What do you think?
Rate this book
The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right's Future
A call to arms for the growing movement of “Conservatarians”—members of the right who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal—and a fascinating look at conservatism’s past and future.
There is an underserved movement budding among conservatives, in which fiscal responsibility, constitutional obedience, and controlled government spending remain crucial tenets, but issues like gay marriage and drug control are approached with a libertarian bent.
In The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charles C.W. Cooke engages with the data and the philosophy behind this movement, applauding conservatarianism as a force that can help Republicans mend the many ills that have plagued their party in recent years. Conservatarians are vexed by Republicans’ failure to cut the size and scope of Washington D.C., but they are critical of some libertarians for their unacceptable positions on abortion, national defense, and immigration. They applaud conservatives’ efforts to protect Second Amendment rights—efforts that have recently been wildly successful—but they see the War on Drugs as an unmitigated disaster that goes against everything conservatives ought to value.
All movements run the risk of stagnation, and of losing touch with the principles and values that made them successful in the first place. In this book, Charles Cooke shows the way back to a better and more honest conservatism that champions limited government, reality-based policy, and favor for the smallest minority of the individual.
There is an underserved movement budding among conservatives, in which fiscal responsibility, constitutional obedience, and controlled government spending remain crucial tenets, but issues like gay marriage and drug control are approached with a libertarian bent.
In The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charles C.W. Cooke engages with the data and the philosophy behind this movement, applauding conservatarianism as a force that can help Republicans mend the many ills that have plagued their party in recent years. Conservatarians are vexed by Republicans’ failure to cut the size and scope of Washington D.C., but they are critical of some libertarians for their unacceptable positions on abortion, national defense, and immigration. They applaud conservatives’ efforts to protect Second Amendment rights—efforts that have recently been wildly successful—but they see the War on Drugs as an unmitigated disaster that goes against everything conservatives ought to value.
All movements run the risk of stagnation, and of losing touch with the principles and values that made them successful in the first place. In this book, Charles Cooke shows the way back to a better and more honest conservatism that champions limited government, reality-based policy, and favor for the smallest minority of the individual.
258 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 10, 2015
35 people are currently reading
504 people want to read
About the author
Charles C.W. Cooke
2 books50 followersCharles C. W. Cooke is a writer at National Review and a graduate of the University of Oxford, at which he studied modern history and politics. His work has focused especially on Anglo-American history, British liberty, free speech, the Second Amendment, and American exceptionalism. He is the co-host of the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast with Kevin D. Williamson, and has broadcast for HBO (Real Time with Bill Maher), the BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, The Blaze, CNBC, CTV, ABC, Sun News, and CBS. He has written for the New York Times, the National Interest, The Washington Times, and The New York Post.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
October 11, 2015
Originally, I wasn't going to bother writing anything about this book. I picked it up after having seen Cooke on Bill Maher a couple of times, once memorably discussing the Benghazi hearings erupting in Washington and arguing (reasonably, it seemed to me) for their legitimacy even considering the Republicans' use of it as political leverage. I wouldn't have even guessed he was a conservative from these appearances, nor would I have guessed him to be a liberal. He just seemed rational, a good antithesis of reasonableness in the face of Maher's smug blend of entertainer and media critic.
And The Conservative Manifesto, from the jacket and blurbs, seemed also like it would be a reasonable argument to conservatives everywhere concerning how to best brand "conservatism" for the 21st century: merge it with the best of libertarianism and sell it to the public with honest arguments. My initial guess was that Cooke would argue to ditch the phony "culture wars" trumpeted by the more strident voices of the right: gay marriage, abortion, political bias in universities, etc. And that turned out to sort of be the case. But Cooke's overall argument is much more reactionary than I would have guessed. He begins his arguments from starting points I found either debatable or outright bizarre.
In fact, what I couldn't shake off, even now, weeks after having read it, was when he was discussing money in politics. On page 35 of a book just a smidge under 300 pages, he writes, "Republicans will never outspend… The Democratic Party…"
Really? News to me. Finding evidence to the contrary is almost too easy. Like in this morning's New York Times, where it's reported that 157 families are providing the lion's share of donations to the 2016 presidential race, overwhelmingly towards conservative Republicans aghast at regulation over anything.
