[bradleybirzer]

Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely watch asap.

[bradleybirzer]

EthanLange, apologies for being late in replying. I come From the Christopher Dawson/Russell Kirk/Eric Voegelin way of thinking that ideology is a human construct, usually a political abstraction based on secularized religious ideas. I don’t think of libertarianism as an ideology, but as an anti-ideology. It starts with a basic (and to my mind true) premise about the human person and allows the human person to flourish in his/her own way. It seeks to leaven, not to control. Hope this helps.

[bradleybirzer]

Thank you, Orthodixie. I look forward to it, too. I need (and want) to finish it. Let’s hope I have time this summer. Would be a blast.

[bradleybirzer]

Hey Gerry! Sorry for the long delay. In theory, I knew this forum was here–but this is my first time to visit. I need to come more often. Yes, it’s a bit of a judgment call, to be sure. I think it would be equally fair to list one of G.K. Chesterton’s books here as well. But, Chesterton’s were seen mostly as fairy tales, while Benson (especially given his prominent role in English religious society) was taken as something else altogether. Do you have another candidate in mind? Yours, Brad

[bradleybirzer]

Thanks, Tom! I’m here!!!! Ask away.

[bradleybirzer]

Justin, it was probably said in a moment of haste, but I do love Grover Cleveland. As to Lincoln–he was a very powerful president, though, of course, certainly controversial. Mostly just thinking of timeframe, though.

[bradleybirzer]

Hey, thanks for the good words. Anything written by Robert Utley or Paul Hutton is more than reliable. Custer had his good side–two of his cavalry soldiers from the Civil War are buried across the street from me. He certainly held his own against JEB Stuart on Day 3 of Gettysburg. Still, when it comes to the Indians, he’s pretty nasty. There’s some great work on Custer by William Chalfant as well.

[bradleybirzer]

Hi Patricia, I’m so sorry that I’m so late in replying. This is my fault, not Tom’s. I’ll be much better in the future.

Anyway. . . to try to answer your question. I’m no economist, but I’m taking the idea of a managerial state from James Burnham as well as from George Orwell (who took it from Burnham). The difference, as I understand it, is that while all socialisms are managerial, not all managerial states are socialist. That is, a crony capitalist state can be just as managerial. This seems to be the natural outgrowth a society experiences after leaving the relationships and relational associations found in the pre-modern period. As we bureacratize as a people, it matters little whether we do so as socialists or capitalists. Still, I’d recommend a great book by David Wrobel (can’t remember the title right now) which explores the relationship of Frederick Jackson Turner and FDR. Hope this helps.

[Author]

Posts