Liberals have no books

Yale professor and political liberal Beverly Gage laments that conservatives have an intellectual tradition carried on in books, but liberals don’t.  They used to–and note what the key books were–but don’t any more, leaving them intellectually weak and poorly grounded:

We tend to think of the conservative influence in purely political terms: electing Ronald Reagan in 1980, picking away at Social Security, reducing taxes for the wealthy. But one of the movement’s most lasting successes has been in developing a common intellectual heritage. Any self-respecting young conservative knows the names you’re supposed to spout: Hayek, Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock. There are some older thinkers too—Edmund Burke, for instance—but for the most part the favored thinkers come out of the movement’s mid-20th century origins in opposition to Soviet communism and the New Deal.

Liberals, by contrast, have been moving in the other direction over the last half-century, abandoning the idea that ideas can be powerful political tools. This may seem like a strange statement at a moment when American universities are widely understood to be bastions of liberalism, and when liberals themselves are often derided as eggheaded elites. But there is a difference between policy smarts honed in college classrooms and the kind of intellectual conversation that keeps a movement together. What conservatives have developed is what the left used to describe as a “movement culture”: a shared set of ideas and texts that bind activists together in common cause. Liberals, take note

Once upon a time, the Old Left had “movement culture” par excellence: to be considered a serious activist, you had to read Marx and Lenin until your eyes bled. For better or worse, that never resulted in much electoral power (nor was it intended to) and within a few decades became the hallmark of pedantry rater than intellectual vitality.

The New Left reinvented that heritage in the 1960s. Instead of (or in addition to) Marx and Lenin, activists began to read Herbert Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, and Saul Alinsky. As new, more particular movements developed, the reading list grew to include feminists, African-Americans, and other traditionally excluded groups. This vastly enhanced the range of voices in the public sphere—one of the truly great revolutions in American intellectual politics. But it did little to create a single coherent language through which to maintain common cause. Instead, the left ended up with multiple “movement cultures,” most of them more focused on issue-oriented activism than on a common set of ideas.

Liberals have channeled their energies even more narrowly over the past half-century, tending to prefer policy tweaks and electoral mapping to big-picture thinking. When was the last time you saw a prominent liberal politician ascribe his or her passion and interest in politics to, of all things, a book?

via Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: Why don’t America liberals have their own canon of writers and thinkers? – Slate Magazine.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Matthew

    Doesn’t this really derive from the anti-intellectualism at the heart of postmodernism? If there is no truth, then ideas don’t really matter, only emotions and posturing.

  • Matthew

    Doesn’t this really derive from the anti-intellectualism at the heart of postmodernism? If there is no truth, then ideas don’t really matter, only emotions and posturing.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    We are supposed spout Ayn Rand. Me thinks this professor knows less than she claims. I am conservative and I can’t stand Rand.

    Maybe it could just be that the upcoming generations aren’t buying into hardline ideals because they cause division and they are tired of division.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    We are supposed spout Ayn Rand. Me thinks this professor knows less than she claims. I am conservative and I can’t stand Rand.

    Maybe it could just be that the upcoming generations aren’t buying into hardline ideals because they cause division and they are tired of division.

  • Tom Hering

    The conservative movement is still young enough to be in touch with its roots, whereas liberalism is old enough to have fragmented, making an agreed-upon canon impossible. (Kind of like Lutheranism. :-D ) Then too, when the idea of progress (moral, social, and otherwise) became the central idea of liberalism, it was inevitable that liberalism would end up rejecting its own roots, which also makes a canon impossible (you can’t have a contemporary canon without a historical one).