Maybe Cooke would argue that the raw dollar amount is greater coming from the left. Maybe it is. But the funny thing about that is, that money would then have to come overwhelmingly from the overall population, not families with ties to the candidates they're supporting. The Latino base, unions, etc. may organize into formidable voices, but they can't pick up a phone and get Ted Cruz on the line with the ease that, say, the Wilks family can.
So truthfully, though I continue to hunger for a sane right-wing voice to bring the term "conservative" back to some reasonable definition we could use to foster actual ideological debate in the three-ring circus of political and media voices clamoring for our attention, I don't think Cooke is going to provide it. Not in print, at least. I simply can't understand how he can hold as premises so many of the assertions he uses to build his conclusions.
Regarding higher education, he writes early in the book that "Academia is no less dominated by devotees of the Left." While conservatives 'tend to cluster in fields like accounting, information management, marketing, and electrical engineering,'...those who identify as either 'left' or 'liberal' head for the ivory tower as if it were a magnet." That made me wonder what century he was writing about. The Ivory Tower admits very few leftists these days. The Ivory Tower barely admits anyone these days, regardless of qualifications. Just ask Rebecca Schuman. Or Thomas Kidd. Or pretty much anyone actually on the academic job market.
Regarding education overall, Cooke complains about the "fetishization" of high school and college diplomas fostered by the Democratic Party, completely ignoring the pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps fantasies fueling the Republicans and how that's leached into the college-for-everyone mentality (fostered by both parties, true) that's so completely screwing up education today. Not that that matters to him: he flat-out argues that the American education system is "the worst possible system." Worse, apparently, than the Taliban's, or North Korea's. I always tell my composition students to never argue an absolute; I honestly didn't think Cooke would need such advice. (Never mind his side comment about the "execrable" teachers unions. I'll get over it. Eventually.)
Regarding the need for an education system overall, Cooke claims that history says otherwise. According to him, New England had high degrees of literacy. He cites someone named Edwin West, who wrote for The Freeman, "point(ing) to a contribution in the January 1828 edition of the American Journal of Education that suggests that Americans enjoyed widespread literacy. By 1840, some measures indicate, more than 90 percent of Americans could read and write." Including slaves? Backwoods farmers? Frankly, what the hell is he talking about? By 1870, according to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 20 percent of Americans were illiterate, including almost 80 percent of blacks. Quite a bit of damage done in thirty years, unless that damage was already present.
Regarding millennials, Cooke seems completely oblivious to the macroeconomic factors governing their behavior: "For now, Millennials vote reliably for the champions of the New Deal. But in private they customize their lives and operate within bespoke networks of their own devising. This, ultimately, is a generation of nonconformists--one that is more comfortable with Uber than with the taxi commission; with Airbnb than with Hilton; and with Facebook than with Healthcare.gov." But, I mean come on. Could it be that their choices are also based on price, and that they can't afford luxury? Could it be that comparing Facebook to Healthcare is stupid? I feel like I'm reading Tom Friedman glorifying a flat world all over again.
Regarding the war on drugs and gun violence, I find him more reasonable: he takes conservatives to task for attempting to argue that America's homicide rate compared to other like countries is off the scale, pointing out that "they do themselves no favors" by ignoring this difference. He wants states to police their own gun laws, since their needs differ; I think that's debatable, but I think it would be a good debate. I'd find it difficult to debate the issue, however, with a man who claims that "really, the NRA's only power is communicative. It tells voters whether or not candidates for office agree with them, and voters do the rest." Why is it that union money is so vile, but the gun lobby's incredible bankroll doesn't even exist?
Cooke also wants to decriminalize drugs--a common libertarian creed, and one that, most likely, will catch on and result in action within a decade or so. But in other places, he courts straw man arguments like a drunken prom date. He equates skepticism with unilateral American military action with "disengagement," and he characterizes voices for immigration reform on the right to a position akin to adopting the Democrats' platform wholesale in order to win Hispanic voters. Maybe the odd pundit is making that claim, but on its face it looks ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is how he dismisses race and racism issues as "nonsense" towards the end of the book and implores conservatives to carry on cheerfully against the onslaught of prejudice lobbed against them by the Left, propped up as it is by special interests. That's rich. In a country where the leading cause of death among young black males is homicide, where the race/class correlation is so big you'd need blinders to not see it, here's a guy arguing that the left is waging class war against rich, entrenched special interests calling the shots in Washington.
