• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
23,376
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.

I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).

In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it, or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.
 
"Liberalism is as distinct a tradition as exists in political history, but it suffers from being a practice before it is an ideology, a temperament and a tone and a way of managing the world more than a fixed set of beliefs."
 
"Liberalism is as distinct a tradition as exists in political history, but it suffers from being a practice before it is an ideology, a temperament and a tone and a way of managing the world more than a fixed set of beliefs."

"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."


;)
 
That sounds like a very bad straw man.

It's an old traditional conservative assessment of modern liberalism. I think I saw it on All in the Family.
 
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.

I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).

In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it, or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.

The author has been in psychological treatment. Has spent time drawing nudes in his leisure. He has questioned the values of his own society. Has lived a charmed life here and abroad.

I do not think his brand of liberalism can be very accommodating towards Christian morals and values.
 
The author has been in psychological treatment. Has spent time drawing nudes in his leisure. He has questioned the values of his own society. Has lived a charmed life here and abroad.

I do not think his brand of liberalism can be very accommodating towards Christian morals and values.

And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.
 
Last edited:
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.

I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).

In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it, or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.

Well you will have to wait till I get my copy in the mail as you're the first one to let me know about it.
I guess I should get out a little more but considering you're just a great North West Guy, I'll gladly take the news about this book from you :)

Ordering right now ;)
 
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."


;)

That's only the tiniest hipster aspects of liberalism.
And by the way, I don't mean the man-bun wearing lumberjack affectating pseudo "hipsters" of today.
I mean their grandfathers...the Beatniks and Soul Brothers.
 
It's an old traditional conservative assessment of modern liberalism. I think I saw it on All in the Family.

Still a show which represents relevant social commentary even today some half century later! :D
 
Well you will have to wait till I get my copy in the mail as you're the first one to let me know about it.
I guess I should get out a little more but considering you're just a great North West Guy, I'll gladly take the news about this book from you :)

Ordering right now ;)

Thanks, my friend. I've recommended it for my "book club" (which I just started). Heh.
 
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.

He's into drawing nudes for fun? The sheer fun of it?
WOW!! My kind of guy! I guess that means he has plenty of models to choose from, or just a really great imagination, drawing at least partly on some personal experience.

WOW!!! It's like we're brothers, except I can't say I'm good at DRAWING them. ;)

And what's wrong with questioning the values of one's society? God tells us to always question ALL earthly things of mankind.
And as far as living a charmed life both here and abroad, aren't you also describing President Donald Trump's lifestyle too?

Oh my, I think you're just scared of the man and his book, the mere existence of the book, in fact.
Marke, you SHOULD BE. You SHOULD be scared of this book.
Someone you know just might read it someday.
 
What I found amusing about the complaint is that the reviewer he quoted spent most of the review complaining about the author and precious little about the actual content of the book. What can you expect, though, from "National Review". (BTW, I am finding the book a little sketchy on detail, but reminding me so much of why I loved Philosophy in college! Hume! Mill! Adam Smith! Rousseau!)
 
Last edited:
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.

From the endorsements I get the impression he is not a strong Christian patriotic American capitalist.
 
From the endorsements I get the impression he is not a strong Christian patriotic American capitalist.
Goodbye.
 
From the endorsements I get the impression he is not a strong Christian patriotic American capitalist.

Another way of saying that you are unable to tolerate anyone who doesn't see things 100 percent YOUR WAY.
What else is new? Nothing...this is basically your one note song, which you have parked on an endless loop, inflicting it on everyone who scrolls past your little temple of hate and intolerance.

It has absolutely nothing to do with strength, Christianity, patriotism or capitalism, it's just your narrow minded dogma and your continual complaint about other people failing to understand that they must bow and get YOUR approval to even be worthy of existing.
 
I recently heard an interview with the author, Adam Gopnik regarding his new book, A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism, and am currently about 1/10th of the way through reading it (that's just the introduction). It is an easy read (249 pages), and conceptually, encapsulates my philosophical viewpoint. Reviews can be had here, here, here and here.

I find it refreshing to have a voice that accurately describes the real tradition and roots of "Democratic Liberalism" rather than the caricatures prevalent from those on the left and right of the political spectrum (see that last review). Democratic liberalism is neither "neoliberal" nor "socialist" in outlook or history. He roots the genesis of democratic liberalism in John Stuart Mill and his seminal book, On Liberty. In particular, he discusses at length the inherent tension between authority and liberty (really, the basis of our Constitution).

In any event, I'd like to get considered views of those who have either read it or heard about it, and the premises upon which it is based.

I neither heard, nor read his book, but I have read Mill's On Liberty.

Most people read this political essay thinking that he is taking a stance against the legitimacy of governmental powers. It is possible to read, for example, his passionate defense of freedom of speech in this light. However, this essay was not meant to do such a thing as opposing governmental powers, even if some of the arguments may be indeed applied equally well to governmental interference in private matters. Mill was arguing against the tyranny of public opinions, against the victorian moral indignation of the many. In that sense, I would say that Gopnik at least picked up a reasonable starting point for arguments commonly made by self-described liberals.