  • Tom Hering

    The conservative movement is still young enough to be in touch with its roots, whereas liberalism is old enough to have fragmented, making an agreed-upon canon impossible. (Kind of like Lutheranism. :-D ) Then too, when the idea of progress (moral, social, and otherwise) became the central idea of liberalism, it was inevitable that liberalism would end up rejecting its own roots, which also makes a canon impossible (you can’t have a contemporary canon without a historical one).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Marx and Lenin were not liberal. Jefferson was a liberal. Ben Franklin was a liberal. FDR was not a liberal. Socialists are not liberals. They oppose free speech, freedom of association and other liberal ideals. Just a reminder, Marx talked a lot about the relationship of workers to capital. He was not a champion of non workers and criminals. The proletariat are the productive people in society, not layabouts and gang bangers with a bunch of illegitimate kids.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Marx and Lenin were not liberal. Jefferson was a liberal. Ben Franklin was a liberal. FDR was not a liberal. Socialists are not liberals. They oppose free speech, freedom of association and other liberal ideals. Just a reminder, Marx talked a lot about the relationship of workers to capital. He was not a champion of non workers and criminals. The proletariat are the productive people in society, not layabouts and gang bangers with a bunch of illegitimate kids.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Well, Senator Smalley from Minnesota has written a couple of books, but suffice it to say that the word “intellectual” is not usually bandied about in reference to them.

    I’d suggest that the reason that you don’t see this is that when you put liberal ideas down on paper in a book length format, you immediately start seeing how insane they are. That said, the same objection didn’t stop Marx and Engels.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Well, Senator Smalley from Minnesota has written a couple of books, but suffice it to say that the word “intellectual” is not usually bandied about in reference to them.

    I’d suggest that the reason that you don’t see this is that when you put liberal ideas down on paper in a book length format, you immediately start seeing how insane they are. That said, the same objection didn’t stop Marx and Engels.

  • Tom Hering

    How did I guess that discussion of this topic wouldn’t rise above liberal-bashing? But it’s still early, and I shouldn’t be so unaudacious as to give up hope. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    How did I guess that discussion of this topic wouldn’t rise above liberal-bashing? But it’s still early, and I shouldn’t be so unaudacious as to give up hope. :-D

  • Ryan

    Why the rash of ‘Liberal’ posts all of a sudden?

    Speaking of books, I long for the day when the foundational texts for an United States citizens… Regardless of party, were the Bible and Constitution.

  • Ryan

    Why the rash of ‘Liberal’ posts all of a sudden?

    Speaking of books, I long for the day when the foundational texts for an United States citizens… Regardless of party, were the Bible and Constitution.

  • Cincinnatus

    Nonsense. Liberals have John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin–and the plethoric literature dedicated to interpreting them–to buttress their egalitarian, secular, redistributive ethic. That’s just to name two. Liberal (by which I mean standard, Democratic progressives, not radicals) intellectuals practically worship Rawls.

  • Cincinnatus

    Nonsense. Liberals have John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin–and the plethoric literature dedicated to interpreting them–to buttress their egalitarian, secular, redistributive ethic. That’s just to name two. Liberal (by which I mean standard, Democratic progressives, not radicals) intellectuals practically worship Rawls.

  • SKPeterson

    Liberal-bashing is one the top things on my To-Do List for today, Tom. Are you trying to get your big-government ideals to ruin my efficiency?

  • SKPeterson

    Liberal-bashing is one the top things on my To-Do List for today, Tom. Are you trying to get your big-government ideals to ruin my efficiency?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I just want to bash those who label authoritarians as liberals. What the…? How did we get to such absurd labels?

    their egalitarian, secular, redistributive ethic.

    yeah but who for whom? The upper class Dems aren’t interested in redistributing their stuff. They want to redistribute the resources of upper middle class workers to the lower middle class workers and non workers because increasing the $$ in the pockets of lower class folks increases the velocity of money and makes the rich richer. The lower middle classes don’t save, and the poor can’t save. They see themselves as special and have all kinds of special tax loopholes written for themselves, but all the rest of us are a bunch of fungible, equal units to be homogenized or customized into whatever they wish us to be. It is the most anti-material, anti-empirical, anti-naturalistic position.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I just want to bash those who label authoritarians as liberals. What the…? How did we get to such absurd labels?

    their egalitarian, secular, redistributive ethic.

    yeah but who for whom? The upper class Dems aren’t interested in redistributing their stuff. They want to redistribute the resources of upper middle class workers to the lower middle class workers and non workers because increasing the $$ in the pockets of lower class folks increases the velocity of money and makes the rich richer. The lower middle classes don’t save, and the poor can’t save. They see themselves as special and have all kinds of special tax loopholes written for themselves, but all the rest of us are a bunch of fungible, equal units to be homogenized or customized into whatever they wish us to be. It is the most anti-material, anti-empirical, anti-naturalistic position.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 8, you’re (unfortunately) right about Rawls. But I think the idea here is a canon read by a wider audience than academics.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 8, you’re (unfortunately) right about Rawls. But I think the idea here is a canon read by a wider audience than academics.

  • DonS

    Conservatives wrote books, created think tanks, and did other things to get their messages out, such as re-creating and defining the world of talk radio, essentially because they couldn’t get any traction for the conveyance of their ideas in mainstream channels. On the other hand, liberals have had the wind at their backs for decades — the mainstream media, academia, and other establishment institutions resonate with liberalism and amplify its views and policies as a natural course. Liberals also have generally been in the majority and governing since the 30′s, while conservatives have generally been out of power, naturally giving them more time for introspection.

    Of course, when things turn, as they did in 1980 and now in this election season, liberals are flummoxed. They have become lazy, since they typically don’t have to defend their ideas in the court of public opinion and can’t do it. So, they resort to name calling and marginalization tactics, and run political campaigns of distraction and dissembling, rather than substantive engagement of competing ideas and philosophies. Being in the minority sharpens you.

  • DonS

    Conservatives wrote books, created think tanks, and did other things to get their messages out, such as re-creating and defining the world of talk radio, essentially because they couldn’t get any traction for the conveyance of their ideas in mainstream channels. On the other hand, liberals have had the wind at their backs for decades — the mainstream media, academia, and other establishment institutions resonate with liberalism and amplify its views and policies as a natural course. Liberals also have generally been in the majority and governing since the 30′s, while conservatives have generally been out of power, naturally giving them more time for introspection.

    Of course, when things turn, as they did in 1980 and now in this election season, liberals are flummoxed. They have become lazy, since they typically don’t have to defend their ideas in the court of public opinion and can’t do it. So, they resort to name calling and marginalization tactics, and run political campaigns of distraction and dissembling, rather than substantive engagement of competing ideas and philosophies. Being in the minority sharpens you.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@11: You’re right, of course. Conservatives have, since just after World War II, benefited from a pop-intellectual culture represented by folks like William Buckley et al. I think the last genuinely popular liberal/progressive intellectual was probably Herbert Croly back in the early part of the last century.

    sg@10: You’re straining at gnats. I nowhere said that contemporary progressives are consistent in practicing their ideals. Neither are conservatives: most of those who proclaim their affection for “small” government can’t broach the thought of cutting the Pentagon’s budget, for example.

    And, no, contemporary progressives aren’t “liberal” if by “liberal” you mean classical liberalism. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison obviously have far more in common with various strands of what goes by the name “conservatism” today than anything else. But the folks we’re referring to here call themselves liberals along with everyone else. The word has lost its original meaning. But John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is basically the academic text book for today’s liberalism. Perhaps more put more succinctly, those who today call themselves liberals–including Rawls–have more in common with Mill than with Locke.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@11: You’re right, of course. Conservatives have, since just after World War II, benefited from a pop-intellectual culture represented by folks like William Buckley et al. I think the last genuinely popular liberal/progressive intellectual was probably Herbert Croly back in the early part of the last century.

    sg@10: You’re straining at gnats. I nowhere said that contemporary progressives are consistent in practicing their ideals. Neither are conservatives: most of those who proclaim their affection for “small” government can’t broach the thought of cutting the Pentagon’s budget, for example.

    And, no, contemporary progressives aren’t “liberal” if by “liberal” you mean classical liberalism. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison obviously have far more in common with various strands of what goes by the name “conservatism” today than anything else. But the folks we’re referring to here call themselves liberals along with everyone else. The word has lost its original meaning. But John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is basically the academic text book for today’s liberalism. Perhaps more put more succinctly, those who today call themselves liberals–including Rawls–have more in common with Mill than with Locke.

  • DonS

    David Frence, at National Review Online, does a pretty good job of explaining the same sort of thing I was trying to get at in my comment @ 12, here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314313/reason-liberal-hate-no-diversity-david-french

    Bottom line: Because of liberal dominance of our cultural institutions, conservatives grow up battling liberal ideology and fine-tuning their own ideology as a result, while liberals seldom confront opposing viewpoints. They don’t understand conservative thought, and have no reason to write books about their own ideology, which they consider to be perfectly mainstream.

  • DonS

    David Frence, at National Review Online, does a pretty good job of explaining the same sort of thing I was trying to get at in my comment @ 12, here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314313/reason-liberal-hate-no-diversity-david-french

    Bottom line: Because of liberal dominance of our cultural institutions, conservatives grow up battling liberal ideology and fine-tuning their own ideology as a result, while liberals seldom confront opposing viewpoints. They don’t understand conservative thought, and have no reason to write books about their own ideology, which they consider to be perfectly mainstream.

  • helen

    “Atheists ain’t got no songs”
    “Liberals ain’t got no books.”

    And conservatives have nothing to sing about these days.
    Unless they are in the 1% (in which case they probably buy a singer, or consider singing a waste of time).

  • helen

    “Atheists ain’t got no songs”
    “Liberals ain’t got no books.”

    And conservatives have nothing to sing about these days.
    Unless they are in the 1% (in which case they probably buy a singer, or consider singing a waste of time).

  • Joanne

    American Liberals (socialist everywhere else), have moved on to serious comedy shows as their equivalance to books. My liberal friends now quote the sayings of comedians to convince me that I will love waiting 18 months for my next X-rays. Irony, and especially hilarious irony is now proof of truth. They send me dozens of political cartoons, some of which are witty, ironic, and yes, funny. Still, I’m unmoved. Funny is fun; it’s not a reason to vote for someone or support socialist political programs to spend money on the liberal catastophe of the day.

    Time was when America had lots of money and we could pay off the libs to shut-up. But, now we runded out of money and practically all we could borrow too. We’ve borrowed so much money from everywhere, that the rest of the worlds is starting to wonder if there will be any money for them to borrow. I say, don’t worry, Zimbabwe has a way of making big debts into little debts by printing money with 10 Trillion dollar notes. You could pay off a lot of debt with those, and quickly. I bought one for $1.50 and plan to payoff all my debts and have trillions left over. Am I a genious, er wut?

    I’ve also heard that you can make yourself a billionaire just by writing yourself an IOU for a billion dollars. They say that’s how Social Security works and always has. It seems the possibilities are endess when you separate money from the idea of value. Peope say to me, are you sure it was worth it, that Zimbabwe note. I look at them like they are crazy. Where else can you get 10 trillion for only $1.50?

    Hum, maybe the libtards are right, comedy is the proof of truth.

  • Joanne

    American Liberals (socialist everywhere else), have moved on to serious comedy shows as their equivalance to books. My liberal friends now quote the sayings of comedians to convince me that I will love waiting 18 months for my next X-rays. Irony, and especially hilarious irony is now proof of truth. They send me dozens of political cartoons, some of which are witty, ironic, and yes, funny. Still, I’m unmoved. Funny is fun; it’s not a reason to vote for someone or support socialist political programs to spend money on the liberal catastophe of the day.

    Time was when America had lots of money and we could pay off the libs to shut-up. But, now we runded out of money and practically all we could borrow too. We’ve borrowed so much money from everywhere, that the rest of the worlds is starting to wonder if there will be any money for them to borrow. I say, don’t worry, Zimbabwe has a way of making big debts into little debts by printing money with 10 Trillion dollar notes. You could pay off a lot of debt with those, and quickly. I bought one for $1.50 and plan to payoff all my debts and have trillions left over. Am I a genious, er wut?

    I’ve also heard that you can make yourself a billionaire just by writing yourself an IOU for a billion dollars. They say that’s how Social Security works and always has. It seems the possibilities are endess when you separate money from the idea of value. Peope say to me, are you sure it was worth it, that Zimbabwe note. I look at them like they are crazy. Where else can you get 10 trillion for only $1.50?

    Hum, maybe the libtards are right, comedy is the proof of truth.

  • James Sarver

    Joanne @ #16,

    For another $148.50US you could be a quadrillionaire. Trillions are not impressive these days. A quadrillion gets peoples attention.
    Cheaper than a pair of decent tickets to a Guns n Roses show. Well worth the investment.

  • James Sarver

    Joanne @ #16,

    For another $148.50US you could be a quadrillionaire. Trillions are not impressive these days. A quadrillion gets peoples attention.
    Cheaper than a pair of decent tickets to a Guns n Roses show. Well worth the investment.

  • reg

    I love to see conservatives bash liberals as lacking intellectual grounding. The Republican party is the party of such ignorant, no-nothing “and proud of it” such as Palin and Limbaugh who only voice semi formed opinions based on illusory “facts”. Lets get real here the activists in both parties (be they move-on or tea partiers) are driven by populism (which by definition is anti intellectual, lowest common denominator, sound bite, emotionally driven ). Thing is right wing populism (in this country) is scarier to me than left wing populism since there always seems to be guns and the threat of violence in their mix. On the left the threat is generally (not always) limited to words (i.e., “you are a hater and bigot and we should shun you”.) But in any event a pox on ideologues on both sides.

  • reg

    I love to see conservatives bash liberals as lacking intellectual grounding. The Republican party is the party of such ignorant, no-nothing “and proud of it” such as Palin and Limbaugh who only voice semi formed opinions based on illusory “facts”. Lets get real here the activists in both parties (be they move-on or tea partiers) are driven by populism (which by definition is anti intellectual, lowest common denominator, sound bite, emotionally driven ). Thing is right wing populism (in this country) is scarier to me than left wing populism since there always seems to be guns and the threat of violence in their mix. On the left the threat is generally (not always) limited to words (i.e., “you are a hater and bigot and we should shun you”.) But in any event a pox on ideologues on both sides.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@4

    “Just a reminder, Marx talked a lot about the relationship of workers to capital. He was not a champion of non workers and criminals. The proletariat are the productive people in society, not layabouts and gang bangers with a bunch of illegitimate kids.”

    +1. This is stated plainly in the Communist Manifesto. Not even the communists would support these people who don’t want to work, but want to have kid after kid. (P.S. I’m not a communist!)

  • Michael B.

    @sg@4

    “Just a reminder, Marx talked a lot about the relationship of workers to capital. He was not a champion of non workers and criminals. The proletariat are the productive people in society, not layabouts and gang bangers with a bunch of illegitimate kids.”

    +1. This is stated plainly in the Communist Manifesto. Not even the communists would support these people who don’t want to work, but want to have kid after kid. (P.S. I’m not a communist!)

  • Cincinnatus

    reg@18: In your haste to lambast the intellectual acuity of anything that goes by the name Republican (not to be confused with conservative) in this country, you missed the point. By a wide margin.

    After the solidification and retrenchment of the New Deal coalition in the 1930s, there was effectively no meaningful conservative opposition in the United States. A quick look at the congressional rosters in those years will demonstrate this claim. New Deal progressives, who had earlier drunk from the springs of John Dewey, Herbert Croly, Walt Whitman, and a host of other popular intellectuals, now had all three branches of government. Conservatives effectively had neither a government nor a literature.

    This changed soon after World War II, when William Buckley and others emerged to articulate a “conservative movement” in a new literary tradition that was both intellectually robust and accessible to the general public. Writers like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, Irving Babbit, and others that Veith mentions are archetypical of this set.

    You can probably argue that this tradition has recently been extinguished within the conservative movement, such as it is and was. But the point is that liberals/progressives/Democrats have had no accessible literature to speak of for almost a century. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because progressives have, via the Democratic Party, essentially controlled the American government between the years of 1932 and 2006 in an almost unbroken succession–so they didn’t need a popular literature to articulate their vision, and that’s not even to mention the virtual stranglehold that progressives/liberals have long maintained over other institutions of cultural production like Hollywood, major television studies, most newspapers of record, etc. Now that they’ve lost their overwhelming coalitional control, though, there’s arguably no literary movement filling the void to provide a coherent platform or forum of discussion for self-described progressives.

  • Cincinnatus

    reg@18: In your haste to lambast the intellectual acuity of anything that goes by the name Republican (not to be confused with conservative) in this country, you missed the point. By a wide margin.

    After the solidification and retrenchment of the New Deal coalition in the 1930s, there was effectively no meaningful conservative opposition in the United States. A quick look at the congressional rosters in those years will demonstrate this claim. New Deal progressives, who had earlier drunk from the springs of John Dewey, Herbert Croly, Walt Whitman, and a host of other popular intellectuals, now had all three branches of government. Conservatives effectively had neither a government nor a literature.

    This changed soon after World War II, when William Buckley and others emerged to articulate a “conservative movement” in a new literary tradition that was both intellectually robust and accessible to the general public. Writers like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, Irving Babbit, and others that Veith mentions are archetypical of this set.

    You can probably argue that this tradition has recently been extinguished within the conservative movement, such as it is and was. But the point is that liberals/progressives/Democrats have had no accessible literature to speak of for almost a century. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because progressives have, via the Democratic Party, essentially controlled the American government between the years of 1932 and 2006 in an almost unbroken succession–so they didn’t need a popular literature to articulate their vision, and that’s not even to mention the virtual stranglehold that progressives/liberals have long maintained over other institutions of cultural production like Hollywood, major television studies, most newspapers of record, etc. Now that they’ve lost their overwhelming coalitional control, though, there’s arguably no literary movement filling the void to provide a coherent platform or forum of discussion for self-described progressives.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Reg, if you’re going to lambast people for using imaginary facts, don’t ya think it might be kinda smart to, you know, use some real ones? Just tryin’ to help.

    But regarding the idea of “imaginary facts,” the reality of the matter is that Limbaugh–and co-hosts like Walter Williams–do make extensive use of documented evidence. If their conclusions don’t match your worldview, you need to either change your worldview or figure out where either the evidence or the logic is lacking.

    I concur with Cincinnatus regarding what’s really going on, by the way. Yes, liberals are correct to note that the GOP is becoming more conservative, and that is a natural result of conservatives having a new stable of articulate thinkers who are writing books. It might be posited as well that one reason that liberals don’t have new books is that their positions have been specified quite well by older thinkers (Roosevelt, Keynes, Marx, Engels), and they’re just getting their feet below them dealing with the new refutations of the politics and economics of the welfare state.

    Plus, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the retreat of Western European welfare states, it’s becoming harder (hence my first comment) to argue for it. It’s imposed an untenable burden on societies and it’s getting harder and harder to argue against that fact.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Reg, if you’re going to lambast people for using imaginary facts, don’t ya think it might be kinda smart to, you know, use some real ones? Just tryin’ to help.

    But regarding the idea of “imaginary facts,” the reality of the matter is that Limbaugh–and co-hosts like Walter Williams–do make extensive use of documented evidence. If their conclusions don’t match your worldview, you need to either change your worldview or figure out where either the evidence or the logic is lacking.

    I concur with Cincinnatus regarding what’s really going on, by the way. Yes, liberals are correct to note that the GOP is becoming more conservative, and that is a natural result of conservatives having a new stable of articulate thinkers who are writing books. It might be posited as well that one reason that liberals don’t have new books is that their positions have been specified quite well by older thinkers (Roosevelt, Keynes, Marx, Engels), and they’re just getting their feet below them dealing with the new refutations of the politics and economics of the welfare state.

    Plus, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the retreat of Western European welfare states, it’s becoming harder (hence my first comment) to argue for it. It’s imposed an untenable burden on societies and it’s getting harder and harder to argue against that fact.

  • http://www.spudart.org mattmaldre

    Amazon has put out a heat map comparing the sales of the top blue books vs. the top red books. The results of the map are in sync with this blog post. http://www.amazon.com/gp/election-heatmap

  • http://www.spudart.org mattmaldre

    Amazon has put out a heat map comparing the sales of the top blue books vs. the top red books. The results of the map are in sync with this blog post. http://www.amazon.com/gp/election-heatmap


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X