What Politician/Thinker from the "Other Side" Can "Your Side" Learn Most From?

[DC Al Fine]

Personally, I think social conservatives have much to learn from Antonio Gramsci. His work on cultural hegemony provides a road map to reverse the slide into social liberalism. Gramsci believed that Marxists must work to seize control of cultural institutions in order for Marxism to succeed. The same goes for social conservatives.

[bedstuy]

At least in America, I can't name a conservative politician that espouses any substantive ideas. 

In the thinker category:

Antonin Scalia: Just to understand that a textually sound interpretation of statutes and the Constitution isn't necessarily conservative and is actually an important value. 

Irving Kristol:  I don't know if he counts as conservative anymore.  But, he has a lot of good points about how the welfare state and the basic liberal consensus can be married with a communal sense of responsibility and standards.   

Personally, I think social conservatives have much to learn from Antonio Gramsci. His work on cultural hegemony provides a road map to reverse the slide into social liberalism. Gramsci believed that Marxists must work to seize control of cultural institutions in order for Marxism to succeed. The same goes for social conservatives.

That's an interesting point.  Unfortunately for conservatives, cultural institutions are largely influenced by educated, cosmopolitan types.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a lot of respect for George P. Grant's work, as well as Tadano Makuzu, although part of the beauty of the latter is her focus on the problems of her own time and place and how she wed the theoretical and the pragmatic in discussing them.

I don't know what side Christopher Lasch is considered to have been on.

As far as political leaders go, I do admit some admiration for Charles de Gaulle, Aldo Moro, and Ikeda Hayato, although Ikeda was on the left wing of his party.

[politicus]

Reihan Salam, Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Josh Barro all deserve serious attention from American leftists.

Interesting choices, could you elaborate a bit on what you think the US left could learn from them?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Many liberal thinkers of the 19th century (especially Tocqueville) had extremely insightful reflections - though I can't really say they are "the other side" for me. Many of the post-WW2 statesmen (Churchill, De Gaulle, De Gasperi - though not Adenauer) did an impressive job. There are many other right-wingers I respect, though it's hard for me to think of one in particular.

As far as political leaders go, I do admit some admiration for Charles de Gaulle, Aldo Moro, and Ikeda Hayato, although Ikeda was on the left wing of his party.

The same goes for Moro. De Gaulle, while obviously not to the left of his own party, in many ways moved the French right to the left (decolonization, etc.).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As far as political leaders go, I do admit some admiration for Charles de Gaulle, Aldo Moro, and Ikeda Hayato, although Ikeda was on the left wing of his party.

The same goes for Moro. De Gaulle, while obviously not to the left of his own party, in many ways moved the French right to the left (decolonization, etc.).

I see. Well, I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of the question asked in this thread, then; that being the case, I would like to cite De Gasperi, actually, now that you mention him. Harold Macmillan, too.

What's your specific issue with Adenauer?

[Antonio the Sixth]

As far as political leaders go, I do admit some admiration for Charles de Gaulle, Aldo Moro, and Ikeda Hayato, although Ikeda was on the left wing of his party.

The same goes for Moro. De Gaulle, while obviously not to the left of his own party, in many ways moved the French right to the left (decolonization, etc.).

I see. Well, I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of the question asked in this thread, then; that being the case, I would like to cite De Gasperi, actually, now that you mention him. Harold Macmillan, too.

What's your specific issue with Adenauer?

Almost overtly sabotaging the denazification process is pretty hard to let pass. His authoritarian style of government and the ungracious way in which he clung to power until his late 80s don't help either, although they are traits found in other leaders as well. I obviously commend his European policies.

[traininthedistance]

I'd nominate Milton Friedman, on the grounds that a) his idea of a negative income tax/guaranteed basic income would be a more efficient and equitable way to do welfare than what we have now, and b) monetary policy is damn important, arguably more important than fiscal policy.  Those of us on the reality-based left ought to be arguing for monetary stimulus and pro-inflationary policy from the rooftops, especially when fiscal stimulus is a political non-starter, and is admittedly not without its own set of issues.  But, no, we let the goldbug cranks and the myopic creditor class take up all the oxygen in that particular fight.

