| Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right |  | Author: Brian Patrick Mitchell
Publisher: Praeger
Category: Book
List Price: $39.95
Buy New: $21.73
as of 9/9/2010 03:51 CDT details
You Save: $18.22 (46%)
In Stock
New (6) Used (15) Collectible (1) from $16.43
Seller: plumcircle
Rating:  4 reviews
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 176
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.2 x 1
ISBN: 0275993582
Dewey Decimal Number: 320.50973
EAN: 9780275993580
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Political partisans want you to choose only between Left and Right, Red and Blue, Us and Them. But the reality is that Americans are deeply divided in more ways than one, and the savvy voter, no less than the savvy politician, must make more sense of things. Eight Ways to Run the Country explains what conventional political theory cannot, offering a profoundly illuminating look at our political past and our present differences. Eight Ways doesn't do away with Left and Right, but it defines them in better terms and adds a whole new dimension to explain what Left and Right can't. It correctly pegs the ideological poles and thus brings easy-to-understand order to the dizzying diversity of political perspectives. It places neoconservatives into historical context, illuminating both what they share with other conservatives and how their differences have wrought a change in the character of the Right. It explains the recurring attempts to define an independent, non-ideological center. It provides the best definition of populism to be found. Finally, it relates the political heritage of the American Founders to the politics of today.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Compelling Observations on the Political Scene December 13, 2006
A. Kass (Arlington, VA)
14 out of 15 found this review helpful
I loved this book. We hear various labels bandied about: Liberal and Progressive, Compassionate Conservative and Neo-Conservative, but they remain vague and ill-defined. Instead of just taking another stab at redefining Left and Right, this book boils down the various political ideologies to their fundamental assumptions. The author then uses those concepts to map the political universe. Of course, what makes the book so compelling is that it actually works. The map encompasses the full range of perspectives and explains the political field better than anything else I have read.
What makes this a good and useful book right now is its ability to explain what anyone even casually following the news is observing. With the change of control in Congress, we see the various factions within each party struggling for dominance. We are left to wonder what motivates these battles. Heading into the coming presidential elections, the candidates are similarly appealing to the various factions of their respective parties. This book helps the reader understand what motivates these people and where their ideologies will take them - and us.
Beyond Left and Right May 2, 2007
Duane McMullen
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Political discussion has always frustrated me. How could intelligent, well meaning and impassioned people so consistently speak right through each other? How could what was clear truth to one side be self-evident anathema to the other? It is like watching two hands trying to clap but missing each other on every swing.
This failure of communication is endemic to political debate. Not only do opposing sides frequently fail to understand where the other side is coming from, but they often don't even recognize the core of their own views.
In writing this book, Brian Patrick Mitchell sets the ambitious goal of presenting "a conceptual framework to help the reader recognize divergent perspectives in current contention." He succeeded.
He did this by redefining the traditional, and highly unsatisfactory, model of a political left and right and replacing it with a dual axis model that offers significantly more explanatory power in exchange for a small increase in complexity.
Mitchell persuasively argues that traditional left and right is better understood in terms of hierarchy. On the right is a natural bias to hierarchical systems while those on the left have a natural bias to hierarchy-free systems.
To the horizontal axis of hierarchy, Mitchell adds a vertical axis of state power. On the upper end of the axis, state power is seen as a malevolent force which must be suppressed or eliminated, while on the lower end of the axis state power is seen as a positive tool for good.
It may sound rather contrived, but as a conceptual framework it works surprisingly well at describing what Mitchell casts as the eight distinct political traditions in the United States. Lower-left (the Progressive), lower-right (the Neocon), upper-left (the Individualist) and so on.
Extensive quotes from well known American political figures, past and present, provide solid substantiation to Mitchell's conceptual framework and the various categories.
Though ground explicitly in American politics, Mitchell's criteria work well in other countries' political environments.
For the clarity this book has given me in better understanding political discussion, I give it full marks and declare it a bargain!
Not perfect, but it merits serious consideration April 4, 2009
Gregory J. Casteel (Athens, AL United States)
If you have an interest in political ideologies in the United States, then this book is certainly worth reading. It has some valuable insights. Instead of dividing the political spectrum into a simple left vs. right (i.e. "liberal" vs. "conservative") dichotomy, Mitchell relies on a two-dimensional scheme, and identifies eight (or nine) distinct ideological positions. The system that Mitchell comes up with is quite different from other systems that you might be familiar with, such as the Nolan Chart (which is the basis for "The World's Smallest Political Quiz") or The Political Compass. The two dimensions of Mitchell's typology are "kratos" (power) and "archy" (rank). The former refers to attitudes about the legitimacy of using the power of the state in order to achieve desirable social, economic, or foreign policy outcomes. It basically has to do with whether you prefer activist government or limited government. The latter refers to attitudes about the legitimacy of rank. It basically has to do with whether you prefer to live in a highly stratified and paternalistic society in which people are taught to respect and obey their superiors, or an egalitarian society in which people are taught to treat everyone as equals. Using these two dimensions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct ideological positions:
Neoconservatives are paternalistic and they believe in activist government. Theoconservatives are paternalistic but are ambivalent about the role of government. Paleoconservatives are paternalistic but believe in limited government. Paleolibertarians believe in limited government but are ambivalent about rank. Individualists believe in limited government and are egalitarian. Radicals are egalitarian but are ambivalent about the role of government. Progressives are egalitarian and believe in activist government. Communitarians believe in activist government but are ambivalent about rank. These are the eight dominant ideologies. Mitchell identifies a ninth position, which he refers to as "Populism", which is ambivalent on both dimensions. It is not quite clear if Mitchell regards Populism as a distinct ideology or as the absence of ideology. (Given the title of the book, I suspect the latter.)
