A Good Vision Poorly Argued Rating:2 out of 5 stars Andrew Sullivan is a conservative after my own heart. Having written his doctoral dissertation on the famed British conservative Michael Oakeshott, this book is an attempt to articulate a vision of Oakeshottian conservatism. That said, this book fails at the task.
What Sullivan wanted to say, as I understand him, was this: his vision of conservatism – the ‘conservatism of doubt’ – has it that government should intrude and plan as little as necessary to preserve order. This is because conservatives, as distinct from liberals, see human knowledge as constrained and, thus, human attempts at large-scale planning to be frought with pomposity and difficulty. Conservatism should be about letting individuals control their own lives as much as possible becuase they will know better how to do so than politicians. Unfortunately, as Sullivan sees it, conservatism has gotten away from such principles and become a ‘conservatism of faith,’ that holds values to be absolute and knowable and, thus, the politician’s job as legislating the good.
The problem, as I’ve already said, is that Sullivan doesn’t really make that case very cogently or well. He is abstruse, repetitive, and not very organized in his case. As such, this book comes off as unclear and unimpressive.
Take the chapter on the Bush administration’s alleged adherence to the “conservatism of faith” (The Bush Crucible). Here, Sullivan attempts to tie the Bush administration to a plethora of “theoconservative” beliefs. While his take is hard to disagree with, Sullivan’s argument is weak precisely because he hardly quotes or cites many of the Bush administration’s players. He quotes congressman Rick Santorum at length, and several editors/talking heads for cosnervative politics quite a bit. But to make a case that the Bush administration is agressively pushing theoconservative policies, he needs to make direct connections with the Bush administration. (I am embarassed to say that I’ve read many liberal writers like Cris Hedges make this case way more convincingly and directly than Sullivan).
Another huge mistake Sullivan makes – a mistake that, if avoided, would have negated most of this book’s negative reviews – is his omission of a chapter tying his conservative vision with that of other prominent past conservatives. Had he made more of his similarities with such conservative legendaries as Burke, Oakeshott, Reagan, and Thatcher, people would be much more hesistant to grumble that Sullivan is simply not a conservative. While Sullivan alludes a few times to his having been a young Reaganite and Thatcherite but might have been wise to devote a chapter to explaining how his vision of conservatism – small government, fiscal responsibility, skepticism of government planning – was once the dominant strand of conservatism. That way, it would be hard indeed for critics to dismiss Sullivan as simply “not a conservative.”
All in all, I wanted to give more stars to this book. I admire Sullivan and share many of his conservative sympathies (and antipathies to what currently passes as conservatism). But in the end, this book was too abstruse, disorganized, and poorly argued for me.
Andrew Sullivan is a liberal Rating:2 out of 5 stars To quote from Andrew Sullivan’s blog “I belong in that archaic camp that believes it is the job of a liberal president to expand such coverage and the job of a conservative opposition to propose ways to afford it.” There is at least one principle that conservatives and libertarians agree on, and that is governments taking money from people who earned it and giving it to those that didn’t earn it is a cancer on civilization. Andrew’s thinking is, in fact, very modern. Andrew is fond of quoting Orwell “The point of torture, is torture.” That’s a fine quote and it has inspired an analagous quote from myself, “The point of stealing people’s money, is stealing people’s money.”
It’s all well and good to write about how George W Bush is not a conservative (he was a populist) and how Darth Cheney is evil. But Andrew is disingenuous in pretending to argue these positions from a conservative perspective. Andrew Sullivan has no understanding or empathy for the conservative mindset. From Andrew’s point of view, when someone opposes bailouts, it is not a rational, principled position but pandering to the Republican base, which is the symbol of all that is evil and irrational.
If you want criticism of the Bush administration from a conservative perspective, try The American Conservative, a magazine which accused the Bush administration of rewarding defense contracts to people who lied about the state of the Iraq War on Fox News.
If you want a book with genuine insight into the conservative point of view on economics, try “Atlas, Shrugged” or even Ron Paul’s new book “End the Fed.”
Andrew Sullivan Is Not Conservative Rating:1 out of 5 stars After 911, I was addicted to Andrew Sullivan.com He was, like me, a former liberal waking up to the reality of terrorism and how the Democratic party was a joke at defending America. As the anti-war, unpatriotic left began to slowly reappear, Sullivan slowly switched back with them. For him to even pretend to be remotely conservative is a joke. His main concern is to be accepted on the Sunday morning talk shows (watch him on Chris Matthews and see if there are any conservative thoughts in his body) and to be popular in the gay crowd. Don’t waste your money.