[Hash]

It is indeed pretty tough not to at least grudgingly respect de Gaulle, especially considering what came after (and, with a few exceptions, before). Regardless of his policies or style, the man had convictions and was genuinely honest.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Personally, I think social conservatives have much to learn from Antonio Gramsci. His work on cultural hegemony provides a road map to reverse the slide into social liberalism. Gramsci believed that Marxists must work to seize control of cultural institutions in order for Marxism to succeed. The same goes for social conservatives.

Interesting that you think that. Yes, Gramsci is someone that everyone should take seriously, not just in terms of politics, but when thinking about society (and what it is). He's one of very few 20th century Marxist thinkers to be praised by Kołakowski in the third volume of Main Currents of Marxism.

[Insula Dei]

Personally, I think social conservatives have much to learn from Antonio Gramsci. His work on cultural hegemony provides a road map to reverse the slide into social liberalism. Gramsci believed that Marxists must work to seize control of cultural institutions in order for Marxism to succeed. The same goes for social conservatives.

Well, that's a rather crude picture of Gramsci.

[tpfkaw]

Gramsci indeed is a good choice, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky.  Personalize, ostracize, frame, shame, and demagogue.  No compromises, no surrenders, no parlays.  No letting up or letting go.  No negotiations - present a list of demands, agitate until they are fulfilled, then, once they are, declare them to be "not enough."

The left instinctually understands this, to their credit[?]  Few members of the "right" do, only Lee Atwater clearly did and beyond him Nixon, Pat Buchanan and Joe McCarthy half-understood it.  Among classical liberals, the choices are even more bleak, you'd pretty much have to go back to Andrew Jackson or John Hancock in the US.

[Peter the Lefty]

Goldwater.  Someone who stuck to his principles even when it was clearly politically unsafe, and whose policies were always in line with what he believed in.  The modern-day "left" certainly could learn a lesson or two from that.

[traininthedistance]

Gramsci indeed is a good choice, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky.  Personalize, ostracize, frame, shame, and demagogue.  No compromises, no surrenders, no parlays.  No letting up or letting go.  No negotiations - present a list of demands, agitate until they are fulfilled, then, once they are, declare them to be "not enough."

The left instinctually understands this, to their credit[?]  Few members of the "right" do, only Lee Atwater clearly did and beyond him Nixon, Pat Buchanan and Joe McCarthy half-understood it.  Among classical liberals, the choices are even more bleak, you'd pretty much have to go back to Andrew Jackson or John Hancock in the US.

Goldwater.  Someone who stuck to his principles even when it was clearly politically unsafe, and whose policies were always in line with what he believed in.  The modern-day "left" certainly could learn a lesson or two from that.

Seeing these two posts back-to-back is really kind of hilarious.

Especially in how they do a good job of illustrating how the content of each other's posts has a lot more to do with the posters' biases than anything approaching objective reality. 

[DC Al Fine]

Gramsci indeed is a good choice, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky.  Personalize, ostracize, frame, shame, and demagogue.  No compromises, no surrenders, no parlays.  No letting up or letting go.  No negotiations - present a list of demands, agitate until they are fulfilled, then, once they are, declare them to be "not enough."

The left instinctually understands this, to their credit[?]  Few members of the "right" do, only Lee Atwater clearly did and beyond him Nixon, Pat Buchanan and Joe McCarthy half-understood it.  Among classical liberals, the choices are even more bleak, you'd pretty much have to go back to Andrew Jackson or John Hancock in the US.

Goldwater.  Someone who stuck to his principles even when it was clearly politically unsafe, and whose policies were always in line with what he believed in.  The modern-day "left" certainly could learn a lesson or two from that.

Seeing these two posts back-to-back is really kind of hilarious.

Especially in how they do a good job of illustrating how the content of each other's posts has a lot more to do with the posters' biases than anything approaching objective reality. 

Not necessarily. Social issues and fiscal issues are moving in different directions it seems.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, that's a rather crude picture of Gramsci.

Though, in fairness, no more so than some of the actual leftish attempts to use Gramsci for politics (c.f. the GLC in the 1980s).

