I've heard about two books about the conservativism in the US, Conservatives without Conscience by John Dean and The Conservative Soul by Andrew Sullivan. John Dean's book is very much about the Republican Party and Sullivan's book is more about conservatism as a socio-political movement.
As I've been lead to believe, the book by John Dean says that the Republican party has sold its soul to the Religious Right and abandonded the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft. He uses as examples ERA and pro-choice members of the Republican party, and regardless what temporary politcal victories this sellout of the Republicans to the Right Wing Christians might have gained them, that overall it's unhealthy for the party to be so entangled with the religious movement. Dean also identifies a trend of authoritarianism in the Republican party that he contends is against the history of American politics and the Republican party. FYI, the title of Mr. Dean's book is an homage to Barry Goldwater's book Conscience of a Conservative; BTW, Ronald Reagan identified that book as one of the influences that induced him become a Republican.
Andrew Sullivan, native of England, former editor of the The New Republic, former member of Margaret Thatcher's think tank, and in his book says that one of the essential elements of being a political conservative is to possess a doubtful attittude about ones actions in the social and political arena. He goes on to say that certitude is anti-conservative. Additionally, he says that human life cannot be arranged by a book of instructions; regardless if that book would be The Communist Manifesto, The Affluent Society, The Bible, or The Koran.
Now, I suppose it would be convenient to dismiss both these books by saying Dean and Sullivan are really closeted liberals (being closeted is a funny irony in Andrew Sullivan's circumstance). But is that sort of casual analysis really accurate. taraswizard Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV Chicago area W/T forever, always Buffy fans Chicago my livej<i></i>
|