Insightful analysis about American Conservatism gone awry Rating:5 out of 5 stars On a business trip last week, I finally had the chance to finish The Conservative Soul. It’s Andrew Sullivan’s political analysis of the last couple of decades, on where he thinks the “right wing” has gone off the rails, and what he thinks true conservatism ought to be. Even though it’s a couple years old now, his analysis is still very relevant and astute (in some ways even more so, as we watch the crack up of the right in the wake of their 2008 losses). Though he touches on many particular hot-button issues by way of example, his focus is more on philosophical underpinnings and the motivations for broad political trends and alignments. Starting from an assessment of the particular vacuums after the collapse of the “old left” that enabled the rise of the “new right”, he diagnoses the “fundamentalist psyche” (a need for absolute truth arbitrated by central authorities and authoritative texts), the “theoconservative project” (to “recapture” the public square from the “false neutrality” of secular liberalism), and its ascendancy in the “Bush crucible”. He then sets out to propose an alternative “conservatism of doubt” and a “politics of freedom”. While some details of his account are anchored in the specifics of American politics in a particular time, some of his philosophical work, particularly in the chapter about natural law and in his latter positive chapters, are quite profound and less tied to this moment in history. His dissection of natural law (as it is wielded today) versus the implications of Darwin and “nature” is keenly argued and very insightful. His presentation of his preferred understanding of conservatism, as articulated in Montaigne and Oakshott, leading to his political philosophy manifesto, extrapolating from Hobbes, is compelling. (Makes me want to work through his bibliography of those classic philosophers.) In his classic style, Sullivan writes eloquently, deftly weaving deep philosophical argument with crackling contemporary examples and personal experiences and insights. Full of thought-provoking ideas from his distinctive perspective, lucidly expressed, this book was a pleasure to read.
Well done – especially near the end Rating:4 out of 5 stars Sullivan makes a nice argument for the small-c conservative cause. He spends the first half of the book trashing the existing Republican establishment and especially the religious right. It is well worth the read, especially if you are a moderate liberal and hoping to “understand” the conservative perspective.
A Book for Adolescents, Graduate Students, and Baby Boomers Alike… Rating:4 out of 5 stars As a young adult just beginning to soak in the various philosophies of politics, I would say that this is an excellent book to start with. After scanning through Bryan Burrough’s Washington Post review, I’d have to disagree with his statement that Sullivan’s book “is not only too polite, but too high-minded to galvanize anyone without a graduate degree in philosophy.” Compared to the hyperbolic ramblings of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, then yes, Burroughs is correct. This is a serious piece of work, but not necessarily a completely esoteric one–this book trumps Coulter and Moore, however, because it is much more accessible than the other two’s arguments.
Sullivan assertions are so much more pragmatic, as well–he can be accredited for his respect towards practically everyone in the political spectrum. Even his blatant attack on Robert George’s idea of “natural law,” which consumed most of the first half of Sullivan’s book, was notably well-rounded and treated with considerable respect towards the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States.
With that in perspective, everyone–Democrats, Republicans, Fundamentalists, Atheists, seniors and teenagers–should read this book. That is where I think Burrough’s argument is flawed; Sullivan’s belief is that every individual possesses some kind of itch to break out of the Elks club meetings, Dave Matthews Band concerts, and Coulter/Moore book clubs– to be skeptical of what every presents itself as a routine–is truly what conservatism stands for.
This book, though lacking “narrative grace” as Burrough rightfully said, can enlighten more than just the post-graduate crowd. Besides, there are a hell of a lot of kids out there today who read the political narratives of Solzhenitsyn and Hobbes; why can’t Sullivan be added to that list?
Conservativism as Attitude to Life Rating:4 out of 5 stars Andrew Sullivan is one of our premier public intellectuals and a delight to read. Both facts are confirmed by this book. While at first glance you would think he will be making talking points for a political perspective, Sullivan quickly disabuses the reader of such a formulaic approach. Conservatism, while often thought of as a series of political positions, is much more than that. In fact, argues Sullivan, it is an attitude towards life that rejects simplistic, emotional or rationalistic arguments for everything that ails the planet. In constrast to fundamentalism which seems to answer complex questions with ABC answers, the conservative attitude rejects formulas and seems prepared to embrace the questions. Not convinced of the rationalist argument for man’s knowing it all, conservatives are actually more comfortable with doubt.
There are critical differences also between conservatives and fundamentalists: one believes in human imperfection, the other in the need for perfection now and forever; one believes in human nature, the other in remaking human nature by an omnipotent God or State; one seeks to preseve the past, the other is about erasing it and starting over afresh (p.72). These differences should lead to parting of the ways, not in radical fundamentalists appropriating what it means to be a conservative.
Today’s “conservatives” are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce their vision of virtue (see Iran and Rick Santorum.) This in no way fits the tradition of conservatives who believe freedom is the only condition in which humanity can come to approach virtue. This is not a political book per se, it is deeply philosophical and must be read by more that the politically inclined.
Sullivan argues, for example, that using religion “as a regulatory scheme to keep human beings in line, or as a unifying principle to herd people to the ballot box, is a profound blasphemy.” For a person of faith such a denigration of faith-as-politics should be deeply distrubing, yet the radical fundamentalist finds no contradiction.