Cooke is reasonable and engaging on television. Turns out, he's not so much these things in print, which is disappointing.
And The Conservative Manifesto, from the jacket and blurbs, seemed also like it would be a reasonable argument to conservatives everywhere concerning how to best brand "conservatism" for the 21st century: merge it with the best of libertarianism and sell it to the public with honest arguments. My initial guess was that Cooke would argue to ditch the phony "culture wars" trumpeted by the more strident voices of the right: gay marriage, abortion, political bias in universities, etc. And that turned out to sort of be the case. But Cooke's overall argument is much more reactionary than I would have guessed. He begins his arguments from starting points I found either debatable or outright bizarre.
In fact, what I couldn't shake off, even now, weeks after having read it, was when he was discussing money in politics. On page 35 of a book just a smidge under 300 pages, he writes, "Republicans will never outspend… The Democratic Party…"
Really? News to me. Finding evidence to the contrary is almost too easy. Like in this morning's New York Times, where it's reported that 157 families are providing the lion's share of donations to the 2016 presidential race, overwhelmingly towards conservative Republicans aghast at regulation over anything.
Maybe Cooke would argue that the raw dollar amount is greater coming from the left. Maybe it is. But the funny thing about that is, that money would then have to come overwhelmingly from the overall population, not families with ties to the candidates they're supporting. The Latino base, unions, etc. may organize into formidable voices, but they can't pick up a phone and get Ted Cruz on the line with the ease that, say, the Wilks family can.
So truthfully, though I continue to hunger for a sane right-wing voice to bring the term "conservative" back to some reasonable definition we could use to foster actual ideological debate in the three-ring circus of political and media voices clamoring for our attention, I don't think Cooke is going to provide it. Not in print, at least. I simply can't understand how he can hold as premises so many of the assertions he uses to build his conclusions.
Regarding higher education, he writes early in the book that "Academia is no less dominated by devotees of the Left." While conservatives 'tend to cluster in fields like accounting, information management, marketing, and electrical engineering,'...those who identify as either 'left' or 'liberal' head for the ivory tower as if it were a magnet." That made me wonder what century he was writing about. The Ivory Tower admits very few leftists these days. The Ivory Tower barely admits anyone these days, regardless of qualifications. Just ask Rebecca Schuman. Or Thomas Kidd. Or pretty much anyone actually on the academic job market.
Regarding education overall, Cooke complains about the "fetishization" of high school and college diplomas fostered by the Democratic Party, completely ignoring the pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps fantasies fueling the Republicans and how that's leached into the college-for-everyone mentality (fostered by both parties, true) that's so completely screwing up education today. Not that that matters to him: he flat-out argues that the American education system is "the worst possible system." Worse, apparently, than the Taliban's, or North Korea's. I always tell my composition students to never argue an absolute; I honestly didn't think Cooke would need such advice. (Never mind his side comment about the "execrable" teachers unions. I'll get over it. Eventually.)
Regarding the need for an education system overall, Cooke claims that history says otherwise. According to him, New England had high degrees of literacy. He cites someone named Edwin West, who wrote for The Freeman, "point(ing) to a contribution in the January 1828 edition of the American Journal of Education that suggests that Americans enjoyed widespread literacy. By 1840, some measures indicate, more than 90 percent of Americans could read and write." Including slaves? Backwoods farmers? Frankly, what the hell is he talking about? By 1870, according to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 20 percent of Americans were illiterate, including almost 80 percent of blacks. Quite a bit of damage done in thirty years, unless that damage was already present.
Regarding millennials, Cooke seems completely oblivious to the macroeconomic factors governing their behavior: "For now, Millennials vote reliably for the champions of the New Deal. But in private they customize their lives and operate within bespoke networks of their own devising. This, ultimately, is a generation of nonconformists--one that is more comfortable with Uber than with the taxi commission; with Airbnb than with Hilton; and with Facebook than with Healthcare.gov." But, I mean come on. Could it be that their choices are also based on price, and that they can't afford luxury? Could it be that comparing Facebook to Healthcare is stupid? I feel like I'm reading Tom Friedman glorifying a flat world all over again.
