Posted by italyprof on 2/6/2020 6:37:00 PM (view original):
"Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen.

So, why does a Marxist love a book by a Catholic conservative?

Well, because he is right. This book is not about the failure of American liberals. Or at least not ONLY about the failure of their philosophical project, but about the failure of Liberalism as a way of life, including classical Liberalism, or what most conservatives call ...Conservatism, (including the two steroid-enhanced versions of liberalism and conservatism - postmodernism on the left, and libertarianism or Ayn Randism on the right).

In other words, this is a rare work of great scope, great integrity, great courage, that shows unflinchingly that the whole liberal project of basing human society on a concept of an abstract, disconnected individual existing in a world without any community, any social attributes, family, ethnicity, nationality, gender etc. as a basis for universal rights could only 1) undermine all forms of community, 2) become a self-fulfllling prophecy as trying to put it into practice isolated us all from all connections that might maintain our sense of place, belonging, comfort, solidarity, and fulfillment, and so 3) isolate us making it easier for us all to fall prey to 4) the global market and big corporations and 5) as the presumed solution to that predation, a large, centralized, ever less-democratic, technocratic and bureacratic national state.

In other words, liberals have succeeded ONLY in winning the sexual revolution cultural parts of their agenda, while the parts that involve greater equality, more economic democracy and a stronger voice at work have gone in reverse, while conservatives have only succeeded in the part of their agenda that involves freeing the rich and business and finance to exploit people, work and resources without mercy, remorse, limits, taxes or regulations, while their social agenda of restoring the family, community, religious standards, etc. has gone nowhere.

Deneen shows why and how this has happened, and why it is no accident, liberalism was set up from the time of the Founding Fathers on to work that way.

But as liberalism now destroys even the liberal arts, as only the business, finance and technical areas are seen as worth studying, meaning the very bases of civilization are undermined by liberalism's logical outcome, the jig is up.

This work is one of the most important I have read in a long time. It is time to find new ways to base society on community, rather than the market, corporations or the state, on communities rather than abstract individuals who presumably have all the rights they could want but have no power to affect anything and so are in fact helpless before the forces of the market, big business and government bureaucracies.

Well worth your read. Suggested accompaniment: the works of Wendell Berry.

from my biased perch, the biggest problem with the american liberal movement is the dumbed down arm band wearing belching racist christian country right conservatives....creating former republicans in its wake.
the only 2 parties we need in this country now would come the middle and the left.
the conservatives have always been interested in restoring the pre - 19th amendment christian family and its most sneering condescending values and protestant christian social agenda.
so far only the liberal laws have stopped them.....thank God.

Posted by italyprof on 2/6/2020 6:37:00 PM (view original):
"Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen.

So, why does a Marxist love a book by a Catholic conservative?

Well, because he is right. This book is not about the failure of American liberals. Or at least not ONLY about the failure of their philosophical project, but about the failure of Liberalism as a way of life, including classical Liberalism, or what most conservatives call ...Conservatism, (including the two steroid-enhanced versions of liberalism and conservatism - postmodernism on the left, and libertarianism or Ayn Randism on the right).

In other words, this is a rare work of great scope, great integrity, great courage, that shows unflinchingly that the whole liberal project of basing human society on a concept of an abstract, disconnected individual existing in a world without any community, any social attributes, family, ethnicity, nationality, gender etc. as a basis for universal rights could only 1) undermine all forms of community, 2) become a self-fulfllling prophecy as trying to put it into practice isolated us all from all connections that might maintain our sense of place, belonging, comfort, solidarity, and fulfillment, and so 3) isolate us making it easier for us all to fall prey to 4) the global market and big corporations and 5) as the presumed solution to that predation, a large, centralized, ever less-democratic, technocratic and bureacratic national state.