Sullivan is exceptionally well versed in the works of Hobbes, Montaigne, Leo Straus (who receives a reprieve from other interpreters) and the genius of Michael Oakeshott. His ease with these thinkers and his ability to relate and apply conservative principles to current events contributes a refreshingly candid and brilliant reappraisal of the soul of conservatism as an attitude towards life. Burke and Kirk would certainly appreciate this addition. Most of today’s conservatives, and liberals, could learn alot from this book too.
Sullivan Thinks Conservatism Should be Catholic! Rating:2 out of 5 stars Though I’m in general agreement that Bush has screwed up the conservative movement. But let’s face it, that isn’t what this book is really about.
It’s pretty clear that when Sullivan refers to the “the current [Christian] fundamentalist supremacy” what he really means is “Protestants.”
Sullivan is a Catholic who denounces “Religious Extremism” of the evangelical right as part of what’s wrong with conservatism. Trouble is, his critiques of what he calls “religious extremism” aren’t all that different than what Catholics believe about all protestants.
For example, one characteristic of his so-called ‘religious nuts’ in the party is their more “literal” interpretation of the bible. Guess which branch of Christianity has the least literal interpretation of the bible? If you guessed “Catholiism,” you’re correct!
Which branches of the Christian faith fit Andrew’s description of ‘fundamentalist?’ Well, pretty much every protestant denomination, at least according to his definition. It just so happens that the greater emphasis on scripture (rather than church custom, prescription, and ritual) is what DEFINES protestantism.
“Sola scriptura” was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today.
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the “Deposit of Faith”, based on what they consider to be “Sacred Tradition”, of which Scripture is a subset.
It’s hard to believe this is just pure coincidence: that what Sullivan (a Roman Catholic) defines as “religious extremism” just happens to be foundational principles of protestantism.
His mistake is a common one among Catholics: he never differentiates between “protestants” and “fundamentalists.” They aren’t the same thing, but Sullivan doesn’t give any examples of non-fundamentalist protestants.Nor does he cite a Catholic example of ‘religious extremism.’ Thus, what he never actually SAYS (but clearly believes) is that the conservative movement is too protestant.
While he goes on at some length about “religious extremists,” virtually none of the extremism he mentions seems to be rooted in Catholicism. They are ALL offshoots of the protestant faith.
Sullivan’s recantation Rating:3 out of 5 stars Andrew Sullivan explains at some length, and with some digression, how
he became disenchanted with what he calls the fundamentalist wing of the
current Republican party. His brand of conservatism is Burkean; he considers that the prevailing ideology of the current administration is
not conservative at all, but springs from a tradition of literal evangelism. Some chapters are better than others. The chapter
on sexuality seems labored and occupies more of the book than it should. On the whole, it is an honest and thoughtful book and would be useful reading for people who shared Sullivan’s early enthusiasms for the Rovian revolution.
Disappointed Rating:2 out of 5 stars Without question, Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite writers. Even when I do not agree with his analysis of a situation, be it political or philosophical, I find him to be interesting, thoughtful, and passionate. And when it comes to the Bush Administration and the handling of Iraq and other facets of the conflict with Islamic terrorists, I have to say that a good deal of his attitude (though not, I think, development of ideas) has mirrored my own over the course of the past several years. So I was very much looking forward to reading his most recent book, The Conservative Soul. I am also disheartened to say that I was tremendously disappointed. Although there are some interesting nuggets of good ideas buried in the book, I find that on the whole it was sloppy, muddled, disorganized and — I’m sorry to say — not very well written. Although I would highly recommend that everyone read Sullivan’s blog and essays, I would not recommend this book.
Honest & Direct Rating:5 out of 5 stars Great book! Andrew Sullivan spoke at my local library and he was loved by all. Had him sign this book for my collection.
Highly Recommended Rating:4 out of 5 stars This is one book that has had a huge influence on my political philosophy. Both the author and I grew up in conservative homes, grew up in Christian homes, and voted for G.W. Bush in 2000. Before I picked up the book, that’s where the similarities ended.
Sullivan is truly a fascinating man. A homosexual, British, Catholic who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Sullivan lives with HIV and I say that only to say that it doesn’t stop him from living life to the fullest, from speaking passionately about the America he still believes in, his adoptive country. That is where the differences begin. But as I read his book I felt his ideas resonate with me strongly.
The term conservatism has been taken over in the last 15 years or so and abused and Andrew Sullivan’s mission is to take it back. If you lament what conservatism used to be, and dream of what it truly can be, this is the book for you. His main theme is that our politics should be a politics of doubt, that is, a realization that individual humans don’t have all the answers for everyone else at any point in time. Thus the beauty of the freedom that has been written into our constitution here in America.
If you know of a conservative or a fundamentalist, who is thick-headed, blindly passionate about their views, not willing to consider error in their own perspective or listen to sound reason, this is the book that just might break them down. So do be careful.
Other Information: It is a quick read with large margins and double-spacing and it is a page-turner. It is the kind of book you will want to pass on to your friends and family.