Regarding the war on drugs and gun violence, I find him more reasonable: he takes conservatives to task for attempting to argue that America's homicide rate compared to other like countries is off the scale, pointing out that "they do themselves no favors" by ignoring this difference. He wants states to police their own gun laws, since their needs differ; I think that's debatable, but I think it would be a good debate. I'd find it difficult to debate the issue, however, with a man who claims that "really, the NRA's only power is communicative. It tells voters whether or not candidates for office agree with them, and voters do the rest." Why is it that union money is so vile, but the gun lobby's incredible bankroll doesn't even exist?
Cooke also wants to decriminalize drugs--a common libertarian creed, and one that, most likely, will catch on and result in action within a decade or so. But in other places, he courts straw man arguments like a drunken prom date. He equates skepticism with unilateral American military action with "disengagement," and he characterizes voices for immigration reform on the right to a position akin to adopting the Democrats' platform wholesale in order to win Hispanic voters. Maybe the odd pundit is making that claim, but on its face it looks ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is how he dismisses race and racism issues as "nonsense" towards the end of the book and implores conservatives to carry on cheerfully against the onslaught of prejudice lobbed against them by the Left, propped up as it is by special interests. That's rich. In a country where the leading cause of death among young black males is homicide, where the race/class correlation is so big you'd need blinders to not see it, here's a guy arguing that the left is waging class war against rich, entrenched special interests calling the shots in Washington.
Cooke is reasonable and engaging on television. Turns out, he's not so much these things in print, which is disappointing.
December 29, 2014
I would have to say one of the best political books in a long time. Charles Cooke, writer for National Review, clearly and openly debates the struggle of the Conservative and Libertarian wings within the Republican Party. This dense but quick read covers the history of the current Conservative Debate and how it is dominated by Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians. The crux of his book is based around the idea that Libertarians can take advantage of both Social And Fiscal challenges in the Republican party by shifting the party narrative and embracing more moderate voters that are turned off by Progressive Democrats. Cooke builds his argument by using major writers in the Conservative media and Libertarian Writers.
One of the big short falls is that the majority of the narrative was written before the 2014 mid-terms and may come off as dated by the time it is published. A great plan for the second edition would be to go back and look at the progress of the Conservatarian Narrator in 2016 as the Presidential election approaches. I particularly enjoyed his narratives on Abortion and Foreign Policy as it relates to debates between both parties. Cooke lays out how both parties are simply using Abortion as a means to speak to their base instead of addressing the general public opinion and that foreign policy has been hijacked by Imperialist in both parties. Cooke is clearly in the Conservative camp but has a heavy leanings towards the Libertarian views as it is a means to break away from Social Conservatives who no longer align with moderate conservatives.
Anyone interested in how a millennial conservative is thinking about the power struggle between Neo-cons and Paleo-cons would be interested in this good read. It reads like a Libertarian primer written for the National Review, because that who he is and what he writes. Others have knocked it for being this but that is what makes the book great for the moment. It feels like Barry Goldwater's spirit is in the room as he would more than likely be with Cooke as Conservatarian.
ARC Read and Reviewed for NetGalley.
One of the big short falls is that the majority of the narrative was written before the 2014 mid-terms and may come off as dated by the time it is published. A great plan for the second edition would be to go back and look at the progress of the Conservatarian Narrator in 2016 as the Presidential election approaches. I particularly enjoyed his narratives on Abortion and Foreign Policy as it relates to debates between both parties. Cooke lays out how both parties are simply using Abortion as a means to speak to their base instead of addressing the general public opinion and that foreign policy has been hijacked by Imperialist in both parties. Cooke is clearly in the Conservative camp but has a heavy leanings towards the Libertarian views as it is a means to break away from Social Conservatives who no longer align with moderate conservatives.
Anyone interested in how a millennial conservative is thinking about the power struggle between Neo-cons and Paleo-cons would be interested in this good read. It reads like a Libertarian primer written for the National Review, because that who he is and what he writes. Others have knocked it for being this but that is what makes the book great for the moment. It feels like Barry Goldwater's spirit is in the room as he would more than likely be with Cooke as Conservatarian.
ARC Read and Reviewed for NetGalley.
April 22, 2015
I really don't know why I read this. I blame Tyler Cowen.