In other words, liberals have succeeded ONLY in winning the sexual revolution cultural parts of their agenda, while the parts that involve greater equality, more economic democracy and a stronger voice at work have gone in reverse, while conservatives have only succeeded in the part of their agenda that involves freeing the rich and business and finance to exploit people, work and resources without mercy, remorse, limits, taxes or regulations, while their social agenda of restoring the family, community, religious standards, etc. has gone nowhere.

Deneen shows why and how this has happened, and why it is no accident, liberalism was set up from the time of the Founding Fathers on to work that way.

But as liberalism now destroys even the liberal arts, as only the business, finance and technical areas are seen as worth studying, meaning the very bases of civilization are undermined by liberalism's logical outcome, the jig is up.

This work is one of the most important I have read in a long time. It is time to find new ways to base society on community, rather than the market, corporations or the state, on communities rather than abstract individuals who presumably have all the rights they could want but have no power to affect anything and so are in fact helpless before the forces of the market, big business and government bureaucracies.

Well worth your read. Suggested accompaniment: the works of Wendell Berry.

This is not at all a rebuke of italyprof's summary.

I have not read this work so I withhold final judgment but, on first glance (based on this abstract) I would tend to reject the premise outright. For me, the author does not appear to appreciate, or is conveniently ignoring, the substantive differences between the philosophical and the political meanings for the various terms. Philosophically, postmodernism is in opposition to liberalism, which is firmly rooted in Enlightenment doctrine. Libertarianism, philosophically, is neither "left" nor "right." Libertarian philosophy creates a third direction altogether (I guess up or down in opposition to authoritarianism if you want a directional visual.)

With that said, if we are talking political movement only, which is an entirely separate argument, a partial case can be made for the failure of political liberalism. That is not surprising, in and of itself. Philosophy is theoretical. Politics are applied. In theory, Marx is profound and thought-provoking. In Das Kapital-esque literal practice, it would be living hell.

I'll probably read the book based on the thoughtful summary italyprof has supplied but it sounds as if Deneen is making a staggering logical fallacy.

marx was hilarious and philosophy gives me a haddock.
philosophy is the only religion in the good place.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/6/2020 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by italyprof on 2/6/2020 6:37:00 PM (view original):
"Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen.

So, why does a Marxist love a book by a Catholic conservative?

Well, because he is right. This book is not about the failure of American liberals. Or at least not ONLY about the failure of their philosophical project, but about the failure of Liberalism as a way of life, including classical Liberalism, or what most conservatives call ...Conservatism, (including the two steroid-enhanced versions of liberalism and conservatism - postmodernism on the left, and libertarianism or Ayn Randism on the right).

In other words, this is a rare work of great scope, great integrity, great courage, that shows unflinchingly that the whole liberal project of basing human society on a concept of an abstract, disconnected individual existing in a world without any community, any social attributes, family, ethnicity, nationality, gender etc. as a basis for universal rights could only 1) undermine all forms of community, 2) become a self-fulfllling prophecy as trying to put it into practice isolated us all from all connections that might maintain our sense of place, belonging, comfort, solidarity, and fulfillment, and so 3) isolate us making it easier for us all to fall prey to 4) the global market and big corporations and 5) as the presumed solution to that predation, a large, centralized, ever less-democratic, technocratic and bureacratic national state.

In other words, liberals have succeeded ONLY in winning the sexual revolution cultural parts of their agenda, while the parts that involve greater equality, more economic democracy and a stronger voice at work have gone in reverse, while conservatives have only succeeded in the part of their agenda that involves freeing the rich and business and finance to exploit people, work and resources without mercy, remorse, limits, taxes or regulations, while their social agenda of restoring the family, community, religious standards, etc. has gone nowhere.

Deneen shows why and how this has happened, and why it is no accident, liberalism was set up from the time of the Founding Fathers on to work that way.

But as liberalism now destroys even the liberal arts, as only the business, finance and technical areas are seen as worth studying, meaning the very bases of civilization are undermined by liberalism's logical outcome, the jig is up.