A Conservative left behind Rating:5 out of 5 stars In the first chapter Andrew Sullivan works to earn his Conservative credentials by launching a measured attack on liberalism but most of the rest of the book is one long critique of the current evolution of American Conservativism. The bread and butter of the modern Conservative movement are gays, guns and abortions. Ironically this `Conservative’ author produces perhaps the best defense of pro-choice I have ever read as well as a wonderful defense of secularism. Combine that with the fact that the author is gay (and British) and you have a rather unique voice among Conservatives.
The point where Mr. Sullivan lost me was in his distinction between true Conservatives and radicalized Conservatives. He writes, `It [conservativism] never seeks to return to a golden age or a distant past’ Really? Returning to the past is generally one of, if not THE defining feature of Conservativism. The author might want to read `The Conservative Mind’ by Russell Kirk or `The Conservative Intellectual Movement’ by George H. Nash to see an endless parade of Conservative intellectuals pining for some bygone era. Later, the author states that, “…Conservativism’s great philosophical advantage over liberalism [is that] it can be more flexible.” William F. Buckley famously stated that Conservatives `stands athwart history, yelling Stop’. Conservatives have stood in the way of civil rights, woman’s suffrage and now gay rights. To a Conservative the American family is mom, dad and 2.2 children. Understanding of right and wrong can only be derived from Judeo-Christians teachings and moral relativity is the bane of an ethical society. Sounds about as flexible as a brick. One final jaw dropper is Mr. Sullivan’s claim that `Conservatives, after all, hate war.’ Somehow I think that the modern Conservative movement has completely left Andrew Sullivan behind. He considers neither religious fundamentalist nor libertarians to be true Conservatives when in fact they are the base.
Another argument that the author uses is that George W. Bush isn’t a true Conservative but this leads back to the question of what a true Conservative is. John Dean and Bruce Bartlett both used this same tactic. My opinion is that George W. Bush is the reductio ad absurdum of Conservativism. Bush is anti-intellectual, pro defense spending and singularly obsessed with lowering taxes. He also shares the paleo-conservatives love of religion as a panacea for society’s moral failings. No man could possibly meet all definitions of a Conservative because many are mutually exclusive. The problem with Bush is that he is a classic ideologue who surrounds himself with like minded ideologues. Even Reagan who was the prototypical Conservative was pragmatic enough to raise taxes when it needed to be done. Bush on the other hand would stick to his agenda until the world came crashing down in a smoldering heap. This doesn’t make him non-Conservative it just makes him inflexible.
Despite my criticisms this is a really terrific book and a pleasure to read. In an age where the spokespeople for Conservativism range from repugnant (Tom DeLay) to psychopathic (Ann Coulter) and all points in between (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly etc) it’s refreshing to see a Conservative with class, dignity and actual writing talent. I could see myself sitting down with Andrew Sullivan and having an enjoyable conversation, agreeing on some points and disagreeing on others. The only real demerit I give the book is that the most interesting writing is in the first half of the book and it loses steam in the second half. Still, I have no qualms about giving it a solid five stars. It would be wonderful to see Andrew Sullivan’s brand of Conservativism replace the current toxic blend.
A thoughtful critique of modern day (ie big government) Conservatism Rating:4 out of 5 stars Mr. Sullivan makes me nervous. He seems to jump around an awful lot (I suppose that’s the nature of being a blogger), and it would seem from his snippets that his theory isn’t very coherent and serves only his personal station in life. In this book, however, he comes up with a very honest and meaningful discussion of how modern day conservatism (myself included) has fallen short of the principles of personal liberty and how the ideal government should be essentially unnoticeable. We’ve abandoned classical liberalism/libertarianism for the all-things-to-all-people, personal-liberty-be-damned philosophy of big ‘L’ Liberals like Clinton/Kerry/Pelosi and (dare I say) Bush/McCain. A worthy read for any side of the aisle.
Anything Sullivan likes is conservatism Rating:1 out of 5 stars Liberals will enjoy Sullivan’s savaging in the first two thirds of this book of religious fundamentalism, of neo-conservatives, and of G. W. Bush. The final third, however, just isn’t worth reading for anyone. Somehow, despite spending many pages elucidating Hobbes in a patronizing manner, he still misses the point that Hobbes was making. When he finally gets around to explaining his view of “real” conservatism (which sounds rather like Clinton liberalism), he beats the drum for just one idea agreed upon by all conservatives – the sanctity of property rights. This makes it all the more tragic that he fails to understand Hobbes’ central point, that property rights are the result of government not the basis for it. Hobbes’ message is that without the cooperation of your society, “your” property is only that which you can physically defend.
Sullivan’s definition of conservatism is the defense of all the things that make Andrew Sullivan happy, such as gay marriage, worshipping Reagan and Thatcher, and most of all, having everybody defend his property rights while expecting nothing in return. Perhaps when he finally understands Hobbes he’ll recognize that he’s not really a conservative and that all those things he so thoroughly derides in this book are the essence of American conservatism.
This site is made up of "mini-blog" posts. You are welcome to comment on what you see here. To do so, simply click the icon to the left of the post and you will be taken to the comment page.
