Customer Reviews

Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains: The Correlation between Age and Political Philosophy

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

 

 

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.

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.

`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.

Author Ron Lipsman is a mathematician by trade. At the same time he is a person who has had a lifelong interest in politics. It is a rather unusual combination. In "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains" Lipsman sets out to prove the correlation between age and political philosophy. Most of us are familiar with the age old adage "If you are young and not liberal then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain." I am not quite sure that Lipsman completely succeeded in what he set out to prove. Having said that I found "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains" to be a superb primer for those who are just becoming interested in the political process. Lipsman cites 24 key issues in which the positions of liberals and conservatives are quite clearly defined. For my money he hits the nail on the head on most of these issues. After reading through and reflecting on these two dozen issues it would be extremely difficult for just about anyone of any age not to figure out exactly where they fall on the political spectrum. However, proving the correlation between age and political philosophy turns out to be a somewhat more difficult proposition. Clearly there are tendencies that point in this direction. But I believe even Professor Lipsman would have to admit that the relationship may not be quite as clear cut as he might have anticipated at the outset of his project.

I found "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains" to be a very well written and worthwhile book nonetheless. It will be up to each individual reader to determine the merits of the case he has made. Recommended.

This book is full of interesting arguments and is certain to provide at least a few new insights to any reader, liberal or conservative. I appreciate that for every argument he made, the author provided ample support so that even where I disagreed, I could see how he came to his conclusion.

I was born and raised in San Francisco, a liberal mecca, and didn't bother to challenge those beliefs until my mid-twenties, when I started realizing that even though I don't always agree with conservatives, there are many points on which I do. So this book seemed to be echoing my personal experience and I was really excited about having some new insights about it.

I did get a lot out of the book - the problem is that the writing style stood in the way of the information presented. I read a lot of political books and nonfiction, and most books targeting a mass audience are more engagingly written, and more ruthlessly edited. A third of the prose could have been cut out entirely without missing any of the points. There were a lot of phrases that I had to stop and untangle, like where he said there was a "less than overwhelming percentage" (that would be an underwhelming percentage, right?) and unnecessary phrases like "Now here is the question." or "Now I will be more critical of my colleagues." Small quibbles individually, but they occurred frustratingly often.

Then in many places, the book reads like a term paper:

"Before concluding this chapter with the next personal recollection, I want, as promised, to address the issues of consistency and predictability."

"In this chapter we complete the organizational work (of the first part of the book) that will allow us to correlate age with political philosophy in the second part. In fact we have already done a lot of spade work and the ground is lying quite fallow before us.... Next, in chapter 3, we reformulated the five world views into five new categories or compartments that also sharply highlighted the conservative/liberal divide, but which will serve us better in the forthcoming correlation investigation." (Whew!)

"I will argue that there is virtually no chance of (1) and little chance of (3) coming to pass and therefore, our political future lies along one of the paths (2), (4) or (5). Then I will asses the relative likelihood of these three."

Most contemporary nonfiction writers try to keep the tone less scholarly, and more as though you are speaking with a fascinating person with a lot of passion for the topic, and I have come to expect that writers will make transitions between points without having to tell me what they are hoping to do in so many words.

This kind of writing is what I remember from term papers in college, and it isn't a style I'd usually choose to sit down and read after a day at work. I strongly feel that it isn't the information that made this book a hard one to settle into, because that was really quite good - it is a case of the writing standing in the way of these thought-provoking points being heard.

I hope that the author will enlist the help of a vigorous editor for a future edition, because I learned a lot from this book and think it adds valuable information to the political books currently out there. The topic is a great one and he really gets into it. I'd recommend the current edition more for students of politics or others who are extremely interested in a scholarly treatment of the subject, than for casual readers of nonfiction or politics.

This insightful and original book examines a quality that most people take for granted, namely that young people are liberal and old people are conservative. In order to examine this phenomenon the author, a mathematician, dissects the process and the definitions from their origins to the present. He begins with a discussion in which he identifies 24 issues that separate the two groups(abortion and gun control for example). Next he examines the way people see the government's role in our lives and America's role in the world and how that affects whether we are Absolutist or Relativist and so on. He proceeds to divide the 24 core issues among these other variables.

