Suchergebnisse

Do you ever wonder why conservative pundits drop the word "faggot" or talk about killing and then Christianizing Muslims abroad? Do you wonder why the right's spokespeople seem so confrontational, rude, and over-the-top recently? Does it seem strange that conservative books have such apocalyptic titles? Do you marvel at why conservative writers trumpeted the "rebel" qualities of George W. Bush just a few years back? There is no doubt that the style of the political right today is tough, brash, and by many accounts, not very conservative sounding. After all, isn't conservatism supposed to be about maintaining standards, upholding civility, and frowning upon rebellion? Historian Kevin Mattson explains the apparent contradictions of the party in this fresh examination of the postwar conservative mind. Examining a big cast of characters that includes William F. Buckley, Whittaker Chambers, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Kevin Phillips, David Brooks, and others, Mattson shows how right-wing intellectuals have always, but in different ways, played to the populist and rowdy tendencies in America's political culture. He boldly compares the conservative intellectual movement to the radical utopians among the New Left of the 1960s and he explains how conservatism has ingested central features of American culture, including a distrust of sophistication and intellectualism and a love of popular culture, sensation, shock, and celebrity. Both a work of history and political criticism, Rebels All! shows how the conservative mind made itself appealing, but also points to its endemic problems. Mattson's conclusion outlines how a recast liberalism should respond to the conservative ascendancy that has marked our politics for the last thirty years

Do you ever wonder why conservative pundits drop the word?faggot? or talk about killing and then Christianizing Muslims abroad? Do you wonder why the right?s spokespeople seem so confrontational, rude, and over-the-top recently? Does it seem strange that conservative books have such apocalyptic titles? Do you marvel at why conservative writers trumpeted the?rebel? qualities of George W. Bush just a few years back?. There is no doubt that the style of the political right today is tough, brash, and by many accounts, not very conservative sounding. After all, isn?t conservatism supposed to be a.

In the midst of Eisenhower's America, at the peak of the conservative Cold War era, a movement of thinkers and writers defined a pragmatic liberal vision for America. In this tale that will redefine the word "liberal" for a new generation, Mattson retraces the intellectual journey of these towering figures--from historians Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and C. Vann Woodward, to economist John Kenneth Galbraith and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. They served in the Second World War. They opposed communism but also wanted to make America's poor visible to the affluent society. Contrary to those who characterize liberals as naïve or sentimental "bleeding hearts," they had a tough-minded and nuanced vision that stressed both human limitations and hope. They felt America should stand for something more than just a strong economy.--From publisher's description.

The legacy of the 1960s -- Historical reasons for the decline?: changes in American political culture -- The world of political argument: creating a politics of generation X -- What can be done?

Born in 1966' a generation removed from the counterculture' Kevin Mattson came of political age in the conservative Reagan era. In an effort to understand contemporary political ambivalence and the plight of radicalism today' Mattson looks back to the ideas that informed the protest' social movements' and activism of the 1960s. To accomplish its historical reconstruction' the book combines traditional intellectual biography—including thorough archival research—with social history to examine a group of intellectuals whose thinking was crucial in the formulation of New Left political theory. These include C. Wright Mills' the popular radical sociologist; Paul Goodman' a practicing Gestalt therapist and anarcho-pacifist; William Appleman Williams' the historian and famed critic of "American empire"; Arnold Kaufman' a "radical liberal" who deeply influenced the thinking of the SDS. The book discusses not only their ideas' but also their practices' from writing pamphlets and arranging television debates to forming left-leaning think tanks and organizing teach-ins protesting the Vietnam War. Mattson argues that it is this political engagement balanced with a commitment to truth-telling that is lacking in our own age of postmodern acquiescence. Challenging the standard interpretation of the New Left as inherently in conflict with liberalis' Mattson depicts their relationship as more complicated' pointing to possibilities for a radical liberalism today. Intellectual and social historians' as well as general readers either fascinated by the 1960s protest movements or actively seeking an alternative to our contemporary political malais' will embrace Mattson's book and its promise to shed new light on a time period known for both its intriguing conflicts and its enduring consequences

It's hard to remember the sorry state that pop music fell into during the 1980s. Who wants to recall the silky synthesizer sounds of Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet that became the musical equivalent of Valium? Or heavy metal bands like Van Halen, who airbrushed technical guitar chops over idiotic machismo and emotional absence. Or the "classic rock" radio stations (before the advent of the internet) that suggested all good things came from the past, from the charmed late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1981 the music critic Lester Bangs asked a young acquaintance what bands she liked. She spat out bands like The Yardbirds, Cream, and The Doors. For Bangs, this indicated how young people of the eighties had "absolutely no culture" of their "own." Rock felt old and staid, dull and dated.

If we are going to have a civilized society, we need to pay our professional culture producers. We have to consider the merits of subsidies, of providing money that we'll never get back. We need to rethink what provides us with the grounds of creativity—the perpetual search for a bit job, or a job with integrity that allows for the freedom to think and reflect. We can continue to believe that culture is something that will magically crystallize out of thin air, that people will still write books and essays and teach the next generation no matter what they're paid. We can continue to expect free culture on demand and ignore the arguments of the producers of The Hurt Locker . We can remain like the adolescent I once was and demand that culture be free without thinking about the consequences. But we'll be poorer if we do, poorer in ways that are more difficult to measure than the stock ticker.