Latest Tweets
Remember, there are only 87 shopping days before Christmas! about 147 days ago
If Bill Clinton left a budget surplus, how come the national debt went up every year of his administration? Very interesting. about 211 days ago
Happy Mother's day to all the wonderful mothers out there. God bless you all. about 290 days ago
A Good Vision Poorly Argued
Rating:2 out of 5 stars
Andrew Sullivan is a conservative after my own heart. Having written his doctoral dissertation on the famed British conservative Michael Oakeshott, this book is an attempt to articulate a vision of Oakeshottian conservatism. That said, this book fails at the task.
What Sullivan wanted to say, as I understand him, was this: his vision of conservatism – the ‘conservatism of doubt’ – has it that government should intrude and plan as little as necessary to preserve order. This is because conservatives, as distinct from liberals, see human knowledge as constrained and, thus, human attempts at large-scale planning to be frought with pomposity and difficulty. Conservatism should be about letting individuals control their own lives as much as possible becuase they will know better how to do so than politicians. Unfortunately, as Sullivan sees it, conservatism has gotten away from such principles and become a ‘conservatism of faith,’ that holds values to be absolute and knowable and, thus, the politician’s job as legislating the good.
The problem, as I’ve already said, is that Sullivan doesn’t really make that case very cogently or well. He is abstruse, repetitive, and not very organized in his case. As such, this book comes off as unclear and unimpressive.
Take the chapter on the Bush administration’s alleged adherence to the “conservatism of faith” (The Bush Crucible). Here, Sullivan attempts to tie the Bush administration to a plethora of “theoconservative” beliefs. While his take is hard to disagree with, Sullivan’s argument is weak precisely because he hardly quotes or cites many of the Bush administration’s players. He quotes congressman Rick Santorum at length, and several editors/talking heads for cosnervative politics quite a bit. But to make a case that the Bush administration is agressively pushing theoconservative policies, he needs to make direct connections with the Bush administration. (I am embarassed to say that I’ve read many liberal writers like Cris Hedges make this case way more convincingly and directly than Sullivan).
Another huge mistake Sullivan makes – a mistake that, if avoided, would have negated most of this book’s negative reviews – is his omission of a chapter tying his conservative vision with that of other prominent past conservatives. Had he made more of his similarities with such conservative legendaries as Burke, Oakeshott, Reagan, and Thatcher, people would be much more hesistant to grumble that Sullivan is simply not a conservative. While Sullivan alludes a few times to his having been a young Reaganite and Thatcherite but might have been wise to devote a chapter to explaining how his vision of conservatism – small government, fiscal responsibility, skepticism of government planning – was once the dominant strand of conservatism. That way, it would be hard indeed for critics to dismiss Sullivan as simply “not a conservative.”
All in all, I wanted to give more stars to this book. I admire Sullivan and share many of his conservative sympathies (and antipathies to what currently passes as conservatism). But in the end, this book was too abstruse, disorganized, and poorly argued for me.
Andrew Sullivan is a liberal
Rating:2 out of 5 stars
To quote from Andrew Sullivan’s blog “I belong in that archaic camp that believes it is the job of a liberal president to expand such coverage and the job of a conservative opposition to propose ways to afford it.” There is at least one principle that conservatives and libertarians agree on, and that is governments taking money from people who earned it and giving it to those that didn’t earn it is a cancer on civilization. Andrew’s thinking is, in fact, very modern. Andrew is fond of quoting Orwell “The point of torture, is torture.” That’s a fine quote and it has inspired an analagous quote from myself, “The point of stealing people’s money, is stealing people’s money.”
It’s all well and good to write about how George W Bush is not a conservative (he was a populist) and how Darth Cheney is evil. But Andrew is disingenuous in pretending to argue these positions from a conservative perspective. Andrew Sullivan has no understanding or empathy for the conservative mindset. From Andrew’s point of view, when someone opposes bailouts, it is not a rational, principled position but pandering to the Republican base, which is the symbol of all that is evil and irrational.
If you want criticism of the Bush administration from a conservative perspective, try The American Conservative, a magazine which accused the Bush administration of rewarding defense contracts to people who lied about the state of the Iraq War on Fox News.
If you want a book with genuine insight into the conservative point of view on economics, try “Atlas, Shrugged” or even Ron Paul’s new book “End the Fed.”
Andrew Sullivan Is Not Conservative
Rating:1 out of 5 stars
After 911, I was addicted to Andrew Sullivan.com He was, like me, a former liberal waking up to the reality of terrorism and how the Democratic party was a joke at defending America. As the anti-war, unpatriotic left began to slowly reappear, Sullivan slowly switched back with them. For him to even pretend to be remotely conservative is a joke. His main concern is to be accepted on the Sunday morning talk shows (watch him on Chris Matthews and see if there are any conservative thoughts in his body) and to be popular in the gay crowd. Don’t waste your money.