But far from being a careful examination of the issues and political philosophy the author also presents a running autobiography of his own migration from the left to the right. In addition he makes important observations such as the "America that offered the Jews such great comfort was dominated, for most of that existence, by the WASP culture, that we are so anxious to denigrate" thus poking an accusatory finger at those who would tare down American Anglo-Christian culture and replace it with Islam or radical secularism.

Next the book examines the history of the Liberal-Conservative battle for America. This analysis is interesting and well written. The last section of the book examines the correlation between the issues and age groups and examines the migration of people from being young bleeding hearts to old conservatives. There is also a short discussion of those outliers, such as Noam Chomsky and other campus leftists or young Republicans, who do not fit the model.

A very interesting discussion that will leave many with a renewed faith in America a greater understanding of American history and a greater understanding of themselves and their political outlook on life.

Seth J. Frantzman

Professor Lipsman gets his title from this statement (variously attributed to Disraeli, Churchill, Mark Twain, François Guizot, Clemenceau, et al.): "If you are young and are not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and are not conservative, then you have no brain."

There can be little doubt that the older we get the more conservative we tend to be. However, this change does not take place because we are wiser. Instead it comes about because in general we have more to conserve, and most importantly because what we really need to conserve is the way of life to which we have grown accustomed. After having spent several decades acclimating ourselves to a particular way of life, with familiar values and recognizable patterns and behaviors, it is very difficult to embrace change.

Young people tend to be more liberal not because of their hearts, but because they usually have less to conserve and have not become so accustomed to a particular way of life that they fear change. Indeed they often prefer change because most of the power and goodies of the society belong to older people. That is what the quotation really means.

I would also like to point out that most people in most societies in virtually every age are conservative. Indeed in evolutionary psychology it is generally held that we tend to have a genetic predisposition to be conservative. After all, any species well adapted to its environment does not favor change. Change is what causes species to go extinct.

Lipsman--who is a professor of mathematics by the way--has what he calls "two dozen touchstone issues" that define the differences between liberals and conservatives. However, what I think is one of the most important differences--belief in the scientific method of knowledge acquisition versus knowledge from religious authority--is not one of them. We see a crisis looming in the Middle East which is overwhelmingly conservative and believes in the authority of the Abrahamic religions over the authority of science or modern political thought. Unfortunately Lipsman does not mention science in any of the 24 issues. Instead he has liberals favoring a "Wall between Church and State" while he sees conservatives favoring "Religious morality infusing laws of the State."

This sort of fuzzy and shaded expression is typical. For example, Lipsman thinks that liberals generally favor "High taxes," while conservatives favor "Low taxes." Nobody favors high taxes. What liberals favor is a form of taxation that does not favor the rich. What conservatives favor is a form of taxation that does not penalize success. Another example is Lipsman's belief that liberals favor "Diversity, i.e., special favors for certain groups," while conservatives believe in "Equal rights before the law." But the truth is, both liberals and conservatives favor equal rights before the law, and both believe in special favors for certain groups, their groups. Conservatives believe that churches should be exempt from taxation. They believe that corporations should not have to pay the environmental costs of doing business, while liberals favor financial support for minorities, the poor and the disadvantaged.

Lipsman has liberals favoring the "Constitution as a living document" while he sees conservatives favoring a "Strict interpretation of the Constitution." In truth both groups favor interpreting the Constitution in a way that supports their beliefs. The words "strict interpretation," "living document," etc., are phrases meant to influence opinion or to label, while the real truth of how Constitutional law works is complex and has developed over the years so that if the Founding Fathers were to appear today, they would be quite surprised at how the Constitution has changed and how it is interpreted by both liberals and conservatives.

Lipsman sees liberals as favoring "environmental activism" while he thinks conservatives favor "Envir[onmental] concern, tempered by economic reality." Actually what conservatives favor is short-term profits over long-term environmental health and wealth. Some of them feel this way because they personally aren't going to be around long enough to suffer the consequences, either because they will die or be rescued from this planet in the "Rapture!"

Lipsman sees liberals as "Broadening the culture to accommodate the browning of America" while conservatives favor "Preserving traditional American culture." Juxtaposing these expressions with his belief that liberals want "Amnesty for illegal aliens" while conservatives want "Deportation for illegal aliens" it becomes clear just where the good professor stands. Obviously some conservatives (working class, especially) want illegal aliens deported because they tend to be economic competition. However many other conservatives (owners of small and large businesses, people with enough money to hire domestics, etc.) want the illegals to stay, and they want them to remain illegal so they can be properly exploited. It has been conservative governments that have predominated (as Lipsman observes) in recent decades that have surreptitiously allowed the "brown" people to sneak across our southern border. They have done so because illegal aliens bring wealth to the American economy in the form of their cheap labor.