February 22, 2021
I'll continue to refer to this as it is concise and smart and avoids pretense. It is showing its age a bit since it was published in 2015 and so much of it is oriented to the Obama era. This author is a favorite pundit of mine and it'd be great if he carried on and wrote another book, perhaps a deeper dive on a narrower focus.
August 25, 2020
Damn I been wanting to read this book. I would give the rating a 4.5 actually. Charles is a non religious conservative/libertarian (like myself) that plainly wrote out the problems of the left and ALOT of the right of politics. It gets a 4.5 because of poll results he posts. Poll results are nice, but i am always skeptical. 98% of the book is great. It was all common sense talk, very gently written. I hope he writes more books.
May 16, 2021
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
I have dead-tree subscriptions to both Reason and National Review. I rarely read anything in either publication I outright disagree with. At worst, I might tend to quibble with an article's misplaced emphasis here or there. I sometimes wish I was as cool as the kids at Reason; other times, I don't think I would be respectable enough to fit in with the sages of National Review.
Which means I'm pretty much a receptive target for Charles C.W. Cooke's recent book, The Conservatarian Manifesto. His general idea: to put together an intellectually respectable whole out of the pieces of conservatism and libertarianism, one that might also translate into practical political success.
And he does a fine job, picking eminently defensible positions from Libertarian Column A and Conservative Column B. A brief overview:
First and foremost: a return to strict federalism, where appropriate political issues are fought out and decided locally. This is appealing both on practical and theoretical grounds. Build alternative institutions to those currently dominated by the left. It's also important to defend and advocate a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. No more "living" Constitutionalism. (Echoing Jonah Goldberg: "The only good constitution is a dead constitution.") For a success story, see the history of "gun control". For a failure (although perhaps success in the offing): the war on drugs. (Given Federalism, see above, this would no longer be a national issue in any case.) Lumping together so-called "social issues" is incoherent. There's really no reason to demand or expect a person to sway the same way on abortion, gay marriage, and/or legal pot. (Cooke is, like me, anti-abortion, resigned to gay marriage without deeming those opposed to be bigots, and, see above, pro-drug legalization.) Foreign policy and defense are obviously "Federal" issues. Cooke leans conservative on the former (general non-intervention policies are just asking for trouble), but sounds libertarian on the latter (because—face it—the DoD wastes piles of money.) Immigration also causes a conservative lean: libertarians tend to be way too blasé and glib about the negative effects of large flows of low-skill immigrants.Cooke is also an astute reader of the political scene; his analysis of where "compassionate conservatives", outright libertarians, and tea-partiers go wrong is on-target, I think.
A quibble, echoing a point made by Donald Devine at The Federalist: I'm old enough to remember the Frank Meyer days at National Review and his "fusionist" efforts, attempting to tie together the adherents of free markets (e.g., Rothbard) with the devotees of virtue and order (e.g., Russell Kirk). It's kind of weird that a writer for the current-day NR doesn't mention Meyer at all. (Since I have the book on Kindle, this was easy to check.)
July 6, 2015
Are you frustrated with where the Right seems to be going? Do you feel conservative around libertarians and libertarian around conservatives? Do you wish the Republican party would truly become the party of small government instead of the party of big-government later?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, I'm here to recommend a book to give you hope.
The Conservatarian Manifesto clearly articulates where the Republican party came from, why it holds to the ideals it espouses, where it went wrong, and how to fix it.
Honestly, when I picked out The Conservatarian Manifesto to read it was partly because of the descriptive word "Conservatarian", partly because of all of the smaller words on the cover, and partly because it rather seemed modeled after the Communist Manifesto. After I got the book I started worrying that it would be dry, boring, academic, theoretical.
Mercifully, it was the opposite.
Cooke does a fantastic job of outlining just why so many people on the Right feel left out by the Republican party. He outlines ways the Republican party can get back to their core mission - a small, federal government that leaves most decisions to the state and local levels of government. He hits on the current weakness of the party, federalism, government itself, the "big deal" about the Constitution, guns, drugs, social issues, immigration, and the future of the party. Even when you disagree with him - and you probably will at some point - the points he makes are worth giving serious thought and consideration.
This work is obviously not a slapped together job, but one that is the byproduct of much thought and deliberation. The great irony is that Cooke's outline to save the Right and make it culturally viable again, without compromise, is coming from an immigrated atheist from Britain who won't become a naturalized citizen for another three years!