Insightful analysis about American Conservatism gone awry
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
On a business trip last week, I finally had the chance to finish The Conservative Soul. It’s Andrew Sullivan’s political analysis of the last couple of decades, on where he thinks the “right wing” has gone off the rails, and what he thinks true conservatism ought to be. Even though it’s a couple years old now, his analysis is still very relevant and astute (in some ways even more so, as we watch the crack up of the right in the wake of their 2008 losses). Though he touches on many particular hot-button issues by way of example, his focus is more on philosophical underpinnings and the motivations for broad political trends and alignments. Starting from an assessment of the particular vacuums after the collapse of the “old left” that enabled the rise of the “new right”, he diagnoses the “fundamentalist psyche” (a need for absolute truth arbitrated by central authorities and authoritative texts), the “theoconservative project” (to “recapture” the public square from the “false neutrality” of secular liberalism), and its ascendancy in the “Bush crucible”. He then sets out to propose an alternative “conservatism of doubt” and a “politics of freedom”. While some details of his account are anchored in the specifics of American politics in a particular time, some of his philosophical work, particularly in the chapter about natural law and in his latter positive chapters, are quite profound and less tied to this moment in history. His dissection of natural law (as it is wielded today) versus the implications of Darwin and “nature” is keenly argued and very insightful. His presentation of his preferred understanding of conservatism, as articulated in Montaigne and Oakshott, leading to his political philosophy manifesto, extrapolating from Hobbes, is compelling. (Makes me want to work through his bibliography of those classic philosophers.) In his classic style, Sullivan writes eloquently, deftly weaving deep philosophical argument with crackling contemporary examples and personal experiences and insights. Full of thought-provoking ideas from his distinctive perspective, lucidly expressed, this book was a pleasure to read.
Well done – especially near the end
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Sullivan makes a nice argument for the small-c conservative cause. He spends the first half of the book trashing the existing Republican establishment and especially the religious right. It is well worth the read, especially if you are a moderate liberal and hoping to “understand” the conservative perspective.
A Book for Adolescents, Graduate Students, and Baby Boomers Alike…
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
As a young adult just beginning to soak in the various philosophies of politics, I would say that this is an excellent book to start with. After scanning through Bryan Burrough’s Washington Post review, I’d have to disagree with his statement that Sullivan’s book “is not only too polite, but too high-minded to galvanize anyone without a graduate degree in philosophy.” Compared to the hyperbolic ramblings of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, then yes, Burroughs is correct. This is a serious piece of work, but not necessarily a completely esoteric one–this book trumps Coulter and Moore, however, because it is much more accessible than the other two’s arguments.
Sullivan assertions are so much more pragmatic, as well–he can be accredited for his respect towards practically everyone in the political spectrum. Even his blatant attack on Robert George’s idea of “natural law,” which consumed most of the first half of Sullivan’s book, was notably well-rounded and treated with considerable respect towards the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States.
With that in perspective, everyone–Democrats, Republicans, Fundamentalists, Atheists, seniors and teenagers–should read this book. That is where I think Burrough’s argument is flawed; Sullivan’s belief is that every individual possesses some kind of itch to break out of the Elks club meetings, Dave Matthews Band concerts, and Coulter/Moore book clubs– to be skeptical of what every presents itself as a routine–is truly what conservatism stands for.
This book, though lacking “narrative grace” as Burrough rightfully said, can enlighten more than just the post-graduate crowd. Besides, there are a hell of a lot of kids out there today who read the political narratives of Solzhenitsyn and Hobbes; why can’t Sullivan be added to that list?
Conservativism as Attitude to Life
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Andrew Sullivan is one of our premier public intellectuals and a delight to read. Both facts are confirmed by this book. While at first glance you would think he will be making talking points for a political perspective, Sullivan quickly disabuses the reader of such a formulaic approach. Conservatism, while often thought of as a series of political positions, is much more than that. In fact, argues Sullivan, it is an attitude towards life that rejects simplistic, emotional or rationalistic arguments for everything that ails the planet. In constrast to fundamentalism which seems to answer complex questions with ABC answers, the conservative attitude rejects formulas and seems prepared to embrace the questions. Not convinced of the rationalist argument for man’s knowing it all, conservatives are actually more comfortable with doubt.
There are critical differences also between conservatives and fundamentalists: one believes in human imperfection, the other in the need for perfection now and forever; one believes in human nature, the other in remaking human nature by an omnipotent God or State; one seeks to preseve the past, the other is about erasing it and starting over afresh (p.72). These differences should lead to parting of the ways, not in radical fundamentalists appropriating what it means to be a conservative.
Today’s “conservatives” are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce their vision of virtue (see Iran and Rick Santorum.) This in no way fits the tradition of conservatives who believe freedom is the only condition in which humanity can come to approach virtue. This is not a political book per se, it is deeply philosophical and must be read by more that the politically inclined.
Sullivan argues, for example, that using religion “as a regulatory scheme to keep human beings in line, or as a unifying principle to herd people to the ballot box, is a profound blasphemy.” For a person of faith such a denigration of faith-as-politics should be deeply distrubing, yet the radical fundamentalist finds no contradiction.
