« Who hates inequality? | Main | Assorted links »
Which work of American liberal political thought has held up best?
Having said A, one must say B. Ezra Klein poses this question and receives many responses. I'll nominate William Appleman Williams's The Tragedy of American Foreign Policy, Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, Richard Rorty on cruelty, Michael Walzer's Spheres of Justice, and Harold Cruse's Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail deserves consideration although it does not exactly fit the category. Rachel Carson wrote an important book but not really a good book. Carol Gilligan is an interesting dark horse selection.
Jane Jacobs, by the way, might win either prize if you are allowed to count her as either a conservative or a liberal. But which is she? John Dewey and Walter Lippmann are two other figures who could be nominated for either prize.
If you think this list beats the conservative one, you are right. Note, however, that the conservative list excluded economics (and libertarians), which is where most of the contributions have come on the Right over the last fifty years. Plus the all-important Chicago School focused on ideas and articles, not books. So the comparison is not as lopsided as these posts, taken alone, might indicate.
Just a few weeks ago, Bryan Caplan and I decided that Rawls's Theory of Justice wins the prize for "least Hansonian book ever." For all the evident philosophic care, in the final analysis Rawls was just making stuff up.
What are your nominations?
Addendum: Thinking back, Wilson's On Human Nature might be a good pick for the conservative prize, even though I do not believe Wilson is himself a conservative.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 29, 2008 at 07:54 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
I would suggest Richard Hofstadter's "Age of Reform" is still pretty important in understanding the liberal worldview.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett at Feb 29, 2008 8:33:25 AM
Michael Harrington "The Other America"
"Black Like Me" (given that Conservatives were generally opposed to government-enforced desegregation)
Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath"
Garry Wills "Nixon Agonistes"
Sinclair Lewis "The Jungle" (led to the FDA)
JK Galbraith "The New Industrial State" and "The Affluent Society" - much of what JKG wrote is wrong, but he also def
defined whole areas of inquiry and jargon. Much of modern Industrial Economics / Org. Theory follows from what he wrote.
Posted by: Valuethinker at Feb 29, 2008 8:58:18 AM
I'd be interested to read the reasoning behind your view on Rawls.
Posted by: Henrico Otto at Feb 29, 2008 9:32:01 AM
I like the mention of Carol Gilligan's work as a selection... from some of the psych classes I have taken, I would definitely put her in that list. Other than that, I would have to say, hands down, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Posted by: Michael Fisk at Feb 29, 2008 9:51:36 AM
Letter from Birmingham Jail is absolutely not "liberal political thought." It gets my vote for a different category, one that may include a strange mix of works including Paine, Thoreau, and Huxley....
Posted by: Charlie at Feb 29, 2008 9:59:36 AM
George Orwell's nonfiction, though as with Jacobs, folks might argue whether he's liberal or conservative. I'd chalk that up to a misreading, or a maybe a blinkered reading, or Animal Farm and 1984. I can't conceive, though I'm sure someone more nimble-minded can, of an argument for the conservatism of The Road to Wigan Pier.
I, too, would like to hear more on Rawls.
Posted by: Tim Gray at Feb 29, 2008 10:06:23 AM
The conservatives I know denounce Dewey as a liberal. I kinda like him.
Posted by: michelle at Feb 29, 2008 10:19:01 AM
The appearance of Harold Cruse's The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual on this list doesn't really make sense. It is not written from a liberal perspective and is, if anything, a denunciation of liberalism (and also of the left). Cruse was some kind of a kind of black-nationalist cultural radical.
The word "liberal" can be pressed into all kinds of strange uses. But this one won't work.
For more on Crisis, see this.
Posted by: Scott McLemee at Feb 29, 2008 10:19:05 AM
Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class" misses by a year (1899), but it's held up well for me.
Posted by: cure at Feb 29, 2008 11:06:12 AM
"If you think this list beats the conservative one, you are right. Note, however, that the conservative list excluded economics (and libertarians), which is where most of the contributions have come on the Right over the last fifty years. "
This exclusion considerably unbalances the competition. To take the simplistic 4 pt political spectrum, (left: socially/economically liberal, right: socially/economically conservative) this exclusion leaves the right with only social conservatism. Which, as we've all seen, has been something of a loser for a while now -- few here are going to give any work in this area much credit, and deservedly so.
Posted by: Brian Moore at Feb 29, 2008 11:45:49 AM
Amartya Sen's work will stand the test of time.
E.E. Schattschneider was on the left, but his work is the best defense of democracy we have.
Henry George is neglected these days, but is arguably more relevant than ever -- the left would do well to rediscover him.
Posted by: Chris at Feb 29, 2008 11:47:15 AM
I think John Dewey belongs in the liberal category.
And he was a towering figure who found a path for liberalism which avoided Marxism (while being influenced by some Marxist ideas). So I nominate "The Public and its Problems".
And some modern Behavioral Economics ideas seem to have been influenced by Dewey.
Posted by: thehova at Feb 29, 2008 12:23:33 PM
Good point on Rawls: even Derek Parfit would acknowledge your claim. I remember asking Parfit why Rawls believed someone wouldn't choose a utilitarian principle of highest expected utility behind the veil of ignorance--as opposed to the difference principle Rawls puts forward. If you don't know who you're going to be, I asked, then isn't it reasonable to assume you have an equal chance of being any one once the veil is lifted?
