Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash (Paperback)

~ Bruce Fleming (Author) "I THINK OK THE NAVAL ACADEMY AS A SORT of conservative paradise..." (more)
Key Phrases: liberal grid, conservative paradise, conservative worldview, Naval Academy, Absolute Action, United States (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash offers an explanation for the extreme polarization between liberal and conservative that is the hallmark of the American political landscape today. It suggests that liberal thought is intrinsically different from conservative thought, and that each constitutes a self-subsistent world-view with its specific qualities and rules. The book offers a set of guidelines to predict a person's views based on other views s/he holds, given that each world-view is what it is for structural reasons, and is more than merely a sum of discrete positions. It explains, for example, why people who support gay marriage also typically support the woman's right to an early-term abortion, and why people who demand that citizens support the military understand this as meaning, support putting members of the military in harm's way. Because liberal thought and conservative thought each constitutes a closed world-view, neither side will ever convince the other in an argument. The most we can hope for is an acknowledgment by each side of the usefulness of the other, a goal Fleming proposes as the most reasonable one for our times.

Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash makes logical the most striking, and hitherto puzzling feature of the contemporary American political landscape: its acrimony, its air of being an argument between the deaf: neither side understands the other. Fleming suggests this is so because neither side accepts the bases underlying the other's particular positions. We can, however, understand that they are different, and that trying to force the other side into submission won't work. We need to go beyond liberals dismissing conservatives with horror and conservatives dismissing liberals with disgust. Conservatives aren't merely imperfect liberals, they're something else entirely. Liberals aren't merely potential conservatives, they actually think differently.

Product Details

• Paperback: 248 pages
• Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (April 14, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0415953537
• ISBN-13: 978-0415953535
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,090,749 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent read about poli-sci & decision-making, July 16, 2006

By	Michael Johnson (North Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This book is not for the beach, nor for bedtime-- you should be ready to think and prepared to have your viewpoints about liberals and conservatives dissected. Fleming brings these topics to life by mixing the military together with literature, history, and personal asides, among other things. I found the discussions on masculinity and male control the most interesting, but the sections on Naval Academy midshipmen, abortion, and worldviews also kept me turning the pages. If you have any interest at all in political science, or in why military leaders (or wo/men) act the way they do, this book is definitely for you.

6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Fleming Hits Both Nails on the Head, July 5, 2006

By	Benjamin L. Kezar "don jefe" - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Fleming's discussion on the world of both liberals and conservatives stems from his interaction with people from around the world and his experiences at the U.S. Naval Academy--a conservative honey pot. His discussion of the motives and astute observations of the traits of both of these groups covers the poles of the extremes as well as the grey area that falls between them. As a comparitive literature analyst, he brings in works by other authors to enhance and draw parallels from situations and issues that he brings up. His discussion includes but is not limited to the following: religion and sex with relation to its effect on conservatives and liberals, abortion (arguments on both sides of the fence), the deeper structure of both world views, and the male dominance associated with each. Fleming's work, although densly written, is both thought provoking and is written into bite-sized chunks that are digestable essay-type pieces. This book makes for interesting discussion pieces and a good read anywhere. I strongly recommend this book if you are even remotely interested in new ideas on why these two groups clash in our society today.

14 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars The Standard Elitist Ivory Tower Professor Telling Us Why the Left is So Great, June 28, 2006

By	Enigma "[e-mail]" (Washington, USA) - See all my reviews

If I would have read this book 20 years ago I would have been shaking my head in agreement with it. It bolsters all of the left-wing talking points that I was told about conservatives. The book tries to be a scholarly critique of the differences but comes off as more of another elitist ivory tower professor lecturing those on the left just why the right is so beneath them. It gets tiring when I realize I have been hearing this same dribble for 25 years. Nothing new, except that we lefty's are better than you righty's

BUT - there is always a but - since I began questioning the normal left-wing reactionary positions I began to see the world in a whole new way. One of my biggest questions is why when I used to read right-wing books as a left-winger they could describe us lefty's to a tee. But lefties have such a hard time, as the author admits over and over again on describing right-wingers?

I have yet to find a good answer to that question but it is one to ponder anyhow lets discuss this book from my ex-left-winger-right of center worldview.

The book suffers by not giving a clear and concise definition of what a modern liberal is. The author never really answers this question except by trying to pull in Lockean philosophy as being liberal - but again that begs the question as to who is more Lockean? If John Locke were alive today his writings such as Two Treatises of Government and The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures would get him labeled as an Extreme-right-wing-fundamentalist-wacko. So the term liberal and the resultant and the underlying philosophies have become muddled in the book. While it is true that the book espouses many of John Locke's philosophies the author does not seem to be cognizant that those philosophies are at best only given lip-service by the modern-day left. While the core beliefs on the right are alive and exhuming John Locke's philosophies.

To make this clearer we can take a look into modern left-wing groups vs. modern right-wing groups. Since I was clearly aligned with several diverse left-wing groups I know how they operate. First of all free spirited debate is frowned upon by the left, you are told what to believe and questioning of this authority shows immediately you are not true to the left-wing cause. Debate and dissension is the anathema to the left wing causes. In the leftist groups you don't get any credit for being the clever one in the back who raises objections. In the conservative worldview you do.

Remember key words that the left uses are "I feel" or "I think" because to them most facts are relative. Actually the author does a pretty good job at showing this point. Truth at best is only a relative concept - hence why quotes like "that may be true for you but not for me" are constantly emanating from left-wingers. The difference between relativism and the right is that you hear statements like "The facts" or "Empirical evidence" in other words. For those on the right truth, facts, empirical evidence are real items not the just some malleable concept that the left insists they are.

When you listen to left-wing talk radio you usually find leftists yelling at or hanging up on any right-wing caller that comes in to debate. But when you listen to the right you hear them want to engage in a meaningful discourse - that's because Facts matter to the right, but facts which presupposes an objective world are in a fundamental sense irrelevant to the leftist worldview. To conservatives, saying something is true is equivalent to the left-winger saying "I feel."

The book also misses another major point about conservatives and makes some very glaring mistakes. First of all when you really study what conservatism is against you easily come to the conclusion that anti-podal to conservative thought is totalitarianism. While the left in America is very comfortable with this form of government - remember all governments and all thoughts are equal to the left except for conservative thought which is always wrong. But the right does not view it that way. They view any form of totalitarian government as a crushing blow to John Locke's ideals and the modern conservative movement. That is why Islamic run states where there is no freedom, women are considered second rate citizens, dictators can use poison gas on their constituents and slavery is still allowed is abhorrent to the right. It goes against everything that the right is against. Yet strangely we see those on the left getting in bed with these awful regimes. Making excuses for them and in many cases downright defending them with their relativistic worldview.

The problem is mutilating women's genitalia or killing your citizens because they didn't vote for you is WRONG. And to get a left-winger to say that is virtually impossible. As a matter of fact the author who is probably disgusted about those actions but can't speak out about them because of his left-wing beliefs tries to link them to the right wing!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, the arrogance hubris that takes is unimaginable. When I finally let all these in-congruencies in thought and the action of the left-wing soak in and I pondered them openly I found I could not in good conscious stay on the left-wing. Instead in the great tradition of John Locke I dissented and reasoned my way to the center and the slowly to the right - where I am comfortable upholding the great liberal Lockean traditions.