I like Mitchell's two dimensions and nine categories; and I found his analysis insightful. However, it does have its share of shortcomings. First of all, this analysis focuses almost exclusively on American politics. It would have been useful if he had shown how the American ideologies compare with ideologies around the world. Second, his analysis is entirely descriptive. He does not attempt to explain WHY some Americans are Neoconservatives while others are Progressives or Individualists. Third, and most crucially, his typology seems somehow incomplete. Perhaps he needs to add a third dimension, or to tweak his categories a bit. I find it very difficult to locate myself on his typology. I don't fit neatly into any single one of the nine categories. One fits me better than the others; but it is far from a perfect fit. Some aspects of this ideology fit me very well, while others don't fit me at all. In fact, in some ways, I fit much better into another category, far removed from the one I identify most closely with. It's as if my heart belongs in one category, but my head belongs in another. (And even that is an oversimplification; since I can sympathize with three or four of the different ideological positions.) There are a few other flaws with Mitchell's book. The final chapter, where he draws conclusions and makes predictions, really misses the mark. (Predictions he made just a couple of years ago seem laughable after the 2008 election.) But in spite of its shortcomings, this book is still worth reading; and I would certainly recommend it.
 not a bull's eye, but on target and essential reading for Americans April 10, 2007
Goldman
8 out of 9 found this review helpful
For those of us who for sometime have thought the political field to resemble less an axis with two poles, and more a Chinese checkerboard, this book is most welcome.
First, the Table of Contents:
Preface
1. Schizocracy in America
2. Beyond Left and Right
3. For Common Things: The Communitarian
4. Change is Good: The Progressive
5. Question Authority: The Radical
6. Framework for Utopia: The Individualist
7. Breaking the Clock: The Paleolibertarian
8. For the Permanent Things: The Paleoconservative
9. God and Country: The Theoconservative
10. Mugged by reality: The Neoconservative
11. Postmodern Populism
Chapters 1 and 2 need to be read in order; 3-10 in any order, and 11 at the end.
Second, its weaknesses:
1. mislabeling: "progressive" better called Cultural Marxism ; "communitarian", Socialist Statist and surviving New Dealers; and maybe "individualist", Objectivist
2. lacks an analysis of Cultural Marxism/Frankfurter Schule, and of the Deep Ecology religion.
3. insufficient attention to immigration, the Neocon failure in Iraq, and the new 100 Years' War with Islam
4. no mention of John Lukacs' treatment of populism, or of Christopher Lasch's.
5. no consideration that perhaps most communitarians were born before 1945, most Cultural Marxists after
6. no distinction drawn between The State and government, the latter having always been with us, the former an invention of Machiavelli and Hobbes, and a reality only of the modern world.
7. The radicals astonishingly resemble a secular version of the Dissenters in the English 17th Century; the Neocons, the Cromwellians; the "progressives", the Unitarians.
8. the biggest weakness: no sound treatment of Nationalism, re-tribalization, and secession: movements which might do-in Neo-Con Wilsonianism, communitarian universalism, and Cultural Marxist "multiculturalism"
- all quibbles, for the strengths outweigh:
1. For years I have decried terms such as "political spectrum", "left/right", "liberal/conservative" - indeed "liberal" and "conservative" now mean the opposite of what they once meant. I have also argued that our so-called "two party system" represents decidedly minority points of view - albeit minorities with money -, and most folk don't have a party to support come Election Day. Now someone else, Mitchell, has seen these facts as well, and has systematically worked out the more realistic scheme.
2. While Mitchell's co-ordinates of kratos/akrateia (the degree of coercion) and arche/anarchy (the degree of hierarchical autoritas) might seem artificial, they are nonetheless useful; for his eight positions - at least seen in an American context - are roughly correct.
3. In his discussion of populism in Chapter 11, the distinction between the "common folk" and "The People" is insightful
4. His prophecy in Chapter 11 is original and engrossing. I particularly thought timely his reference to the decline in births among "progressives", and his support for the need for a "unified Christian Church" (p 142, and note the upper case) "committed to nonmarket purposes". This leaves me to wonder about Mitchell's own position. His gratitude to Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn (p. xi) might suggest an answer.
Anyone serious about what the modern world calls "politics" (Hannah Arendt correctly saw a problem here) needs to read this book, or at least note it for purchase as a paperback, prayerfully in a much more affordable price! In the meantime - Mitchell or no Mitchell - politics in the modern world remains both "the systematic organization of hatreds" (Henry Adams) and "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles" (Bierce).
| In Stock
|
|
|
| |