The book is easy to read and thought provoking. More than that, it gives people like me hope that maybe America can be turned around and reclaimed, becoming once again the great nation she used to be.
I highly recommend this book. While it likely won't become a classic, it is obviously directed to the specific political situation of today, it will stand as a polemic to the current state of things and a commentary on this era. Time will tell if it will be an unheeded warning or part of the turning tide.
Solid 4 of 5 stars.
PS - For those who care, he does use occasional language.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from Blogging for Books in exchange for my honest opinion. Review originally posted on www.sophiesmindset.blogspot.com
If you answered yes to any of those questions, I'm here to recommend a book to give you hope.
The Conservatarian Manifesto clearly articulates where the Republican party came from, why it holds to the ideals it espouses, where it went wrong, and how to fix it.
Honestly, when I picked out The Conservatarian Manifesto to read it was partly because of the descriptive word "Conservatarian", partly because of all of the smaller words on the cover, and partly because it rather seemed modeled after the Communist Manifesto. After I got the book I started worrying that it would be dry, boring, academic, theoretical.
Mercifully, it was the opposite.
Cooke does a fantastic job of outlining just why so many people on the Right feel left out by the Republican party. He outlines ways the Republican party can get back to their core mission - a small, federal government that leaves most decisions to the state and local levels of government. He hits on the current weakness of the party, federalism, government itself, the "big deal" about the Constitution, guns, drugs, social issues, immigration, and the future of the party. Even when you disagree with him - and you probably will at some point - the points he makes are worth giving serious thought and consideration.
This work is obviously not a slapped together job, but one that is the byproduct of much thought and deliberation. The great irony is that Cooke's outline to save the Right and make it culturally viable again, without compromise, is coming from an immigrated atheist from Britain who won't become a naturalized citizen for another three years!
The book is easy to read and thought provoking. More than that, it gives people like me hope that maybe America can be turned around and reclaimed, becoming once again the great nation she used to be.
I highly recommend this book. While it likely won't become a classic, it is obviously directed to the specific political situation of today, it will stand as a polemic to the current state of things and a commentary on this era. Time will tell if it will be an unheeded warning or part of the turning tide.
Solid 4 of 5 stars.
PS - For those who care, he does use occasional language.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from Blogging for Books in exchange for my honest opinion. Review originally posted on www.sophiesmindset.blogspot.com
August 6, 2015
If you call yourself a conservative, to another conservative, eventually you'll get around to classifying yourself more precisely. There are free market types, foreign policy hawks, social issues warriors, Burkean traditionalists and your good ol' conversation-stopping libertarians.
Charlie Cooke takes as his theme synthesizing the best of the small government, low-tax side with the libertarian's eye toward greater individual liberty. He does not much address foreign policy concerns, which is a shame, but tries to imagine a conservative/libertarian hybrid philosophy that more closely aligns with surveys that show this to be a sizable group among Millennials. So, while he comes out strongly in favor of lower taxes, gun rights but also gay marriage, he opposes abortion on libertarian grounds, which is unusual given that most libertarians stop at the asserted "right to choose" of a woman with hardly a thought for the other heartbeat inside her.
Cooke's a transplanted Brit, but "writes good" and keeps it moving. I found the book thoughtful and nicely argued. I'd still like to have him address foreign policy matters more fully than the standard libertarian swag that "we can't be the world's policeman, end of discussion..." that he offers.
But for people who don't feel comfortable with the social decay that liberals encourage, the economic doldrums that preachy environmentalists, nanny-state socialists and excessive regulation have saddled our economy with, OR the crony-capitalist Republicans who seem to leave their stated "principles" next to the umbrella stand at every fundraiser, this book offers some good advice.
Charlie Cooke takes as his theme synthesizing the best of the small government, low-tax side with the libertarian's eye toward greater individual liberty. He does not much address foreign policy concerns, which is a shame, but tries to imagine a conservative/libertarian hybrid philosophy that more closely aligns with surveys that show this to be a sizable group among Millennials. So, while he comes out strongly in favor of lower taxes, gun rights but also gay marriage, he opposes abortion on libertarian grounds, which is unusual given that most libertarians stop at the asserted "right to choose" of a woman with hardly a thought for the other heartbeat inside her.