Sullivan is exceptionally well versed in the works of Hobbes, Montaigne, Leo Straus (who receives a reprieve from other interpreters) and the genius of Michael Oakeshott. His ease with these thinkers and his ability to relate and apply conservative principles to current events contributes a refreshingly candid and brilliant reappraisal of the soul of conservatism as an attitude towards life. Burke and Kirk would certainly appreciate this addition. Most of today’s conservatives, and liberals, could learn alot from this book too.
Sullivan Thinks Conservatism Should be Catholic!
Rating:2 out of 5 stars
Though I’m in general agreement that Bush has screwed up the conservative movement. But let’s face it, that isn’t what this book is really about.
It’s pretty clear that when Sullivan refers to the “the current [Christian] fundamentalist supremacy” what he really means is “Protestants.”
Sullivan is a Catholic who denounces “Religious Extremism” of the evangelical right as part of what’s wrong with conservatism. Trouble is, his critiques of what he calls “religious extremism” aren’t all that different than what Catholics believe about all protestants.
For example, one characteristic of his so-called ‘religious nuts’ in the party is their more “literal” interpretation of the bible. Guess which branch of Christianity has the least literal interpretation of the bible? If you guessed “Catholiism,” you’re correct!
Which branches of the Christian faith fit Andrew’s description of ‘fundamentalist?’ Well, pretty much every protestant denomination, at least according to his definition. It just so happens that the greater emphasis on scripture (rather than church custom, prescription, and ritual) is what DEFINES protestantism.
“Sola scriptura” was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today.
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the “Deposit of Faith”, based on what they consider to be “Sacred Tradition”, of which Scripture is a subset.
It’s hard to believe this is just pure coincidence: that what Sullivan (a Roman Catholic) defines as “religious extremism” just happens to be foundational principles of protestantism.
His mistake is a common one among Catholics: he never differentiates between “protestants” and “fundamentalists.” They aren’t the same thing, but Sullivan doesn’t give any examples of non-fundamentalist protestants.Nor does he cite a Catholic example of ‘religious extremism.’ Thus, what he never actually SAYS (but clearly believes) is that the conservative movement is too protestant.
While he goes on at some length about “religious extremists,” virtually none of the extremism he mentions seems to be rooted in Catholicism. They are ALL offshoots of the protestant faith.
Sullivan’s recantation
Rating:3 out of 5 stars
Andrew Sullivan explains at some length, and with some digression, how
he became disenchanted with what he calls the fundamentalist wing of the
current Republican party. His brand of conservatism is Burkean; he considers that the prevailing ideology of the current administration is
not conservative at all, but springs from a tradition of literal evangelism. Some chapters are better than others. The chapter
on sexuality seems labored and occupies more of the book than it should. On the whole, it is an honest and thoughtful book and would be useful reading for people who shared Sullivan’s early enthusiasms for the Rovian revolution.
Disappointed
Rating:2 out of 5 stars
Without question, Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite writers. Even when I do not agree with his analysis of a situation, be it political or philosophical, I find him to be interesting, thoughtful, and passionate. And when it comes to the Bush Administration and the handling of Iraq and other facets of the conflict with Islamic terrorists, I have to say that a good deal of his attitude (though not, I think, development of ideas) has mirrored my own over the course of the past several years. So I was very much looking forward to reading his most recent book, The Conservative Soul. I am also disheartened to say that I was tremendously disappointed. Although there are some interesting nuggets of good ideas buried in the book, I find that on the whole it was sloppy, muddled, disorganized and — I’m sorry to say — not very well written. Although I would highly recommend that everyone read Sullivan’s blog and essays, I would not recommend this book.
Honest & Direct
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
Great book! Andrew Sullivan spoke at my local library and he was loved by all. Had him sign this book for my collection.
Highly Recommended
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
This is one book that has had a huge influence on my political philosophy. Both the author and I grew up in conservative homes, grew up in Christian homes, and voted for G.W. Bush in 2000. Before I picked up the book, that’s where the similarities ended.
Sullivan is truly a fascinating man. A homosexual, British, Catholic who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Sullivan lives with HIV and I say that only to say that it doesn’t stop him from living life to the fullest, from speaking passionately about the America he still believes in, his adoptive country. That is where the differences begin. But as I read his book I felt his ideas resonate with me strongly.
The term conservatism has been taken over in the last 15 years or so and abused and Andrew Sullivan’s mission is to take it back. If you lament what conservatism used to be, and dream of what it truly can be, this is the book for you. His main theme is that our politics should be a politics of doubt, that is, a realization that individual humans don’t have all the answers for everyone else at any point in time. Thus the beauty of the freedom that has been written into our constitution here in America.
If you know of a conservative or a fundamentalist, who is thick-headed, blindly passionate about their views, not willing to consider error in their own perspective or listen to sound reason, this is the book that just might break them down. So do be careful.
Other Information: It is a quick read with large margins and double-spacing and it is a page-turner. It is the kind of book you will want to pass on to your friends and family.