This work is one of the most important I have read in a long time. It is time to find new ways to base society on community, rather than the market, corporations or the state, on communities rather than abstract individuals who presumably have all the rights they could want but have no power to affect anything and so are in fact helpless before the forces of the market, big business and government bureaucracies.

Well worth your read. Suggested accompaniment: the works of Wendell Berry.

This is not at all a rebuke of italyprof's summary.

I have not read this work so I withhold final judgment but, on first glance (based on this abstract) I would tend to reject the premise outright. For me, the author does not appear to appreciate, or is conveniently ignoring, the substantive differences between the philosophical and the political meanings for the various terms. Philosophically, postmodernism is in opposition to liberalism, which is firmly rooted in Enlightenment doctrine. Libertarianism, philosophically, is neither "left" nor "right." Libertarian philosophy creates a third direction altogether (I guess up or down in opposition to authoritarianism if you want a directional visual.)

With that said, if we are talking political movement only, which is an entirely separate argument, a partial case can be made for the failure of political liberalism. That is not surprising, in and of itself. Philosophy is theoretical. Politics are applied. In theory, Marx is profound and thought-provoking. In Das Kapital-esque literal practice, it would be living hell.

I'll probably read the book based on the thoughtful summary italyprof has supplied but it sounds as if Deneen is making a staggering logical fallacy.

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

It is true that postmodernism rejects the Enlightenment, but in other ways it extends liberalism's focus on an abstract individual, since it sees all forms of community as "socially constructed" (which if taken literally would be a good thing but that isn't what they mean), and so illegitimate as authorities.

Indeed, the rejection of any basis for legitimate authority, be it traditional or democratic and popular, is in common to classical liberalism, postmodernism, and libertarianism.

So while postmodernism certainly comes from a different starting point, the author's concern is with community as the necessary basis for all culture, cultural values, civilization, sense of belonging, moral integrity, and even, really individuality in a profound sense.

The market, the bureaucratic state, liberal philosophy (Locke and the rest), libertarian conservatism, postmodernism, all undermine community AND are all self-reinforcing despite being on opposing sides, since if the market wrecks family and community, we have only the state to give us a sense of belonging, and to protect us, but as isolated, de-community-ized individuals, we have little control over the state, which instead easily falls into the hands of big business and so ends up extending even further the domain of the market, just as the market's extension inadvertently but inexorably extends the reach of the state.

Self-government, active citizenship, community, solidarity, all these end up suffering, and we are all easily convinced we have only two choices: the party of the state (and more cultural individualism, which easily ends up in the hands of business and market forces that meet it as consumer demand), or the party of the market (and more economic individualism, which ends up reinforcing the power of big corporations over our lives, and so leads to us to reasonably see the state as our only protector against such power).

A good book. By someone as far from me ideologically as it is possible to be, but who has great insight I think.

reckon I should have spent them years actually studying as opposed to billiards, beer, and babes.............

Trying to figger the big picture always makes my head hurt..........but the basic idea I've moshed on for years.
As Berry, (and Abbey, Stegner, Bowden, T.T. Williams and others) has/have been extolling in their passionate writing PLACE matters. Community is connected to that methinks. Without a sense of place humans don't bond in community. The Mormons got that. Stegner saw it all around him. It's one of his main themes, really. Community. Commune. Orderville.

Abbey loved place, too. And community. But from a different angle I think.
Individual community if such a concept is possible.
United by cause or necessity or even the need for revelry, but not politically.
Sorry to intrude on the conversation.
It's been interesting reading.
That doesn't happen every day round these parts!

Posted by laramiebob on 2/7/2020 12:07:00 PM (view original):
reckon I should have spent them years actually studying as opposed to billiards, beer, and babes.............

