Product Description

In the vein of Plato's classics, The Republic and The Dialogues of Plato, E. Robert Morse sets off to explore the difference between the two political forces in modern America, liberalism and conservatism. With patient precision, he is able to wind through a dialogue between a group of young friends in order to make relevant and tangible the complex themes involved with politics--the themes most prominent being Justice and Equality.

In a debate this robust, one that issues heated disputes across the globe, Morse cannot help but take sides. But when he does, he does so with grace and humility, not arrogance or condescension. The author's conservatism does not detract from the flowing logical investigation but, rather, lends to imaginative proofs and expands the resilient argument to heretofore-unseen bounds. Considered throughout the dialogue are explanations of free market capitalism and communist socialism, the worth of the self, man's relationship with nature and ideas, absolute and relative morality and the quality of judgment.

Included with the dialogue is the treatise, On the Pursuit and Administration of Freedom, which draws the argument into the arena of freedom and responsibility, a theme established by Morse in his first book, Amazement. As a whole, Justice and Equality industriously confirms Morse's new tradition of intuitive understanding and creative scholarship.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2300817 in Books
• Published on: 2003-10-29
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 188 pages

About the Author
E. Robert Morse?s first book, Amazement: The Realization of Ideas and Dreams for a Sleeping Society, invited a new era of self-reliant progression and cultural renaissance. Several of his essays, paintings, musical and film compositions and graphic designs can be experienced on his website, www.73andsunny.com. He lives in San Diego, CA.

Customer Reviews

Lacking an objective definition of liberalism, IMHO
First, I want to preface my following opinions by saying that Mr. Morse is a good author and his book is well written. (much better than my comments will be) However, I disagree with some of his agruements, so I fealt I should post my thoughts so other people are more informed about what they're buying if they get this book...

When I picked up Mr. Morse's book, I was hoping for an objective definition of Conservatism vs. Liberalism, something to put the current political discussions into context.

Unfortunetly, I don't believe this book did a complete job of this. I believe the author's discussion of conservatism was well thought-out and reasoned. However, I would have to disagree that the discussion of liberalism was as well reasoned.

My biggest problem with Mr. Morse's definition of modern liberalism comes in the introduction, starting with the part titled, "Two Liberals" (p. 10). He says that liberalism clasically means the ending of restrictions and that the liberalism that the country was founded on was the ending of restrictions placed on the populous by government. This is now the goal of "conservatism". What I disagree with is how he reaches a modern definition of "liberalism". He states that the modern definition actually isn't liberalism as such, because it has nothing to do with the lifting of restrictions, but instead is about seeking the end equality for everyone no matter the "intensity" of their effort or how much they produce for society. I believe this end equality is also what he means when he evokes the phrase, "level playing field". (p. 23) However, I believe that the goal of modern liberalism IS actually about the lifting of restrictions...just not political ones. I believe that when liberals speak of a "level playing field" they actually ARE talking about having equal rewards in society when equal effort is put in. An example arguement that this is not the current situation might center around the view that a person born into a poor family would have to put in much more effort to become CEO of a major company than a child born into a rich family (because of the major advantages that money provides, the most important probably being in educational opportunities). Also, few could disagree that discrimination in all forms have placed many groups, "in the hole" in many ways. Thus, liberalism is about lifting perceived economic and social restrictions that keep a person from getting out of life what they put in, resulting in the "Justice" the author refers to.

I thought the book would define liberalism closer to as I did and maybe give arguements why the conservative believes lifting these restrictions shouldn't be the role of goverment or why they believe specific liberal ideas might not be effective in doing so. However, I believe he basically starts by defining liberalism as socialism which invalidates the book as a discussion of conservatism vs. liberalism in my humble opinion.

I also don't think he made his case that the beliefs of the liberal (what he calls having the goal of "Equality") wouldn't be held by someone that believes in God. (p. 20) Or that liberals don't believe in conservatism ("Justice") because the goals of conservatism are too "lofty" (p. 23) or that liberalism is motivated by "focusing on petty monetary challenges while creating fictional oppressors". (p. 19) In the preface he makes me believe it's going to be an objective discussion, but I think the book slips into a lot of subjective opinion. (which I guess is okay if you know that that's what you're getting into)

In political discourse, I think the mis-characterization of each side of the fence is why the sides find it so difficult to find compromise. Personally, I think both sides are about lifting restrictions and achieving more freedom for society in the way they believe is most affective. I think Mr. Morse's book might make both sides think it's more difficult to find common ground than it actually is.

(Not to get off topic, but because I love music so much I also wanted to point out to Mr. Morse that the lyrics, "Despite all of my rage I am still just a rat in a cage!" is actually from the song "Bullets with Butterfly Wings" by The Smashing Pumpkins and not from Rage Against the Machine. p. 19 and you might also want to credit your reference to "above us only sky" to the song "Imagine" by John Lennon on p. 21)

Thanks for listening!

Solid
This is an all-around good read despite some generality and vagueness. This is a book that will welcome to readers of Plato or Machiavelli and not so much readers of Coulter or Moore.

What I thought was most striking about this book was how the author pointed out the subtle consequences of classical and especially modern liberalism. The one I found most interesting was the consequence of modern liberalism that says anything goes. Obviously, not all liberals feel that everything is acceptable, but many of the doctrines of modern liberalism lead to moral relativism and, as the author explains, an ultimate sense of apathy. It seems that the author is most against this giving up--not liberalism or progressivism. It could be said that this book is a case for caring about the important things like politics and not just a case for one side of the political coin.

Interesting, but not breathtaking
This brief book provides a philosophical exploration of the logic behind conservative and liberal thought. The opening essay outlines many of the author's main themes and serves as a foundation for the later chapters, in which the author reasons the major points of the opening essay via Socratic dialogue. At many points in the book, he concludes that conservative thought is a more logical approach to political and social problems. He also spends some time exploring religious sentiment as a cornerstone of a conservative mindset.

Understanding that the author deliberately narrowed the focus of the book to address the philosophical advantages of one school of thought over another, I still could not help but wish for something that more specifically spoke to the unresolved domestic policy problems of today.

Overall, an interesting excercise in examining the justifications of liberal and conservative thought, but it didn't leave me more prepared to enter political discourse on specific issues facing America today. Whether liberal or conservative, it may make you reexamine the reasons for your political choices, but it won't simplify your choices at the voting booth. For a more applicable investigation of current American political thought, I would recommend The Radical Center by Halstead and Lind instead of this title.