God's Politics

God's Politics


Ryan Rodrick Beiler: Conventional Wisdom Catches up with the Prophetic

posted by gp_intern

Katie Barge at Faith in Public Life has a great compilation of Falwell legacy coverage that demonstrates that the major media seems to be finally “getting it” that evangelicals really are far more diverse and broad in their political interests than previously assumed.

It was not so long ago that I regularly spent a portion of my morning sending reporters compilations of news articles demonstrating evangelical activism agenda around issues such as climate change, global AIDS, Darfur, and immigration, to make the case that evangelicals are not in fact monolithic. Alan Cooperman’s Washington Post story, “Evangelicals Broaden Their Moral Agenda” (October 16, 2006), signaled a shift, but it was a seen a break with conventional wisdom.

The coverage of evangelicalism following Rev. Jerry Falwell’s passing has convinced me that my morning routine is no longer necessary. The old conventional wisdom about evangelicals – that they care only about abortion and same-sex marriage – is out. And the new conventional wisdom – that evangelicals are not monolithic and care about a broad range of compassion issues – is in.

She then follows with links from the AP, The New York Times, NPR, Time, The Washington Post, and CNN all supporting this new conventional wisdom. And I’ll add one more from yesterday’s Washington Post:

[A] sometimes bitter debate is pitting evangelicals who want to keep their political activity tightly focused on a few issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, against those who want to embrace a broader agenda, including climate change and global poverty.

Of course, we’ve been proclaiming for a while now that the monologue of the Religious Right is over – but it’s gratifying to see that now even the mainstream media are reaching a consensus that this shift has taken place. Of course, evangelicals are still far from consensus on which moral values issues matter most, but the breadth and depth of the new conversation is encouraging. It’s nice when the conventional wisdom finally catches up with a prophetic word.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(54)
post a comment
Eric

posted May 23, 2007 at 5:10 pm


The thing I always found funny about how the media presented Christians is not even that they would completely ignore Christians who emphasize things other than gay marriage or abortion, but that they would assume people like Falwell and Pat Robertson are the leaders of those who would call themselves conservative Christians. I consider myself a conservative Christian (mainly meaning I consider my politics right of center and oppose abortion rights and gay marriage) and have many like-thinking friends. None of us looks to Falwell or Robertson for leadership, political or religious. I always either laughed or got frustrated that whenever the media wanted a Christian voice they turned to these two because the media knew they could be relied on to say something controversial. I’d guess this is similar to what black people feel when the media turns to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson for the “black” view on things. I imagine 90% of black America collectively rolling its eyes. I just realized this, but since Falwell’s death last week he hasn’t even come up in conversation among my Christian friends and I or even between my wife and I. Not even I mention of “hey, Falwell died.” He was not factor in our lives in any way.



report abuse
 

Steven Riggs

posted May 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm


I don’t think the “broadening” call has reached the mainstream megachurches because the members I know that go there still want it all boiled down quickly to abortion and gay marriage. Even though in many states gay marriage is banned and it is no longer an issue.Big media is using pictures of Jerry Falwell and Pres. Reagan together in the early 1980′s describing their agreement and plan to stop abortion. How do the Republicans lead these voters along for so many years, even after they were in charge of everything, but do nothing about making abortion illegal, and never get any criticism about broken promises?



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 23, 2007 at 5:51 pm


I looked up the word conservative in the dictionary and this is the actual meaning that I found: unimaginatively conventional. You put Christian before conservative and you ve got Christian-conservative and that s a pretty bold description for one to carry, let alone a large group.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted May 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm


Unfortunately the monologue of the Religious Constantinians, left and right, is far from over, so long as Sojo insists on state-sponsored solutions to issues the church has received a peculiar mandate to address.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 23, 2007 at 6:39 pm