Trying to figger the big picture always makes my head hurt..........but the basic idea I've moshed on for years.
As Berry, (and Abbey, Stegner, Bowden, T.T. Williams and others) has/have been extolling in their passionate writing PLACE matters. Community is connected to that methinks. Without a sense of place humans don't bond in community. The Mormons got that. Stegner saw it all around him. It's one of his main themes, really. Community. Commune. Orderville.

Abbey loved place, too. And community. But from a different angle I think.
Individual community if such a concept is possible.
United by cause or necessity or even the need for revelry, but not politically.
Sorry to intrude on the conversation.
It's been interesting reading.
That doesn't happen every day round these parts!

Thanks Laramiebob, wonderful post. And you have given me a reading and viewing list to keep me busy for a while. Thanks !

I'm reading People Have More Fun Than Anybody (1994), a collection of previously unpublished James Thurber stories, essays and drawings. Very enjoyable stuff. Thought I'd post a passage here and see if anyone can guess the Hall of Famer's name I've left blank:

One time, going through a kennel in Connecticut where people boarded their dogs, I came across a big, handsome water brown spaniel. He stuck a friendly paw out through the bars of his cage as I walked past, tagged me on the shoulder, and I stopped. I was distressed to discover that he had a huge and ugly swelling on one side of his head. I was surprised that in spite of it he was bright-eyed and gay. Suddenly I found out why. He spit out the swelling. It was a big-league baseball which he had just been holding in one cheek until someone came along to play with him. He got way back in the far end of the cage—only about eight feet it was—and looked at the ball and then at me. I spent fifteen minutes bouncing it at him. He could catch the swiftest bounces and never missed once. He made __________ look like a clumsy, fumbling clown.

i would guess rizzuto.

Earlier era, but you're on the right track. It's a HOF'er known more for fielding than hitting.

rabbit maranville -gotta be.

i should have known right away it would be a character with an animal nickname.

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, by Diana West. I'd say it is the most important book of the 21st Century, on World-War II era history; perhaps the most important of all, by its revelations.

It details the tyrannically close and ultimately, the massively atrocious relationship between the FDR administration and Stalin's Soviet Union. West connects the dots of factual events and correspondence that have been only much later revealed by Yeltsin, the Venona papers, etc, and suppressed by the United States government to this day. FDR and his right-hand man, Harry Hopkins actually promoted the Soviet Union and Stalin's schemes throughout the war, even by purposefully perpetuating the warfare (including unnecessarily direct violence upon civilian populations). FDR refused to take the steps to win the war much earlier, which would have saved millions of innocent lives and allowed Germany and Eastern European nations to be free, rather than enslaved as Marxist satellites. She also details the long covered-up Soviet imprisonment and Gulag enslavement of thousands of our own military personnel, much of that after "VE Day."

"Doc" by Mary Doria Russell

Awesome, so far.
Lots of new info.
I had not known that John Henry Holliday was the 1st child to have successful cleft palate surgery.
Nor did I know that "Gone With The Wind" had both a family based on the Holliday's and a character loosely based on John Henry.
Margaret Mitchell was a cousin to the Hollidays.

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 2/22/2020 7:38:00 PM (view original):
American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, by Diana West. I'd say it is the most important book of the 21st Century, on World-War II era history; perhaps the most important of all, by its revelations.

It details the tyrannically close and ultimately, the massively atrocious relationship between the FDR administration and Stalin's Soviet Union. West connects the dots of factual events and correspondence that have been only much later revealed by Yeltsin, the Venona papers, etc, and suppressed by the United States government to this day. FDR and his right-hand man, Harry Hopkins actually promoted the Soviet Union and Stalin's schemes throughout the war, even by purposefully perpetuating the warfare (including unnecessarily direct violence upon civilian populations). FDR refused to take the steps to win the war much earlier, which would have saved millions of innocent lives and allowed Germany and Eastern European nations to be free, rather than enslaved as Marxist satellites. She also details the long covered-up Soviet imprisonment and Gulag enslavement of thousands of our own military personnel, much of that after "VE Day."

so you're against trump