Arrived in my pile

by on February 26, 2016 at 10:59 am in Books | Permalink

Timothy P. Hubbard and Harry J. Paarsch, Auctions, from The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series.

Yuval Levin, The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s Social Contract in the Age of Individualism.

Based on a short pawing of both volumes, I saw only virtues and no flaws.

1 anon February 26, 2016 at 11:14 am
2 anon February 26, 2016 at 11:24 am

Very East Coast.

3 rayward February 26, 2016 at 11:27 am

“As the editor of a dense journal called National Affairs (circulation: 10,000), Levin has acquired a reputation as the conservative movement’s great intellectual hope. More precisely, he’s known as an expert rhetorician, with a knack for taking Republican positions that poll poorly and repackaging them. . . . Levin, however, doesn’t propose challenging GOP orthodoxy; he simply tries to make it sound less radical.” Great taste, less filling!

4 Wazzut? February 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm

What a worthless comment!

5 Thor February 26, 2016 at 4:41 pm

What does that even mean, let alone refer to?

Can we have the (reasonably) lucid and circumspect Nathan back, please?

6 nigel February 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

+1 to Wazzut and Thor, and recall from prior MR links that “kill of those inferior scum” is a traditionally progressive position. That was a little bit of an undeserved invective.

https://newrepublic.com/article/128144/dark-history-liberal-reform

7 chuck martel February 26, 2016 at 11:35 am

From the Amazon review:

“21st century America is anxious and discontented. Our economy is sluggish, our culture is always at war with itself, our governing institutions are frequently paralyzed, and our politics seems incapable of rising to these challenges. The resulting frustration runs broad and deep: It fans populist anger while driving elites to despair. It persuades progressives that America is stuck while convincing conservatives that we are rushing in the wrong direction. It manages to make people on all sides of most issues feel as though they are under siege simultaneously.”

So, what’s the problem? That’s how it’s supposed to be, isn’t it? Of course, culture is at war with itself, if they mean that there’s resistance to change. Governing institutions should be paralyzed, if they can’t be eliminated altogether. Frustration is a normal part of the human condition. If the elites can’t be reduced in status at least they can be made miserable, like the proles they try to dominate. Just another writer trying to cash in on the obvious.

8 anon February 26, 2016 at 11:42 am

I bet your bedroom is a mess. Too much risk in cleaning up. It could be even worse.

9 Brian Donohue February 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

“It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times.”

Solid analysis.

10 carlolspln February 26, 2016 at 9:13 pm

The quality & integrity of your institutions is what separates you [decreasingly] from Uzbekistan.

http://www.amazon.com.au/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B0058Z4NR8

11 Nathan W February 26, 2016 at 12:05 pm

(off topic)

Say, two years ago, basically no one used the word “progressive”. Now there is all sorts of complaining about these progressives in addition to people self identifying as progressives.

Now, I know that in Canada the right wing party used to call themselves as the “Progressive Conservatives”, presumably to infer that they weren’t “too” right wing.

Anyone here know where recent usage came from? I first became aware of the recent usage in its regular and highly condescending usage in right wing outlets.

12 Harun February 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

When liberal became a bad word, the liberals decided they wanted to now be called progressives.

The term is a bit of a throwback to the turn of the century, when it meant “modernizing” or “professionalizing” with a tinge of science to it.

13 JK Brown February 27, 2016 at 11:39 am

That “tinge of science” was well colored with eugenics.

Interestingly, most of what the Progressive of today is arguing to repeal was enacted by the Progressives of the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. Legal restrictions on women working, making homosexuality illegal, abortion bans, segregation laws, laws against miscegenation, all were part of the Progressive movement. Yes, many of these were socially hazardous in prior times, but the Progressives made them criminal. They did also revive the medieval Statutes of Labor only this time setting minimum wages to shutdown the prospect of the “undesirables” from prospering or to support union labor to the detriment of the old and slow.

14 Ricardo February 26, 2016 at 9:32 pm

I believe Harun is right that it started as a term of self-identification after “liberal” became a bad word and has been used in its modern sense for far more than two years. For instance, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was formed in 1991 (co-founded by Bernie Sanders). Conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly started using it with a condescending tone maybe ten years ago.

15 JK Brown February 27, 2016 at 11:41 am

Well, the “Liberals” haven’t really been liberal since around 1840 when the intelligentsia turned against the classical liberalism of the 18th century and under which the USA was founded.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: