One of the Great Works on Classical Liberalism
347612
This book, written as a sustained critique of the social philosophy of Plato, is one of the best statements of classical liberalism I have encountered.  The basic message of Popper's book is that an open (free) society is characterized by the presence of criticism, discussion, and participatory reform.  Popper finds occassion to contrast this view of society with the philosophy of Plato, one of the great minds of the western intellectual tradition.  And it is interesting to note that in the preface Popper writes that he chose to attack Plato only because he is so revered.

Plato, it must be remembered, lived in Athens at a time when democracy was being introduced.  Plato witnessed the displacement of many of his friends from political positions of power, and was shocked by the social turmoil that these changes engendered.  Plato saw these changes as extremely bad, and concluded that all change is necessarily destructive and degenerating because he conceived the origin of society as consisting of pure forms of absolute objects such as good, beauty, perfection, etc.

The task before him was to find a way of preventing (or arresting) change, so that degeneration and social decline could be avoided.  He believed it was necessary to divide society into three classes: the rulers, the warriors, and the workers.  In order to arrest change, there must never be disunion in the ruler class.  To accomplish this, it was proposed that property be abolished in this class, and the family destroyed, since famililal loyalties often lead to political conflict.  No mixing between the classes should be tolerated, and Plato argued that special methods of breeding should be employed among the different classes to ensure "racial purity."

For Plato, then, the chief aim of the "philosopher king" was to arrest change by preserving harmonious union among the ruling class.  This could be achieved only by dividing society into classes the purpose of which was to specify in advance the activities that could be performed by each.

The concluding chapters are more positive, and attempt to introduce alterntative political arrangements that would do a great deal in promoting an "open society."  This would include the existence of democracy, critical discussion, change, "piecemeal" reform, and so on.  Popper sees utopian programs like Plato's as exemplary of tyranny.  They preserve taboos, dogmas, rigid social inequities, power, etc.  Only until alternative views are permitted can we hope to bring into existence a free and open society.

A wonderfully insightful book, and especially useful against those who see Plato as the founder of humanitarianism based on the principle of The Philosopher King.
2112402
In some respects, in 'Left In Dark Times' Bernard-Henri Levy has performed a similar service to George Orwell  - to provide a critique of the political left's toleration of, and at times enthusiastic acceptance of, totalitarian thought, practice and personalities from a centre-left or social democratic perspective.  Levy is not quite Orwell, however, and perhaps a better comparison is with his near-contemporary Christopher Hitchens.  As with Hitchens' writing, here Levy poses some excellent challenges for the left today, together with a (admittedly limited and somewhat conditional) 'mea culpa' for personal support for (or ambivalence to) illiberal movements of the left (or otherwise approved of by the left, such as various Arab or Islamist movements or regimes).  While I disagree with his conclusions, his argument defending his identification with the left of centre and it's consistency with individual liberty is passionate and a useful contribution to social democratic thought, while his defence of religion (of whatever stripe) as a matter of individual conscience and enlightenment while decrying its use as a vehicle for intolerance or violence is considerably more nuanced, reflective and humane than Hitchens' somewhat absolutist atheism.  Levy's recognition that the US is ultimately a vigorous and important vehicle for individual liberty and human dignity - even when significant criticism of US policy or domestic conditions are possible - is a useful corrective to the reflexive anti-Americanism of assorted Chomsky's, Pinter's and Fisk's - even if his own dismissal of Bush appears to owe more to an offended stylistic sensibility than substantive criticism of policy.

There are quite a few jarring notes, however. Perhaps the circular and indirect style reflects a particular Francophone style (although Camus never seemed to have this problem), or is it a matter of imprecise translation?  While one would expect a book by a self-described French philosopher to focus on the arguments and personalities of French intellectual life, he is inclined to make too much of their importance - and his own.  Who else could think that Levy's references to the important speech made by Levy - or the little-known magazine founded by Levy - were really profound or pivotal moments that significantly influenced western thought or policy?  While his self-regard and self-certainty is of the same order of magnitude as that of Hitchens, he has not been quite as reflective in abandoning his tribal loyalty to the left rather than repositioning his personal allegiances to amongst fellow liberals and democrats from the centre-left to the centre-right (which would seem to be the logical destination of his arguments, even if he personally remained firmly on the centre-left).  This centre-right reader certainly tired of his apologia of centre-leftists who continued to flirt with the illiberal (such as Segolene Royal's Socialists) while never quite bringing himself to admit that right-of-centre personalities and ideas were at least equally as important to the Enlightenment, the defeat of Nazism, or the collapse of the Soviet Union as those of the left.  His inability to recognise anything other than xenophobes or plutocrats on the right detracts from otherwise thoughtful arguments and encourages him to take excessive comfort in left-of-centre tribalism - as a consequence the book speaks far less persuasively to any reader even slightly right of centre than it could otherwise.

Recommended?  Readers of a leftist persuasion should find resonant arguments to support a social democratic position while eschewing the extreme, although the moderate right will probably find it less compelling.  Enthusiasts and apologists for authoritarianism of the Right, Left (or any other backward-looking direction) could benefit from reading it as well, although I fear the final product is neither clear, rigorous or persuasive enough the convince the latter of their error.
3104533
Haidt does a remarkable tour de force on the topics of moral physch that a layman can understand. He goes through philosophical positions held since time immoral and challenges them through scientific research and other studies. He goes a long way to explaining why we do things and judge actions as moral or not by exploring what appears to be a reasonable explanation through an evolutionary lens. A self avowed liberal atheist academic, he concedes that his research points to situations where conservative people and religious values actually strengthen society, which I found intellectually satisfying that he was willing to stay true to his research methods and findings, even if it made him uncomfortable at times, bucking the academic trend of God bashing.

One thing that I would have liked to see more, however was his moral pluralism position. He rightly tosses out moral relativism, however his explanation of pluralism could easily be logically deduced to relativism in disguise. Using his definition for politics is spot on, as the pluralism standpoint helps disarm self righteous fury for debate, but it doesn't answer the question: is there anything that is objectively and categorically wrong. His pluralism definition can still justify systematic rape and infanticide on cultural levels, which I cannot accept as ok under any circumstances. This I believe is the true essence of morality, is there a fundamental right or wrong?
3424480
Not that it was hidden, but Benjamin Wiker does an excellent job of explaining the history of how Liberalism came to be a state religion. He does this by explaining the motives and beliefs of many of the great liberal philosophers. How their ideas were taken and implemented. Why Christianity was the target of these philosophers. Finally he shows how slowly but surely Christianity was pushed out of the public square and Secular Liberalism was ushered in to replace it.

The first 15 chapters at times had me disheartened, amazed, shocked and in wonder. The last chapter brought hope as it had a 'call to arms' with definite actions that need to be taken to expose Secular Liberalism as a religion and to disestablish it as our state religion.

This book was very eye opening to me, a social and economic conservative. I am going to encourage both conservative and liberal friends of mine to read it as I think it will open some minds. The Truth is a hard thing to deny.
4263257
Gagnon appears to have left few stones unturned in his analysis of this issue.  He presents the most detailed and thorough exegetical case for the traditional Christian view on homosexuality that I have seen.
Yet what is interesting to me is that Gagnon's methodology is certainly not "conservative," but reflects mainstream, "liberal" historical-critical assumptions in his exegesis of texts.  This is why so thoroughly a liberal scholar as James Barr, who wrote the anti-conservative polemic FUNDAMENTALISM, can nonetheless commend the book despite the "conservative" conclusions that the author reaches.  Thus this is probably the best book for a theological conservative (such as this reviewer) to recommend to any theological "moderate" who is not yet completely decided on this issue. Gagnon is likely to gain a hearing where conservatives will not.
Theological conservatives too may read this work with profit, though they will have to forgive Gagnon's adoption of critical positions on matters of authorship and the like that we would find unacceptable.  Fortunately such matters rarely affect the force of his argumention.
562370
This is an exemplary work that engages the entire history of political thought in the Western tradition. Wolin has added four significant chapters to the original 1960 book and one addresses postmodernism looking at the Nietzschean background to our epoch. For any one doing serious scholarly work in political thoery, philosophy, critical theory, history this book is a necessary possession. For the rest, probably the best general work of Western political thought available.
3081460
This is an excellent book. It is so good that it should be taught in every high school American history class and in related college courses. If you're a liberal and don't know why, read this book. If you're conservative and need even more ammunition, read this book. If you're an independent, read this book. It was also a great companion to Liberty and Tyranny.

Simply put, this book indicts the philosophical foundations of the left, while upholding and making a strong case for the founding philosophies that made this country great.

Mark is called the Great One for a reason.
731170
It was a great pleasure to read McKay's translation of Proudhon's famous/devastating treatise on Property, "What Is Property?". He includes large segments that Benjamin Tucker omitted from his own translation for whatever reason (I'd rather not speculate) and which, in many areas, give Proudhon a very different tone. This alone is worth the price, but he also includes Proudhon's economic critique of capitalism (in which you'll find many ideas that were later developed by Marx), "System of Economic Contradictions", along with other works, letters and some useful commentary. All in all, fantastic anthology.
517770
This book was a great read.  A quick and fun read.  For anyone interested in conservative ideals, or for liberals who would like to find out why they should think more conservatively, this is the book for you.  Paul Ibbetson's wit is sharper than ever, and his down home lessons are a good way to look at the important issues of our time.

Buy this book and read it twice.  (Liberals, read it as many times as it takes)
2767623
This political classic, only recently translated into English from the Dutch, is not very well known to American readers.  Yet, I think that both the author and the book are quite important.  While lots of Christians have gotten involved in politics, very few have gotten into Christian political philsoophy.  I read this book near the end of 2015 and am currently reading it again.  It is published by Wordbridge Publishing, which is under the direction of Ruben Alvarado and is the publishing house for some outstanding works on political philosophy and Christian thought.

Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer , commonly just referred to as Groen, ranks as one of the greatest Christian political thinkers and activists of all time.  His realm of action was in the Netherlands during the 1800s where he was a court historian who turned his scholarly labors to dealing with political issues of his time.  He rightly determined that the philosophy stemming from the French Revolution was a poison that would destroy Christian culture and the political order of Christendom.

Groen, along with others, started a political party.  He and his political allies worked to create one of the most vital ingredients for a Christian society, Christian schools.  His labors involved writing and assembling the Christian history of the Netherlands and the contributions of Christian thought and action from the time of the Protestant Reformation.  Specifically, he labored for the freedom and opportunity to start Christian schools.  It turned out to be an 80 year battle for the heart and soul of the Netherlands.

As with many Christian works, the first fruits are short lived, but the labors have long-term effects.  We are still tapping into the resources of Groens thought.  His name is overshadowed by that of his colleague and successor Abraham Kuyper.  Kuypers brilliance and many accomplishments are not to be minimized, but without Groen, there would have been no Kuyper as we know him.

Groens main work was titled Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution.  It consisted of talks he gave to a group of interested friends on the impact of the French Revolution and how that movement was at heart unbelief.  That work, which was his earlier work, and Christian Political Action in an Age of Revolution were originally in Dutch.  Outside of some Reformed theological circles and Neo-Calvinist philosophical circles, few people look into the writings of Dutch theologians and philosophers.

It is amazing how the little country of the Netherlands produced a whole array of brilliant Christian thinkers during the 1800s and early 1900s.  The names include Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Herman Dooyeweerd, H. Van Reissen, G. C. Berkouwer, Klaus Schilder, and many more.  We can add the names also of those who crossed the pond from the Netherlands to North America.  Louis Berkof, Gerhard Vos, and Cornelius Van Til are among the esteemed names we give here.

Basically, our current political struggles are a re-fighting of the issues of unbelief.  I don't want to simplify and over-simplify current politics so as to boil this down to two charts with one being the good guys (belief) and the other being bad guys (unbelief).  We are not talking about current candidates, the two-party system, or the 2016 election cycle.  Unbelief is a deeper problem than Bernies Socialism, Hillarys emails, Donalds tweets, or Teds abrasive personality.

The problem is not located in the candidates, but in the heart and soul of the country.  We expect flawed sinners to bring us hope and change.  We expect walls to keep out problems and bombs to make the world safe.

We need to get back to some deeper issues.  Some of the answersor at least the right questionscan be found in such works as Platos Republic, The Federalist Papers, and Mills On Liberty.  As we get serious about rebuilding a political and social culture, we have to mine the gold found in those Dutch writers like Groen van Prinsterer and in this fine book Christian Political Action in an Age of Revolution.
4034147
From my point of view, this book is very useful for the teaching of the history of political thought as well as political theory and philosophy. The tendency to separate Western thought fom all the World outside is quite obvious and will have bad consequences. The Classics of philosophy were much more openminded than contemporary professors - it is well shown in the book. We need the books like this one to overcome predicted or real clashes of civilizations. My congratulations to the authors and editors!
953843
Collingwood is one of the best philosophers in the tradition of the German Idealists--indeed, reading his work will do more to help you to understand Hegel than reading almost anything else will.  Aside from being a great philosopher, he is also an extremely clear writer, and he is able, in simple prose, to demonstrate how dialectical ideas have direct and obvious bearing on everyday life.  This book should be the basic "organon" for modern philosophers, but it is, sadly, rarely read.  Reading this can improve your understanding of logic, of natural science, of induction and deduction, of historical method, of the distinctive nature of philosophy, of language, and more.  It is also an excellent companion to his other great work, "Speculum Mentis."  If you know Collingwood only from his writings on art and/or history, you owe it to yourself to read this work (and Speculum Mentis), to understand the deeper philosophical context behind those writings.  (Of course, if you don't know his important and influential writings on art and history, you should read those too!) This book is of the highest philosophical and literary calibre, and belongs in every serious philosophical library.
763781
-Why I Read This Book
I found this book through some conversations with my friend, who had read selections of it online.  (The entire book is available online for free.)  At the time, I was in the process of converting to traditional Catholicism, and I was interested in seeing Fr. Sarda's refutation of liberalism in more detail, especially since I had once self-identified as a liberal.

-Positives
This book defines liberalism broadly, as the rejection of God's - and subsequently, the Church's - authority.  Thus liberalism is really wider in scope than mere political liberalism.  Two points have really resounded with me.  1) Since Satan was the first to reject God, **Satan was the first liberal**.  2) Because all Protestants reject the Catholic Faith and the Church's authority, **all Protestants are liberals**.  I find this second point rather ironic when reflecting on American politics, where we constantly and erroneously describe the Protestant "fundamentalist right" as conservative.  In fact, they are extreme liberals.

Fr. Sarda also addresses those who reject the Syllabus of Errors, which nearly all self-described "Catholics" do today.  These people are liberals who reject the Church's authority.  His discussion is pertinent to the Novus Ordo (those who follow the Second Vatican Council), who reject many of the previous Church teachings on such topics as religious freedom and salvation (i.e. ex ecclesiam nulla salus).  Because the Novus Ordo rejects Church teachings, it is just as liberal as Protestantism.

-Negatives?
None.  Liberals will either hate this book because of their own bad wills, or they will be converted.

-Final Thoughts
I may some day buy a case of these books to distribute at my chapel.  I believe this book is especially important because many of those who consider themselves "traditionalist" Catholics have fallen into liberal errors and may not even realize it.  This book is highly recommended.
3461591
This book is one of the best introductions to Western Political Thought (Philosophy) available.  The author uses a combination of reconstructed knowledge and the sociology of knowledge to make clear some of the complex idea of major Western political thinkers.  I highly recommend this book to beginner and seasoned scholar alike.

Eric S. King
1630928
Dr. Sowell does a remarkable job of explaining the Universal Political Spectrum without using words like Liberal, Conservative, Radical, Reactionary, Left, or Right.
Sowell explains the underlying motivations of the two dominant worldviews, and does so in an evenhanded manner.  He makes his case by painting two disparate pictures of human nature, the Constrained and the Unconstrained.  He presents these two competing worldviews with the aid of readily understandable examples draw from history, such as Adam Smith and J. J. Rousseau.  He then goes on to explain the effect these two competing visions of reality have on the individual's conceptions of such topics as Justice, Power, Knowledge, Law, Honesty, and Equality.
Although this argument, like any other product of man, is far from perfect, it offers a fascinating structure within which to consider ideological issues.  Although it is not a panacea that will explain away all confusion, it does offer intriguing explanations for the often polar differences between liberals and conservatives, and why they so often seem to be `talking past each other'.
I highly recommend this book to the beginner and the expert alike.  The beginner is likely to find himself stunned, while the expert will be familiar enough with Dr. Sowell to recognize his expertise and admire his skillful writing.
2105243
Gary Dorrien has written an extraordinary work of scholarship, more felicitiously written than one ordinarily expects of so much involved historical material.  He gives full and detailed discussions of various schools of liberal theology: Personalism, the Chicago school, the Vanderbilt theologians, Romans Catholic, feminist, and a wide range of many individual theologians.  The work is made even more interesting by pertinent biographical information, giving personal location to their work.  The evaluations include diligent research into reviews and reactions by colleagues and their responses.  The work is also enlivened by reports of many persoanl conversations and responses.
The book seemed to be even-handed in its approach to different points of view.  I could not sense Dorrien's personal stance, except that he was in the liberal camp as post-neoorthodox.  I felt he did give a very generous amount of space to tracing the fortunes of the Chicago school.  I was also impressed with the positive treatment he gave to Nels Ferre, of whom little has been heard in recent years.  Dorrien's mastery of massive, difficult material makes one hope he will one day give us his own systematic take on matters theological.
As an M.Div. of Union Seminary, N.Y., in 1949, I have lived through the period covered by the book, and am impressed by its coverage.  A few impressions: (1) the courageous endeavor of liberal theology to deal with the world of our time; (2) its extreme pluralistic character; (3) its orientation to the academy, rather than the church; (4) as a pastoral minister for 51 years, it gives me some idea of why the church has had such a struggle, and why it has been so stressful to try to be a "believer" in this period.

(The Rev.) C. Eugene Stollings
118438
Christianity and liberalism is perhaps the best-known book length treatise against early 20th century theological liberalism in America. It was published as the famous "Fundamentalist-Modernist" controversy was heating up, and has since been one of the clearest contrasting descriptions of the heart of the difference between modernist liberal Christianity and historical Christian orthodoxy.

The major thesis of the book is that Liberalism (modernist theology) and Christianity are diametrically opposed religions that unfortunately use the same language to describe their opposite views of things. He states, "the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of Christian terminology." Later he states in his thesis, "...we shall be interested in showing that despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism is not only a different religion from Christianity, but belongs to a totally different class of religions."

Machen is interested not in necessarily proving that Liberalism is wrong as he is in explaining that it is not Christian. His burden is not to disprove the tenants of Liberalism (although he speaks some to that end), but to simply describe each clearly and make obvious the huge divergence of thinking in the two groups.

Although Machen is perhaps "the" great Fundamentalists, on must keep in mind this was before Fundamentalist meant: narrow, reactionary, separatist, nationalistic, literalist, ignorant, and the like. Whether or not those descriptions have ever been fair of Fundamentalism, if one presently maintains those stereotypes the honest maintenance of them requires not reading this volume. In 1923 Fundamentalist simply meant one not willing to relinquish the fundamental tenants of Christianity. In fact Machen's overwhelming descriptive word of self identification is "evangelical"- another word quickly loosing its meaning.

In terms of the place of this book now, I consider it utterly contemporary. The fact that it is more than 80 years old and still so incisive simply reveals the depth of understanding Machen had.

I would then wholeheartedly recommend the book for three reasons:

1. It is an important document in understanding the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of American Christianity which is still being fought everywhere.

2. It is among the best and most direct contrast of two very different views of what the Christian faith is.

3. It is a scholarly and thoughtful work written in the proper spirit of Christian disagreement. I was moved by Machen's clear desire to stand directly and forcefully against what he saw to be the greatest danger to the church he loved so much and yet to do so with a great deal of humble restraint. This book should be read as an example of Machen's vision of what the doctrinal "fights" over liberalism should have looked like. His excellence in merging orthodoxy with erudition with crystal clear argumentation creates an example of Christian polemical writing that is not often surpassed.

Finally, due to the permutations in liberalism and its incorporation of postmodern language and categories I think this book is all the more critical for contemporary Christians. It's hard to properly enter a conversation, or fight, that is a century old without knowing something about how it got going.