Perhaps now Sojourners can recognize the conservative Christians care about more than two issues, and that there are multiple opinions about how to contend with the problem of poverty.”I don’t think the “broadening” call has reached the mainstream megachurches because the members I know that go there still want it all boiled down quickly to abortion and gay marriage” Really? So you are saying they don’t have opinions about taxes? Do the parents have opinions about public education? What about property rights as it relates to religious institutions? What about the divorce rate? Your telling me that all the members you know who go to your church want “it all” to just abortion and gay marriage? What church do you go to? “How do the Republicans lead these voters along for so many years, even after they were in charge of everything, but do nothing about making abortion illegal, and never get any criticism about broken promises?” I hear this argument a lot, and I think it is disingenuous on two levels. First, it ignores the fact that the fight to ban abortion resides in the judicial sphere. Abortion can’t be made illegal anywhere until the Supreme Court reverses it’s preposterous rulings on abortion. On that count, the court is closer than ever to forming a consensus that Roe v. Wade (and Casey, et al…) was wrongly decided, thanks to the president’s judicial nominees. In the interim, parental notification requirements and partial-birth abortion bans have been enacted. Second, Democratic opposition has been the reason why the effort to ban abortion has been halted. I am unmoved by the argument that says, essentially, that because the other party A will oppose you on issue X, you might as well disregard issue X, and support party A.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm


“I looked up the word conservative in the dictionary and this is the actual meaning that I found: unimaginatively conventional.Did you find this definition in the “OH, SNAP! Dictionary”? This is not a standard definition, mush less THE definition, so your commentary is a bit tedious, here.Conservatism (broadly defined) in the poltiical sense simply means a general preference for what had been traditionally accepted. As such, I suppose you could say that the ideology is somewhat unimaginative by default. That said, there is nothing inherently better about being progressive or conservative. It depends on context. In some countries, the political left wants to move to military rule, while the right agitates for democracy. It depends on the country’s past and present.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm


That definition was pulled f/ here: Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 http://dict.die.net/conservative/, kevin, and your retort is duplicitous. Anyways, to your comment, juris, which I tend to agree with, I think we should be looking for leaders who speak with a moral conviction and can avoid dressing things up by relying on biblical references. Most people have within them a little bit of philosopher and a little bit of theologian. These American influences are intertwined in our national identity.



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:38 pm


As a scholar of history, I’ve spent many years studying conservatism.Unimaginatively conventional might do if one is “conservative” in dress or food and music preference. It is sorely lacking when discussing politics.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:52 pm


Five Crucial Books for Understanding the American Right:The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays by Richard HofstadterBefore the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick PerlsteinRight Wing Populism in America by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. LyonsAmerica Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism by Anatol LievenRoads to Dominion: Right Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States by Sara Diamond Conservatism is better off relegated to the subjective preferences of dress, food and music.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:54 pm


A true conservative, in the oldest and best sense of the word, conserves the best of the world. A true conservative uses discernment and prudence to defend the good of the past, never simply defending something because it’s old, but recognizing that giants have gone before us, and we would be foolish to discard them on a whim. Contrary to pop understanding, the conservative does not oppose change, but advocates a cautious change, so that the baby does not end up in the trash along with the bathwater… and so that we can wisely avoid evil innovation. To repeat, the true conservative does not blindly accept the old, but seeks to preserve the best of a culture, the best of the world.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:57 pm


Thanks Eric , You articulated that quite well . I never considered Robertson or Falwell leaders politically , I always liked the idea that their ministries did help help to fee and clothe the poor , But their political rhetoric often was used to scare people and put Christians in a box by political opponents and strong “religious” secularists . . Especially in Academia , they really have a fear and low opinion of Evangelicals . Most likely from censorship , sex education issues and liberal propaganda in their circles . Also it is obvious to me that this generation has a new basic understanding of truth , most all of us at one time accepted more universal beliefs of right and wrong , the new culture really believes it is not only “to yourself be true” , but you get to decide what that truth is .



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:59 pm


I’ll propose a separate list for understanding conservatism, Tom: “The Roots of American Order” and “Prospects for Conservatives” by Russell Kirk “De Officium” by Cicero “Ballad of the White Horse” by GK Chesterton “The Wasteland” “The Four Quartets” and “Murder in the Cathedral” by TS Eliot “Crime and Punishment” by Dostoevsky “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism” by Eric Voegelin



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 23, 2007 at 8:13 pm


That’s quite a compendium there, Mark, but we have to look through a contemporary lens to understand what this philosophy means today and so that’s why I’ve listed these works which focus on the right after World War II. p.s. sorry if i’ve been “blog-hogging.”