Well, Rawls says you can't assume any probability. Why not? Because it leads to utilitarianism.
You have to remember, Parfit said, that the veil is just something Rawls made up. He can change its conditions if he doesn't like the output. Of course, he continued, it means his argument against utilitarianism is worthless.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Feb 29, 2008 12:55:44 PM
If we're talking about the same John Dewey, he may have done more harm to public education than anyone in American history.
Posted by: Independent George at Feb 29, 2008 1:15:05 PM
I'm not sure I see Walzer's place on this list. Spheres of Justice is in many ways deeply conservative: his respect for precedent and social tradition, and his "Wogs begin at Calais" attitude (as Brian Barry puts it), among others. Given his opposition to individualism, it makes sense to define him as against the type of conservatism to which you subscribe, but perhaps not necessarily to brand him a liberal.
Posted by: Tommy at Feb 29, 2008 1:18:26 PM
Tim Gray -
on the conservatism of The Road to Wigan Pier:
One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.
From chapter 11.
Posted by: Anthony at Feb 29, 2008 1:24:23 PM
Polanyi's notion of commodification is useful, but his conclusion that the market must be stopped does not follow. Markets are about freedom of trade and commodification occurs when people decide they want to trade. Stopping markets is stopping people and where's the liberalism in that? Scenic poverty, anyone?
I think that James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State is brilliant. Is he a liberal or conservative? Which definitions are you using? He is pro-people, I gather. If we assume that conservatives defend the status quo against change and that liberals want change (Burke vs Paine?) then Wilson is neither -- he says that many centrally-imposed changes are stupid but also that the State wants to block citizens' ability to make change (freedom). I make him a liberal, so there.
Posted by: David Zetland at Feb 29, 2008 2:14:55 PM
Orwell's politics and "Wigan Pier" are discussed here.
Posted by: TGGP at Feb 29, 2008 2:43:31 PM
Why no respect for Rawls? Does that mean all philosophy is just "making stuff up"? (Specifically, if Rawls was doing so, Nozick certainly was, too.)
Also, in response to Rue's post, if we were going to put odds on the outcomes, wouldn't it be more realistic (given the income distribution in the U.S. -- or, for that matter, the world -- today) to assume that most people would not be big winners and that there would be more people in poverty than more people fabulously wealthy, therefore making it more likely that individuals behind the veil would choose to ensure a minimum level of income, etc. for the worse off?
Plus, Rawls's theory is a theory of moral and political justice. A utilitarianism that allows some people to suffer for the benefit of others would conflict with his definition of what is moral.
Posted by: J at Feb 29, 2008 3:22:14 PM
If I were behind the veil, I'd choose whichever world had the highest per capita penetration of sex, drugs, and RockN'Roll, baby.
Posted by: Anono at Feb 29, 2008 4:05:06 PM
I think Schlessinger's "Age of Jackson" is the most influential.
Posted by: jorod at Feb 29, 2008 4:13:55 PM
Edward O. Wilson is way to the right of the Harvard faculty, whether that makes him a conservative or not is open to discussion. Similarly, Wilson former enemy and now friend James D. Watson's a lifetime Democrat (he gave $2300 to Obama in January), but both were in the conservative minority during the radical hey-day in universities.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 29, 2008 5:09:42 PM
As a conservative, I would have to say the following have held up quite well:
Revolt of the Elites and Culture of Narcissism, Chistopher Lasch
Friendly Fascism, Bertram Gross
The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly
The Power Elite, C Wright Mills
The Affluent Society, JK Galbraith
City of Quartz, Mike Davis
Blue Collar Aristocrats, EE Lemasters
The Age of Jackson, Arthur Schlesinger
Individualism Old and New, John Dewey
I'm not saying I agree with all of their points, just that they are still worth reading. There are certainly others; I have just scratched the surface here.
Speaking for myself only, I never found Rawls to be particularly persuasive. He makes too many presumptions about the reader and his/her socioeconomic background (i.e. college education, white collar, affluent, guilty about this affluence, etc. I can elaborate on this...).
Posted by: oblomov at Feb 29, 2008 5:13:14 PM
We can always go to the classics: Liberalism by L. T. Hobhouse (1911).
Sen and Dewey are also terrific candidates.
E. O. Wilson's On Human Nature is neither liberal nor conservative: it is primarily scientific. One of my favorites.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Feb 29, 2008 5:27:03 PM
Jose Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses is not an American liberal work, but the Wikipedia article on the book describes Krugman to a T in the last sentence quoted below:
In this work, Ortega traces the genesis of the "mass-man" and analyzes his constitution en route to describing the rise to power and action of the masses in society. Ortega is throughout quite critical of both the masses and the mass-men of which they are made up, contrasting "noble life and common life" and excoriating the barbarism and primitivism he sees in the mass-man. He does not, however, refer to specific social classes, as has been so commonly misunderstood in the english-speaking world. Ortega states that the mass-man could be from any social background, but his specific target is the bourgeois educated man, the señorito satisfecho (satisfied little prince), the specialist who believes he has it all and extends the command he has of his subject to others, contemptuous of his ignorance in all of them.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Feb 29, 2008 5:36:35 PM
