In the Indian tradition of vada, often called debate, before engaging in a debate, the debater performs an activity called purva paksha (translated as prior view). This activity involves inspecting the opponents core principles to such a degree that one of the members of the opponents team would be happy with your summary of their belief. Steel manning is a recent colloquial term for it. This "book" (more like an extended essay) is a liberal purva paksha of the conservative side. It is something more than that. It also highlights some of the positive aspects of liberal, libertarian, and conservative ideologies.
There are several aspects where I found the book to be a drag. I do not think that the moral foundational theory helps at all. Sure, if you bring out a set of traits to be "fundamental", the self described conservatives and liberals would consider a different set of traits to be more fundamental. While this may be useful to partially understand the reason for difference of opinion, I think that providing anecdotal stories that highlight the difference in value systems would be more engaging. Another aspect of the book that I found to be very disappointing was the liberal and conservative narrative. I felt that the liberal narrative was explained in fine prose and the conservative narrative was botched big time. The conservative narrative prose was childish and caricature at best and disingenuous at worst. I also find the genetic underpinnings of political preference to be somewhat simplistic. There is a bit of name dropping and conference conducting that happens. I felt that the author was trying to tell me more than what he was actually telling me.
The book felt more like a lecture to liberals than conservatives and libertarians. Since the author identifies with the liberal "team", this book was probably the "Dear Colleagues" letter to fellow liberals. It does not give some concrete pointers as to what a regular Joe can do while talking to "opponents". Liberals and conservatives would not get along with each other because John Stuart Mill asked them to. They would get along only when they see a compelling reason to. This book does not give a compelling reason. It gives some mild reasons. Overall, not a very engaging read. The only good thing is that this book is small.
There are several aspects where I found the book to be a drag. I do not think that the moral foundational theory helps at all. Sure, if you bring out a set of traits to be "fundamental", the self described conservatives and liberals would consider a different set of traits to be more fundamental. While this may be useful to partially understand the reason for difference of opinion, I think that providing anecdotal stories that highlight the difference in value systems would be more engaging. Another aspect of the book that I found to be very disappointing was the liberal and conservative narrative. I felt that the liberal narrative was explained in fine prose and the conservative narrative was botched big time. The conservative narrative prose was childish and caricature at best and disingenuous at worst. I also find the genetic underpinnings of political preference to be somewhat simplistic. There is a bit of name dropping and conference conducting that happens. I felt that the author was trying to tell me more than what he was actually telling me.
The book felt more like a lecture to liberals than conservatives and libertarians. Since the author identifies with the liberal "team", this book was probably the "Dear Colleagues" letter to fellow liberals. It does not give some concrete pointers as to what a regular Joe can do while talking to "opponents". Liberals and conservatives would not get along with each other because John Stuart Mill asked them to. They would get along only when they see a compelling reason to. This book does not give a compelling reason. It gives some mild reasons. Overall, not a very engaging read. The only good thing is that this book is small.
Comments