report abuse
 

God's Politics Moderator

posted May 23, 2007 at 8:33 pm


“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (Ephesians 4:29) This message thread has been visited by a God’s Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes: Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person’s ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members. You agree not to engage in derogatory name-calling, including calling anyone evil, a liar, Satanic, demonic, antichrist, a Nazi, or other inflammatory comparisons. Disruptive behavior: You agree not to disrupt or interfere with discussions, forums, or other community functions. Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts or discussions to disrupt conversation; creating off-topic posts; making statements that are deliberately inflammatory; expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another; or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes. Vulgarity: You agree not to display words, information, or images that are vulgar, obscene, graphically violent, graphically sexual, harm minors in any way, exploit images of children, or are otherwise objectionable. Copying Content: Beliefnet discussions are intended for interactive conversation; members are encouraged to express their own ideas in their own words, not to parrot the words of others. You agree not to create posts that consist substantially of material copied from another source. Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com There were no innapropriate messages on this thread.



report abuse
 

letjusticerolldown

posted May 23, 2007 at 8:36 pm


It saddens me how much energy it has taken to turn the media/political story of religious right=evangelical=fundamentalist=conservative=dominionist a few degrees. It is just such a big non-story. And at times I have been sad a segment of folks has tried to increase the power of their voice by saying, “We represent a big shift in Evangelical sentiments”–in other words, “We represent the shift in the media’s story and hence should be listened to.” Will we ever learn that those who wish to jump on the surfboard riding any particular media/political wave to influence will have a wonderful, ecstatic ride, for a minute; until the wave becomes weary and crashes the person into the surf; to make the way for the next shift in the story? I have supported Barry Goldwater (in my 2nd Grade show of hands) Richard Nixon Jessie Jackson Ronald Reagen Bill Clinton Lenora Fulani John Anderson Al Gore George Bush Paul Wellstone and Stay at Home I have been a registered Democrat, Republican and Independent. I have abstained from involvement. And done it all as an Evangelical with rationales that have nothing to do with caring about abortion one year and then “broadening my perspective the next year” and without considering the perspetives of Jim Wallis, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, my pastor, my mother (except for the Goldwater ‘vote’), or Jim Dobson. The world is full of such interesting possibility and vision for politicians and the media to discuss and facilitate public life around. For the life of me I do not unnderstand why fulfilling our responsibility to steward the planet, nation, and government is not a big enough or dynamic enough matter to take their attention. They so often seem so much more engaged in myths, propoganda, strawmen, boogeymen, promoting sterotypes so five years later they can correct their lie, hyping heroes so they can be knocked off their pedastal, demonizing others so they can lecture us not to demonize, etc. etc. We are constantly told how divided and polarized we are, when in reality almost everybody falls into the mainstream of legitimate political dialogue. Civil rights is not some fringe concern. All but the most extreme positions on abortion arise out of widely held, legitimate, frameworks. We will knock each other out over whether funding for HUD should increase by 1% or 4%. The divisions are far too much driven by the perceptions of politicians and media that they have something to gain by climbing on a white horse to slay a demon or by getting us to hollar and hit each other. We have Jerry Springer running the political processes and media storytelling of this nation. Our attention should not be arguing over whether to leave Iraq after we are done or after we are mostly done. It should be on kicking Jerry Springer out of Washington DC and the New York TV studios and exercising responsible stewardship.I have a life. You have a life. I like public engagement; but at the moment I need to get lunch for my girls; while on CSPAN Senators are speaking, spinning all kinds of twisted tales–AND acting like I am supposed to care. Please, let me get lunch. I’ll do my job. You do yours.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 23, 2007 at 8:54 pm


Tom, If one wanted to understand the beliefs of a certain group of people wouldn’t it be more fruitful to actually read the first hand writings of members of that particular group? You know, get the information straight from the horse’s mouth rather than have it filtered by someone else?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 23, 2007 at 9:07 pm


Unfortunately the monologue of the Religious Constantinians, left and right, is far from over, so long as Sojo insists on state-sponsored solutions to issues the church has received a peculiar mandate to address. Such as … ? Because, you see, the church can not ensure justice in the political sphere; that’s the state’s job. At best the church can minister to those hurt by injustice and petition the politicians and courts to do what’s right according to Biblical principles — in fact, that’s where its true authority lies. If one wanted to understand the beliefs of a certain group of people wouldn’t it be more fruitful to actually read the first hand writings of members of that particular group? You know, get the information straight from the horse’s mouth rather than have it filtered by someone else? Not necessarily, because those people may be either duplicitous in their dealings with others or dishonest with themselves, saying one thing and doing another. When the conservative movement made its first major splash in 1980 it made a lot of noise about “big government” but also wanted government to protect its own interests. That’s why libertarians have become tired of conservatives, especially since the Iraq war started.



report abuse
 

letjusticerolldown

posted May 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm


Is God fundamentally liberal or conseravtive–or something else??