I think the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is just the opposite of what Lipsman implies in his title. Conservatives tend toward "faith-based" thinking which really is "ignorance-based" thinking. They prefer not to think. They are afraid of social and scientific advances and therefore favor ideas that stifle creativity and innovation in most realms, especially in the realms of science and religion.

Most of the book is a well-written, but biased examination of liberal versus conservative views vis-a-vis chronological age. Lipsman does indeed demonstrate the obvious, that the older we get the more likely we are to be conservative. He even accounts for the exceptions.

But I think the real import and intention of the book can be appreciated simply by reading this quote from Prof. Lipsman on page 232: "I stand by all the arguments I have made throughout the book for the superiority of conservatism, and by my descriptions of the various tragedies that liberalism has inflicted on our society."

What I like most about this book is its side by side comparisons of liberals and conservatives, as well as its chart of where they agree.

The author is a self-professed devout Jew who converted from liberal young heart to conservative older mind as he grew older, aided by time in Israel.

Published in 2007, the book is unusual, almost a personal cry of the heart and brain. I agree with the other authors, there are some gaps here, not least of which is the work described in The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World and in Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming. See also Reuniting America and its definition of transpartisanship (bipartisanship is code for the continuation of the two-party organized crime/spoils system that excludes Independents, Libertarians, Naderites, Greens, Reforms, and others). The "new progressives" are not in this book.

So, to put it mildly, the book does a good job of exploring what it means to be a liberal or a conservative, and how that correlates with age, but it is not a sweeping nuanced view of all the alternatives.

On page 25 the author tells us that Liberals and Conservatives share:

+ Patriotism/Love of Country
+ Respect for the Law
+ Devotion to Family
+ Optimism/Faith in America
+ Prosperity/Economic Progress
+ Love Thy Neighbor
+ Tolerance
+ Civilian Control of the Military
+ Don't Tread on Me
+ Your Home Is Your Castle
+ Veneration of Education
+ Leisure

The author--and no doubt much of the books was written years ago--has been slow to see the rise of extremism on both sides, the dismissal of the law by Dick Cheney and Mike Hayden among others, and the general collapse of our society, now a The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead.

Although the book can be criticized for being "one man's view," it is never-the-less to be admired for being offered to us, and I for one found parts of it helpful.

Early on the author has two columns that capture his view of where liberals and conservatives differ:

+ Government spending
+ Taxes
+Regulations
+ Welfare
+ Military spending
+ UN versus US leadership
+ Multilateral versus unilateral
+ Abortion versus pro-life
+ Marriage
+ Diversity
+ Protectionism versus Free Trade (no mention of fair trade)
+ Wages
+ Environment
+ Animal versus Human Rights
+ Church & State
+ Illegal Aliens
+ Social Justice versus Rugged Individualism
+ Treatment of Criminals
+ Capital punishment
+ Gun Control or not
+ Constituionality
+ Group versus Individual Rights
+ Broadening versus Preserving "American Culture"

The author then goes on to describe and evaluate at length.

This is an excellent book for a political philosophy course.

Other books I recommend to complement this one:
Statecraft as Soulcraft
Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics
Radical Man: The Process of Psycho-Social Development
The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World
All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (BK Currents)

Quoting from the back cover:

"Professor Lipsman

-argues for a correlation between age and political philosophy, which asserts that young people tend to gravitate toward liberalism while older people are usually more comfortable with conservatism; and that, additionally, among the people who change their political preference over time, more go from liberal to conservative than vice versa; and finally, he assesses the strengths of these trends;

-examines the most interesting counter-examples to these trends - namely, premature conservative and aging liberals - and explains what motivates them;

-presents a history of the liberal/conservative divide in America and then augments it with an assessment of its current status as well as a prediction of its future."

Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains is a well-written, well-edited, very interesting political science book, with a personal touch. This book can help you determine more clearly just where you stand on all the important issues. Does age have an influence on your political beliefs? Read this book and see if you agree with Ron Lipsman.

Kaye Trout
Reviewer