As for the US Constitution, it resonates far more deeply with conservative points of view than with liberal points of view, at least if you take liberalism to mean people who describe themselves as liberal. The Founding Fathers of the US were men of worldly experience, with most working in law, commerce and business. They were not utopian idealists and they were not intellectuals in the sense we use the term today. If one idea could be used to summarize the rationale behind their views on politics, it is the idea that human beings are not basically good so that concentrating powers in a few hands must be foolish. If you want to tie self-described liberals to a late 18th-century movement, you should tie them to the French Revolution. The principal actors in shaping governance in the aftermath of the French Revolution absolutely were intellectuals in the proper sense and you can make a solid case they generally believe human beings are basically good. Their social life had more to do with swaying opinion through rhetorical prowesses in wealthy social circles than coping with real human beings and you could probably make a solid case they didn't see the point in limiting governmental powers by just noting how the revolutionaries behaved. Clearly, they didn't see how casting restrictions on power as mere obstacles to the realization of their social vision was problematic: the thousands of heads that rolled in the aftermath of the death of King Louis are quite the testimony to this opinion. Incidentally, french revolutionaries also changed very many things, including the names and dates used in calendars and measurement units, ostensibly to bring everything in line with their vision. Does that sound familiar?

The place where liberals classically sound really liberal concerns social issues. Conservatives tend to invoke ethical arguments rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview. Most of those claims will involve both restrictions and mandates on behavior, the very thing Mill was trying to attack. Same-sex marriage is a recent example. Other examples would be sex outside of marriage, the idea of women being as inclined as men to pursue casual sexual encounters, etc. The social attitude of liberals to refrain from judging people who wish to live their lives differently is reminiscent of Mill's claims. On the face of it, it sounds like Gopnik might be on to something.
 
Last edited:
"Let it all hang out. If it feels good, do it in the street."


;)

Neoliberal economic policies only feel good to the privileged few on the receiving end of the societal wealth redistribution.
 
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.

Because most conservatives have no facts. They believe in ideology over reality. The opposite of what the guy describes as liberal.They don't address real problems
 
Neoliberal economic policies only feel good to the privileged few on the receiving end of the societal wealth redistribution.

Neoconservatism and neoliberalism both believe in redistribution in the upward direction.
I'll continue to support it going in the downward direction if for no other reason than my recognition of the fact that, although wealth redistributed downward eventually winds up in the hands of those at the top (often before nightfall if Will Rogers is to be believed) "at least [it will have] have passed through the poor fellow's hands."

"This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They dident start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue."

Nationally syndicated column number 518, "And Here’s How It All Happened" (1932), as published in the Tulsa Daily World, 5 December 1932.
 
The author has been in psychological treatment. Has spent time drawing nudes in his leisure. He has questioned the values of his own society. Has lived a charmed life here and abroad.

I do not think his brand of liberalism can be very accommodating towards Christian morals and values.

As ‘liberty’ is concerned Christianity is secondary. Christians are at liberty to practice and live their belief free of government harassment. As ‘liberty’ is concerned, all others are free to be themselves without Christian harassment.
 
And there you would be absolutely wrong, my friend. He discusses that very point. Why is it so important that you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing ideas? (Maybe because you have none of your own?) It is more than obvious you haven't read a sentence of any of the book, so you are hardly qualified to comment.

delete
 
Because most conservatives have no facts. They believe in ideology over reality. The opposite of what the guy describes as liberal. They don't address real problems

I would describe Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman as conservatives. Friedman was an economist and a lot of his work focused on detailed analysis of data, as well as of historical documents from the Great Depression era. Thomas Sowell has dealt more with political disputes and the history of thought, but his work generally involves a lot of analysis of simple statistics and historical documents. When Sowell denounces large scale interventionist programs, he goes through past examples, looks at their consequences and even compares conflicting predictions made at that the time with what happened. Each of them, in other words, was deeply involved in eminently practical matters.

You can debate the insights Denis Prager has to offer on certain subjects, such as economics, but he is very knowledgeable about history and philosophy, especially when it comes to the same issues existentialists were pondering. He thought courses on Jewish history, as well as more philosophical courses about how to live a good life and about the interpretation of biblical scripture. Again, that is practical and it involves detailed knowledge.

I would also add Ben Shapiro to that list. Whenever he argues about policy issues, he brings up detailed descriptions of past events, current circumstances and of similar events abroad. You may disagree with his take on social issues and maybe you have other observations to bring to bear on the issue, but you cannot fault him for not looking at the details of a problem. Just as much can be said about Jordan Peterson. Although he describes himself as a liberal, he agrees with conservatives on many subjects. When he talks about the differences between men and women, that actually is part of his personal expertise (research on the psychology of personality).

Another favorite of mine would be John Cochrane, an economist who mostly does research at the frontier of macroeconomics and finance. You wouldn't believe how complicated it is to navigate the mass of evidence in empirical finance: we have so much data we are overwhelmed and don't know how to exactly tie the dots. But he always comes up with insightful, condensed and tight ways to present the problem. More importantly here, when he makes political comments, it is always tied to his research. He gets his hands dirty with data and details about subtle points. Again, you can disagree, but you cannot call his comments shallow.


So, here, I gave you a list of commentators who express(ed) rather rightwing views and they all do it admirably well. If anyone wonders, I also read a lot from the other side. I used to read Krugman's column but it got repetitive. However, I always love his academic publications because there is a simplicity and clarity he brings to things which are extremely complicated. I also read two books from Jonathan Haidt and likewise from Steven Pinker.

You know, when far-left commentators make the claim that men and women are the same, that would qualify as a denial of science. Biologically and psychologically, they are different, even if they share a lot. That claim is on the same level as claiming the Earth is flat.


The truth is that hyperpartisanship blinds by making it hard to listen to different points of view and by encouraging us to live in echo chambers. You happen to only see it on the other side because you don't let yourself listen carefully to conservatives. Some of them have interesting things to say, things that you won't figure out on your own and which definitely would enrich your own views.
 
Back
Top Bottom