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 23, 2007 at 10:02 pm


Is God fundamentally liberal or conseravtive–or something else?? He’s FAR bigger than all that.



report abuse
 

ancient clown

posted May 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm


Speaking of Wisdom and the Prophetic, I invite you to visit and explore ‘Ancient’s History’. This message is for the fools and wise alike, as it shall not be for me to decide which is which, but to let their actions show for themselves as to which they are…for only the wise will LISTEN. your humble servant, ancient clown



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm


Tom and Mark, both your lists are excellent. Each is appropriate for different purposes. Tom, to your list I’d add Godfrey Hodgson, The World Turned Right Side Up. Mark, to your list I’d add Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset and Edmund Burke’s classic study of the French Revolution.



report abuse
 

Aaron Munro

posted May 23, 2007 at 10:32 pm


This is encouraging. Hopefully, broader media coverage will help to expell cynicism and instill hope. Peace!



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 23, 2007 at 10:50 pm


Agreed Rick, but if one were to suggest a reading list about a particular group, would it be a good idea to only include others’ commentary on that particular group and exclude first-hand writings? That’s the point I was making to Tom.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:02 pm


“That definition was pulled f/ here: Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 http://dict.die.net/conservative/, kevin, and your retort is duplicitous. ” Not in the slightest. You said this is the definition of a conservative, when it is, in fact, one of many definitions of the ADJECTIVE form of the word. I just think the whole concept of saying “conservatives always do such and such” and making declarative statements based on that is completely useless. If I say something like liberals advocate sinful policies, or that they are bedwetters, or whatever, it doesn’t really contribute anything to the conversation.And yes, Mark P’s definition is correct (or more correct). My point was to illustrate that it doesn’t make sense to decry conservatism at large.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:05 pm


Agreed Rick, but if one were to suggest a reading list about a particular group, would it be a good idea to only include others’ commentary on that particular group and exclude first-hand writings? That’s why in academia you have something called “peer review.” I mean, you surely do have to check things out for yourself, but you also have to have a keen, insightful eye to catch weaknesses in a particular argument. I can read three pages in a certain book and tell you whether it’s worth continuing — and why or why not. These days, especially on the right, you also need to check the publishers because many of them are heavily subsidized by activists for reasons I’ve already mentioned.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:27 pm


Copas, I definitely should have had Burke. I know nothing of Ortega y Gasset, but I do appreciate the suggestion :)



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:31 pm


Rick, I think you’d agree that peer review work is best as a follow-up to reading the original stuff, right? The list offered for the American right was pretty much “peer review” from the left… not a bad thing to read, at all, but not necessarily a good place to *start*. Then again, I’m not that interested in defending the American right so much as I am in defending good conservatism (which is often lacking in the American right anyway).



report abuse
 

letjusticerolldown

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:51 pm


Would anyone add the Bible to their list? If God is beyond conservatism or liberalism; can God be the starting point for a socio-political framework? Or can you start with God and get anywhere?



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted May 23, 2007 at 11:58 pm


Both Tom and Mark missed the definitive work on conservatism = Danny Orlis and the Mystery at Point Barrow – Moody Press, circa 1967



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 24, 2007 at 1:01 am


Hahahahaha, oh man…



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 24, 2007 at 2:11 am


The list offered for the American right was pretty much “peer review” from the left… not a bad thing to read, at all, but not necessarily a good place to *start*. Well, modern conservatism was always somewhat reactionary anyway, so that’s neither here nor there.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 24, 2007 at 2:25 am


Excellent point, Rick. Anticommunist policies under a Populist Nationalism, actually. That’s the “starting” point.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted May 24, 2007 at 3:42 am


