1,034 of 1,152 people found the following review helpful
I am a Democrat who enjoyed this book.,
This review is from: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (Hardcover)
I've been a Democrat for as long as I can remember. I am not a far left liberal, or a "Statist" as Mark would say. I do wonder though if Mark thinks all Democrats are Statists. I consider myself a Democrat simply because I am a little left of center, I am more conservative when it comes to fiscal matters and liberal when it comes to social issues. But as a Democrat, I enjoyed this book and I urge other people who may not see themselves as Conservatives to have an open mind and read this book. It is very well written and Mr. Levin makes many great points. If you're not a Conservatives, this book will not change your views overnight, so don't worry. Also, this book is not "Republican propaganda" as other reviewers, who probably didn't read the book, have labeled it. However, this book might open your eyes to things you never thought of before. After reading this book, I do have much more respect for true Conservative principles that Mr. Levin outlines. This was a good read.
Tracked by 8 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 141 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 8, 2009 8:31:38 AM PDT
I don't think Mark believes all democrats are "Statists" but your party has so painfully been taken over by the extreme left, look at the way they behave, your country last every time. That is where the statists reside. Oh yea and Deckhart too.
Posted on Apr 9, 2009 4:47:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 9, 2009 4:48:26 PM PDT
Mel R. Scurbica says:
Christopher, you can't agree with the points in Mark's book and also agree with the tenets of the modern Democratic Party, which are Marxist. Therefore, I would like to suggest that you reregister as a Republican so we can reverse the damage the Marxists are doing to our country.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2009 12:28:08 PM PDT
Christopher M. Capone says:
Mr. Lucas...what are you talking about? I am liberal on social issues. Where in Mark's book does it say you are a Statist/Marxist if you are pro-choice or pro-gay rights? I am economically more conservative. Thats what I don't get about social conservatives, they want the government out of their life when it comes to taxes and economics, but when it comes to things like gay marriage, porn, profanity in television and music, they want the government to step in.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2009 11:01:15 AM PDT
Steve Skye says:
I think of social conservativism akin to being "a little bit pregnant" in regards to limited government. It may take some mental fortitude however if conservatives will consider the moral superiority of liberty they would abandon all forms of governmental violence and embrace Libertarianism.
Posted on Jun 7, 2009 11:01:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 9, 2009 10:06:31 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2009 8:48:16 AM PDT
Burton R. Wallace says:
How can you hold up the republicans as a path for hope, after all they have done to set the stage for Obama, why is a third party not even on the radar to most conservatives, do your homework and you will see at the core of each party is not a nickels worth of difference.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2009 11:43:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2009 11:48:44 PM PDT
J. Aubrey says:
What Mr. Capone fails to recognize is that the assault against our traditions is coming from the left, not the "social conservatives." Government has always been involved in the definition of marriage and censorship of the popular media. The left is aggressively trying (and largely succeeding) in drastically changing our mores as to marriage and pornography, with a further coarsening of our society. And you claim your "social conservatives" are hypocritically invoking the government when all they're doing is defending the status quo. You are confused, sir.
Posted on Jun 26, 2009 12:55:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2009 12:56:37 AM PDT
A problem with being socially liberal, whether Democrat or Republican, is that they won't lift a finger to get Government out of our school systems and let The People choose cirricula from state to state and from locality to locality. And there are many more losses of Freedom which they would never vote to correct. Some of them don't like overspending and know that's wrong. But living other people's lives for them is what Social Liberals are all about.
It's hard to believe that this has become The Most Helpful Review.
You've got to keep an eye on these Social Liberals. They're like cockroaches. They come out of the woodwork when you're sleeping and vote this particular review to be The Most Helpful Review when any genuine Conservative knows better than that.
I have yet to find a Conservative Democrat since John F. Kennedy. Yes, yes, I'm that old. But he was probably the last Democrat in history who would have been shocked at the outcome of Roe vs. Wade. And I have yet to find a Democrat who likes this book. This book is not for them. It's for us.
It's hard to believe that The United States of America has become a slum full of cockroaches.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2009 12:33:40 AM PDT
Little Mom says:
Steve, I think that many conservatives do in fact, embrace many Libertarian principles, however, they do not agree with the Libertarian views on foreign policy.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2009 7:41:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2009 7:49:35 AM PDT
Philip Weingart says:
Chris Capone wrote: "Thats what I don't get about social conservatives, they want the government out of their life when it comes to taxes and economics, but when it comes to things like gay marriage, porn, profanity in television and music, they want the government to step in."
To understand why the social conservative position is actually consistent, you need to know a little political philosophy.
The political philosophy that advocates no government at all is called "anarchism," and it produces the worst of all possible worlds. Few sane people truly favor no government at all.
The political philosophy that advocates an absolute minimum of government in all circumstances, with government only interfering where one citizen might hurt another, is called "libertarianism." It posits human liberty as the unimpeachable goal of all political thinking.
Conservatism in America is actually a form of old-world liberalism that advocates a balanced, limited role for government in the conduct of human affairs. The Constitutional formulation for where government is entitled to have a role is the protection of "life, liberty, or property" (see the Fifth Amendment, or the Fourteenth.) In American, constitutional conservatism, the government may remove human liberty where the state possesses an overwhelming interest in its pursuit of that protection. Thus, it's perfectly consistent with conservatism for the government to, say, listen to the phone calls of enemy combatants during a war, even though that necessarily reduces the liberty of the people somewhat.
So, the question regarding social conservatism is, does legislation regarding personal morals serve an overwhelming interest toward protecting life, liberty, and property? Social conservatives answer "Yes." They arguably have a point: if social policies favored by the government result in the murder of innocent citizens, or result in children being raised in unstable homes, or result in a birth rate so low that the nation depopulates, then it genuinely might be important to reduce personal liberty for the general protection of life, liberty, or property.
Now, you may agree or disagree, as you see things, but your disagreement is over matters of fact: are their social issues truly matters with an overwhelming impact on life, liberty, and property, or not? If you answer "yes," their advocacy is sound, if "no," then it's unsound, but either way it is consistent with American, constitutional conservatism. Their advocacy of particular social policies is no more inconsistent with conservatism than would be another person's advocacy of possibly invasive police procedures, or national defense policies. It all hinges on what you think is necessary for the protection of life, liberty, or property.