[H. Ross Peron]

Gramsci indeed is a good choice, the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky.  Personalize, ostracize, frame, shame, and demagogue.  No compromises, no surrenders, no parlays.  No letting up or letting go.  No negotiations - present a list of demands, agitate until they are fulfilled, then, once they are, declare them to be "not enough."

The left instinctually understands this, to their credit[?]  Few members of the "right" do, only Lee Atwater clearly did and beyond him Nixon, Pat Buchanan and Joe McCarthy half-understood it.  Among classical liberals, the choices are even more bleak, you'd pretty much have to go back to Andrew Jackson or John Hancock in the US.

You forget the Tea Party.

[perdedor]

In general, I think the left could learn a lot from the right in terms of messaging and exercising legislative muscle. What the Republicans have managed to pass with their majorites is nothing short of remarkable, as is their ability to sell such a large portion of he electorate to embrace economic policies that are against their interests. The modern Democratic Party? Disappointing would be an understatement.

[freefair]

There are plenty. Social democrat-Neoconservative authors Christopher Hitchens and David Aaranovitch and CHs Paleo-social conservative journalist brother Peter have certainly challenged some of my long held notions.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Right could learn something from Marx.  At times they've learned the wrong thing - economic/class determinism, historical inevitability, etc.  But Marx's description of the alienation of the laborer from the act and product of labor under capitalism is worth considering. It does at least describe the experience of many people in their jobs - the loss that exists when work becomes merely a way to earn a wage (or a salary even), divorced from any creative or relational capacities.
Defenders of the free market need to grapple with the problem of a sense of lack of freedom people feel within the market.  They can also point out how the managerial/regulatory state only exacerbates this problem by restricting avenues for creativity uses of labor.

I've also been thinking about how postcolonialism can speak to anti-traditionalist/anti-local statist liberalism.  I imagine James C. Scott will be relevant here, though as a left-libertarian he has already broken the 'other side'/'your side' dichotomy.

[cheesepizza]

Alinsky when it comes to organizing a base

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Hmm. Hard to say. Being a Marxist, I'd say Ludwig von Mises, Francis Fukuyama, John Maynard Keynes, and a lot of other "political mainstream" liberal capitalist thinkers. Those who would at the remains of the communist movement as a joke - and be correct to do so. There are two central ideas that I'm thinking of.

Firstly, Marxists and the far-left in general do need to see that the "movement" is indeed laughable - because there isn't a true movement. A select group of intellectuals can form a party, and can even be elected, but can't make a revolution. A central idea of the materialist conception of history (which some view far too rigidly) is that history is made by groups of people acting in their own collective interests. To quote Marx on this, "It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."

Some Marxists waste their time pondering reform vs. revolution, without seeing that without a proletarian mass movement in existence, neither is viable as a means of bringing about the end of wage labor. Such a movement cannot be synthetically created, either. A quote from Vladimir Lenin is as follows - "Every revolution means a sharp turn in the lives of a vast number of people. Unless the time is ripe for such a turn, no real revolution can take place." A revolutionary movement will not come about until dire circumstances - which are almost inevitable, due to the very nature of the modern, international capitalist system - come about. Do I look forward to such circumstances? The answer is unequivocally no.

Following from that, is something that I'd take more from libertarian ideologues like Mises, Friedman, and Hayek, and to some extent, anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kroptokin. Marxists - especially after being involved in Marxism for a while - tend to have a bad case of tunnel vision in politics. Despite the nonexistence of a proletarian movement (see last section), they view everything in politics as a means to one end - the socialist mode of production. All bourgeois capitalist politics is viewed as meaningless, as if it were some sort of massive conspiracy theory to divert the attention of the proletariat from carrying out its own class interest. I simply don't agree with that view of things. Personal liberty is something that libertarian and anarchist thinkers hold in the utmost regard, and I see no reason why a Marxist cannot do the same in most conditions. The central I'm trying to convey in this paragraph is that Marxists should not be hesitant to advocate specific policies within the context of the capitalist system, even if these policies are unrelated to socialism. This seems a lot more obvious than it is among Marxists I've spoken to.

[barfbag]

I think we could learn a lot from the Clintons.