Rick: “Such as?” Welfare primarily, marriage, too. These issues are the territory of the church and the church alone. To seek state approval of marriage in any form is to appeal for a privilege or favor, whether in terms of tax breaks, insurance premiums, or whatever. The state may recognize and enforce contracts, but the details of those contracts are irrelevant to anyone but the church. The church ought to discipline and reward marriage. The church also ought to take full responsibility for any and all care for the least of these. It is the gospel. To appeal to the state to dispense welfare is to replace charity with compulsion and to strip it of all virtue.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 24, 2007 at 4:15 am


The church also ought to take full responsibility for any and all care for the least of these. It is the gospel. To appeal to the state to dispense welfare is to replace charity with compulsion and to strip it of all virtue. I basically agree — but what if there were outside forces that were keeping people poor? That’s not a hypothetical; this has actually happened in our nation’s history. If that simply fell under “welfare,” for example, then the civil-rights movement was Biblically illegitimate. (And in fact, some conservatives still do feel that way.)



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted May 24, 2007 at 4:45 am


If there is any form of favoritism, or discrimination that goes beyond an individual’s merits on the part of the state, it is within the Christian’s role to seek justice for that individual, primarily by befriending them, and secondly by standing by them and appealing to the natural law which applies to all whom are under common grace. We are agreed.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 24, 2007 at 1:44 pm


If there is any form of favoritism, or discrimination that goes beyond an individual’s merits on the part of the state, it is within the Christian’s role to seek justice for that individual, primarily by befriending them, and secondly by standing by them and appealing to the natural law which applies to all whom are under common grace. That dodges the question — what about, say, racism that is translated into custom and written into law?



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm


Mark P – I agree with your comments concering “the right” vs. conservatism. There is a big difference. Reading Ann Coulter is not the same thing as reading Russell Kirk. I think Rick and Tom are misunderstanding the point we’re trying to make to them. I’ve given up on trying to convince them that solely reading critiques from the left of conservatism isn’t always the best way to understand what conservatives think.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 24, 2007 at 4:52 pm


I think Rick and Tom are misunderstanding the point we’re trying to make to them. I’ve given up on trying to convince them that solely reading critiques from the left of conservatism isn’t always the best way to understand what conservatives think. That’s not always the issue. As I have always understood things, what we now call “conservatism” is more of an intellectual theory than anything else, which is fair to say. That said, however, it has to be applied to real-world situations, which is where we who are not conservatives see its failings; as a former scientist, I recognize that not all proposed theories are valid. For the record, I don’t consider myself a “liberal,” just a critic of conservatism.



report abuse
 

K.Bitner

posted May 24, 2007 at 8:30 pm


For those wondering why Christians are perceived as having only two issues, go take a peek at the Debate boards, right here on B’net. The Homosexuality and Abortion Debate boards are the only ones getting hourly posts these days. If you look on the Abortion list, @the first 10 threads have been posted to in the last two hours. I’m not saying that people don’t have opinions on other issues, but these seem to be the only ones they consider getting all ‘het up’ over.



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted May 24, 2007 at 9:40 pm


As we reflect on the legacy of Jerry Falwell, one lesson we might learn is the danger of religious leaders getting caught up in the political game. They tend to wind up compromising – or opposing – the gospel of Jesus Christ. To whom might that apply today? A name that comes readily to mind is Jim Wallis. Wallis has attached himself to a different part of the political power structure, but it really doesn’t make all that much difference. In attaching himself to establishment Democrats, seeming to seek to become their house preacher, just like Falwell he winds up providing support for values directly in contradiction to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now he is going to host a Presidential candidates forum, with a carefully limited group of acceptable candidates. These candidates have in common: – they all support a larger military, – they all support abortion under any and all circumstances, – they all support the death penalty, and – they all attract monied interests to back them. In other words, they all are clearly in opposition to Christian values. Wallis is profaning the name of Jesus Christ, like Falwell before him, by anointing these as the political leaders that Christians should consider. We don’t need more Falwells and Wallis’s. We need more prophetic Christians who will speak out against the evil done in our name by the politicians these false Christian leaders associate with.