A Conservative left behind
Rating:5 out of 5 stars
In the first chapter Andrew Sullivan works to earn his Conservative credentials by launching a measured attack on liberalism but most of the rest of the book is one long critique of the current evolution of American Conservativism. The bread and butter of the modern Conservative movement are gays, guns and abortions. Ironically this `Conservative’ author produces perhaps the best defense of pro-choice I have ever read as well as a wonderful defense of secularism. Combine that with the fact that the author is gay (and British) and you have a rather unique voice among Conservatives.
The point where Mr. Sullivan lost me was in his distinction between true Conservatives and radicalized Conservatives. He writes, `It [conservativism] never seeks to return to a golden age or a distant past’ Really? Returning to the past is generally one of, if not THE defining feature of Conservativism. The author might want to read `The Conservative Mind’ by Russell Kirk or `The Conservative Intellectual Movement’ by George H. Nash to see an endless parade of Conservative intellectuals pining for some bygone era. Later, the author states that, “…Conservativism’s great philosophical advantage over liberalism [is that] it can be more flexible.” William F. Buckley famously stated that Conservatives `stands athwart history, yelling Stop’. Conservatives have stood in the way of civil rights, woman’s suffrage and now gay rights. To a Conservative the American family is mom, dad and 2.2 children. Understanding of right and wrong can only be derived from Judeo-Christians teachings and moral relativity is the bane of an ethical society. Sounds about as flexible as a brick. One final jaw dropper is Mr. Sullivan’s claim that `Conservatives, after all, hate war.’ Somehow I think that the modern Conservative movement has completely left Andrew Sullivan behind. He considers neither religious fundamentalist nor libertarians to be true Conservatives when in fact they are the base.
Another argument that the author uses is that George W. Bush isn’t a true Conservative but this leads back to the question of what a true Conservative is. John Dean and Bruce Bartlett both used this same tactic. My opinion is that George W. Bush is the reductio ad absurdum of Conservativism. Bush is anti-intellectual, pro defense spending and singularly obsessed with lowering taxes. He also shares the paleo-conservatives love of religion as a panacea for society’s moral failings. No man could possibly meet all definitions of a Conservative because many are mutually exclusive. The problem with Bush is that he is a classic ideologue who surrounds himself with like minded ideologues. Even Reagan who was the prototypical Conservative was pragmatic enough to raise taxes when it needed to be done. Bush on the other hand would stick to his agenda until the world came crashing down in a smoldering heap. This doesn’t make him non-Conservative it just makes him inflexible.
Despite my criticisms this is a really terrific book and a pleasure to read. In an age where the spokespeople for Conservativism range from repugnant (Tom DeLay) to psychopathic (Ann Coulter) and all points in between (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly etc) it’s refreshing to see a Conservative with class, dignity and actual writing talent. I could see myself sitting down with Andrew Sullivan and having an enjoyable conversation, agreeing on some points and disagreeing on others. The only real demerit I give the book is that the most interesting writing is in the first half of the book and it loses steam in the second half. Still, I have no qualms about giving it a solid five stars. It would be wonderful to see Andrew Sullivan’s brand of Conservativism replace the current toxic blend.
A thoughtful critique of modern day (ie big government) Conservatism
Rating:4 out of 5 stars
Mr. Sullivan makes me nervous. He seems to jump around an awful lot (I suppose that’s the nature of being a blogger), and it would seem from his snippets that his theory isn’t very coherent and serves only his personal station in life. In this book, however, he comes up with a very honest and meaningful discussion of how modern day conservatism (myself included) has fallen short of the principles of personal liberty and how the ideal government should be essentially unnoticeable. We’ve abandoned classical liberalism/libertarianism for the all-things-to-all-people, personal-liberty-be-damned philosophy of big ‘L’ Liberals like Clinton/Kerry/Pelosi and (dare I say) Bush/McCain. A worthy read for any side of the aisle.
Anything Sullivan likes is conservatism
Rating:1 out of 5 stars
Liberals will enjoy Sullivan’s savaging in the first two thirds of this book of religious fundamentalism, of neo-conservatives, and of G. W. Bush. The final third, however, just isn’t worth reading for anyone. Somehow, despite spending many pages elucidating Hobbes in a patronizing manner, he still misses the point that Hobbes was making. When he finally gets around to explaining his view of “real” conservatism (which sounds rather like Clinton liberalism), he beats the drum for just one idea agreed upon by all conservatives – the sanctity of property rights. This makes it all the more tragic that he fails to understand Hobbes’ central point, that property rights are the result of government not the basis for it. Hobbes’ message is that without the cooperation of your society, “your” property is only that which you can physically defend.
Sullivan’s definition of conservatism is the defense of all the things that make Andrew Sullivan happy, such as gay marriage, worshipping Reagan and Thatcher, and most of all, having everybody defend his property rights while expecting nothing in return. Perhaps when he finally understands Hobbes he’ll recognize that he’s not really a conservative and that all those things he so thoroughly derides in this book are the essence of American conservatism.