ForumGarden

Exceptional article on Civil Society that remains very relevant today.

Perhaps more of this type of thought process and solution set is what is needed. The old playbook of throwing money at problems and creating yet another bureaucracy is archaic and well inside the box. Opponents scream "don't place your values on me", but the conditions and state of affairs speak for themselves.

Thoughts?



SECOND THOUGHTS ON CIVIL SOCIETY | The Weekly Standard

As a right wing journal you cite the Weekly Standard yet 'thumb your nose' at journalism coming from the left.

Thoughts?

AnneBoleyn;1417613 wrote: As a right wing journal you cite the Weekly Standard yet 'thumb your nose' at journalism coming from the left.

Thoughts?


I thumbed my nose at tabloid attack dog media. I respect intellectually relevant left wing sources. The Weekly Standard is highly respected for it's research and thought-provoking articles.

Big difference.

Which intellectually relevant left wing sources do you prefer?

Some site that provide well-researched articles and commentary. This also includes archived produces as well.

Marxists Internet Archive

FindLaw's Writ | Legal Commentary

http://www.ccc.edu/colleges/washington/ ... alsPov.pdf

Heterodox Economics Directory- Journals

Certainly NOT all inclusive.

I think it's important to put this article and its author in context.

Gertrude Himmelfarb penned this piece in Sept 1996. That was four years after a majority of the American electorate had thrown her son and her party out of the White House and rejected the conservatism that Ronald Regan, and perhaps more importantly to Himmelfarb, Margret Thatcher worked so hard to convince western societies to accept.

This "exceptional article" is the lamentations of a then 74 year old staunchly conservative woman, whom, while observing the changing of the values she so highly regarded, was confused as to how and why her world was falling apart. It's clear Gertrude is facing a personal political crisis when she says:"I would think that it is not just contrariness on my part that makes me wince, these days, on hearing talk of civil society. Liberals and conservatives, communitarians and libertarians, Democrats and Republicans, academics and politicians appeal to civil society as the remedy for our dire condition. They agree upon little else but this, that mediating structures, voluntary associations, families, communities, churches, and workplaces are the corrective to an inordinate individualism and an overweening state.

The ubiquity of the phrase is enough to make it suspect. What can it mean if people of such diverse views can invoke it so enthusiastically?"

I find it unsurprising that the right would dig this article up again post second term election of Obama. Himmelbarb wrote it just prior to Clinton's second election win in which everyone on the planet knew Dole didn't stand a chance.

A side note: Reading this article causes me to understand where Bill Kristol gets his phraseology from.

Good assessment Ahso! For me, it is a tired, boring piece rehashing the same old same old. If I want to read the Weekly Standard I can just as easily turn on Fox News. All the columnists appear regularly there.

halfway;1417617 wrote: Some site that provide well-researched articles and commentary. This also includes archived produces as well.

Marxists Internet Archive

FindLaw's Writ | Legal Commentary

http://www.ccc.edu/colleges/washington/ ... alsPov.pdf

Heterodox Economics Directory- Journals

Certainly NOT all inclusive.Who reads to you?

AnneBoleyn;1417613 wrote: As a right wing journal you cite the Weekly Standard yet 'thumb your nose' at journalism coming from the left.

Thoughts?


A fair comment.

Whatever the source, what was offered is an opinion piece.

AnneBoleyn;1417615 wrote: Which intellectually relevant left wing sources do you prefer?


ha ha ha

Not making fun of you, but this whole is driving me nuts,

Left/Right

All the same.

Apparently ideology and partisan politics drive the conclusions....not the content?

It's easy to get stuck inside the same ole playbook. Nothing is really "new", only more versus less control.

oops

kinda repeating myself

Ahso!;1417626 wrote: I think it's important to put this article and its author in context.

Gertrude Himmelfarb penned this piece in Sept 1996. That was four years after a majority of the American electorate had thrown her son and her party out of the White House and rejected the conservatism that Ronald Regan, and perhaps more importantly to Himmelfarb, Margret Thatcher worked so hard to convince western societies to accept.

This "exceptional article" is the lamentations of a then 74 year old staunchly conservative woman, whom, while observing the changing of the values she so highly regarded, was confused as to how and why her world was falling apart. It's clear Gertrude is facing a personal political crisis when she says:"I would think that it is not just contrariness on my part that makes me wince, these days, on hearing talk of civil society. Liberals and conservatives, communitarians and libertarians, Democrats and Republicans, academics and politicians appeal to civil society as the remedy for our dire condition. They agree upon little else but this, that mediating structures, voluntary associations, families, communities, churches, and workplaces are the corrective to an inordinate individualism and an overweening state.

The ubiquity of the phrase is enough to make it suspect. What can it mean if people of such diverse views can invoke it so enthusiastically?"

I find it unsurprising that the right would dig this article up again post second term election of Obama. Himmelbarb wrote it just prior to Clinton's second election win in which everyone on the planet knew Dole didn't stand a chance.

A side note: Reading this article causes me to understand where Bill Kristol gets his phraseology from.


This was only an opening to the discussion, fellas. I gave what I thought was Himmelfarb's state of mind when she wrote her article. I purposely didn't go paragraph by paragraph.

I'm waiting for one of you to go next - that's how a civil give and take exchange works, right?

I assume you both read the article and are willing to talk about the merits of what's contained in it.

Your turn.

Ahso!;1417676 wrote: This was only an opening to the discussion, fellas. I gave what I thought was Himmelfarb's state of mind when she wrote her article. I purposely didn't go paragraph by paragraph.

I'm waiting for one of you to go next - that's how a civil give and take exchange works, right?

I assume you both read the article and are willing to talk about the merits of what's contained in it.

Your turn.


I pass, not unlike many other posters on this site.

tude dog;1417788 wrote: I passCan I accept that as a blanket reply?