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 24, 2007 at 10:21 pm


Mark P, you are welcome. If you think of other titles appropriate for your list, please post them. Would be interesting, also, for someone on this blog to compile a corresponding list for liberalism.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 24, 2007 at 10:48 pm


To whom might that apply today? A name that comes readily to mind is Jim Wallis. Wallis has attached himself to a different part of the political power structure, but it really doesn’t make all that much difference. In attaching himself to establishment Democrats, seeming to seek to become their house preacher, just like Falwell he winds up providing support for values directly in contradiction to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I couldn’t disagree more, for the following reasons: 1) In the book “God’s Politics,” Wallis is also hard on the Democrats/liberals for not even taking faith seriously (the rest of the title is “Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It”). Conservatives consistently leave that part out when critiquing the book. 2) Falwell was compromised from the get-go, as he was encouraged to form Moral Majority by Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, neither of who to my knowledge are active Christians, to raise money for a nascent conservative trans-religious ideological force. On the other hand, Wallis has been doing what he’s been doing since the early 1970s, long before any of us had heard of either of them, and when the spotlight leaves him (as it eventually will) he will continue to do it. The war in Iraq was just the thing that propelled him into notoriety — truth be told, the “power structure” came to him, not vice versa. How many appeals for funds has Wallis made? I’m not aware of any.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 25, 2007 at 4:10 pm


Carl – You wrote, “Would be interesting, also, for someone on this blog to compile a corresponding list for liberalism.” I think it would be interesting as well. I’ve asked this question before. If you had to pick one or two books that best explained Liberal political theory to me, what would it be?



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm


Carl – that last question wasn’t directed at you. It was more to the group as a whole. Can anyone answer it?



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 25, 2007 at 6:02 pm


Eric, here are some classic works on liberalism. I teach U.S. history, so this is skewed toward older books. There may be more recent indispensable works on liberalism that I’m simply not aware of. Hopefully, others on the list will chip in. Walter Lippmann, Drift and Mastery Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Vital Center John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism; The Affluent Society John Maynard Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty” Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies John Rawls, Political Liberalism



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted May 25, 2007 at 9:43 pm


Now, we must have balance, and I appreciate the list above, several of which I own, but have not gotten to yet, but here are some tomes on Classical Liberalism: ^The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand *The Law, Frederic Bastiat *Economics In One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard* Simple Rules For a Complex World, Richard Epstein Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, Richard Maybury (from whom I get the jurisnaturalist handle) ^ – Condensed Version available free online * Full Version available free online e-mail for links! ndsnow@ncsu.edu



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 25, 2007 at 9:50 pm


Oh boy, here we go w/ the libertarianism.



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 25, 2007 at 11:05 pm


LOL juris. I was waiting for you to weigh in with classical liberalism/libertarianism. Surprised you left out von Mises. Murray Rothbard wrote astonishingly perceptive stuff about the American empire during the cold war. I don’t know how anyone can suffer through Ayn Rand. I’ve tried, lord knows I’ve tried. Not even cannabis (this was back in my dissolute youth)helped.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted May 26, 2007 at 5:14 am


Carl, you forgot: Lou Rawls, Lately Love



report abuse
 

Paul

posted May 26, 2007 at 7:33 am


Carl Copas, You might want to include David Solway’s “The Big Lie” in your reading list. cheers, Paul



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted May 26, 2007 at 4:25 pm


I didn’t include Mises b/c he’s on my shelf, but not in my head. There are several books I know to be worthwhile, but I haven’t read yet, and I only included books I’ve read on my list. Ayn Rand inclines my head. She helps me to see farther into the future. I’m almost done with Atlas Shrugged! To balance my own list: Resident Aliens, Stanley Hauerwas Speaking My Mind, Tony Campolo Life Together & Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer Heretics & Father Brown, Chesterton (the single most neglected British Author)



report abuse
 

Tom

posted May 26, 2007 at 5:01 pm


Keep them coming, we’ll get to the bottom of this yet. Just remember, they all have to be read and understood in a semester, so you best get cracking (so much for the prophetic).



report abuse
 

Paul

posted May 29, 2007 at 11:51 am

Tom

posted May 29, 2007 at 5:13 pm


unimaginatively conventional = conservativeSource: WordNet (r) 1.7 http://dict.die.net/conservative/ Yet another feeble attempt to enliven the past.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.