very well in `The 5000 Year Leap' by W. Cleon Skousen The 5000 Year Leap: The 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World. Another system that accounts for the aforementioned libertarians and statists as well as conservatives and liberals is the Nolan Chart. One can research that or find a quiz that will place one according to political philosophy. That can be found at the Advocates For Self Government's website.
In spite of the issues mentioned above, I really enjoyed the book. It is very interesting and well researched. I recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