Cooke's a transplanted Brit, but "writes good" and keeps it moving. I found the book thoughtful and nicely argued. I'd still like to have him address foreign policy matters more fully than the standard libertarian swag that "we can't be the world's policeman, end of discussion..." that he offers.
But for people who don't feel comfortable with the social decay that liberals encourage, the economic doldrums that preachy environmentalists, nanny-state socialists and excessive regulation have saddled our economy with, OR the crony-capitalist Republicans who seem to leave their stated "principles" next to the umbrella stand at every fundraiser, this book offers some good advice.
February 9, 2016
It's difficult to provide a useful review on the ground that Cooke and I are in such close agreement on so many issues (he's slightly more pro-life than me, but that's about all; that, and I think Kevin Williamson has better taste in rifles, but no one's perfect).
While much of the book is an extremely well-written and updated recitation of some old and good ideas -- I mean this as a compliment -- a few chapters deserve some attention and praise:
• If anyone else has better explained why Same Sex Marriage, drugs, and abortion should not be lumped together as "the social issues" I am unaware of it. This was incisive and much-appreciated work.
• The chapters contrasting conservative success with firearms and failure with Same Sex Marriage were excellent, though I think a little more on the differences between the advocacy styles of each would have been good.
• The chapter explaining the libertarian case for nationalism was superb and deserves greater exposure. It's something I've written about myself, and I'm only glad I got mine in when I did so I can claim to be the Wallace to Cooke's Darwin (I should be so lucky).
Very much recommended.
While much of the book is an extremely well-written and updated recitation of some old and good ideas -- I mean this as a compliment -- a few chapters deserve some attention and praise:
• If anyone else has better explained why Same Sex Marriage, drugs, and abortion should not be lumped together as "the social issues" I am unaware of it. This was incisive and much-appreciated work.
• The chapters contrasting conservative success with firearms and failure with Same Sex Marriage were excellent, though I think a little more on the differences between the advocacy styles of each would have been good.
• The chapter explaining the libertarian case for nationalism was superb and deserves greater exposure. It's something I've written about myself, and I'm only glad I got mine in when I did so I can claim to be the Wallace to Cooke's Darwin (I should be so lucky).
Very much recommended.
December 10, 2015
After receiving an Advanced Reader Copy in the mail unexpectedly one day, I was looking forward to Charles C.W. Cooke's first book "Conservatarian Manifesto." Cooke is a new contributor to The National Review and a definite must read in the magazine and online.
Cooke defines a "Conservatarian" as a "mainstream conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan tradition who subscribes to the fiscal and modern federalist principles of the libertarian philosophy." Cooke does a great job developing this thesis on how Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than they think, especially since The Great Society of LBJ. Encouraging that Cooke states that 2008-2012 was in fact "the high-water mark of progressive electoral and legislative success," (which I agree).
Cook covers the "Conservatarian" position on federalism, guns, the war on drugs, social issues, foreign policy and wraps up with demographics and the future. This is a welcome contribution to the discussion of how conservatives and Libitarians can work together for electoral and societal success.
Cooke defines a "Conservatarian" as a "mainstream conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan tradition who subscribes to the fiscal and modern federalist principles of the libertarian philosophy." Cooke does a great job developing this thesis on how Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than they think, especially since The Great Society of LBJ. Encouraging that Cooke states that 2008-2012 was in fact "the high-water mark of progressive electoral and legislative success," (which I agree).
Cook covers the "Conservatarian" position on federalism, guns, the war on drugs, social issues, foreign policy and wraps up with demographics and the future. This is a welcome contribution to the discussion of how conservatives and Libitarians can work together for electoral and societal success.
January 20, 2016
Surprisingly good summary of conservative and libertarian viewpoints in the US today, and clarification of areas of harmony and divergence.
(Audible audiobook)
(Audible audiobook)
August 21, 2023
Not a bad book, but in my opinion it doesn't really stand out on its own. But I guess that's not really the intention, it's just to express his views. I thought his positions on some issues were interesting, like his criticism on the "war on drugs" and the GOP's failure to reduce drug use, and his views on immigration and the left's hasty generalizations on getting Hispanic votes to win elections. But then there's also his anti gun control views which weren't really that properly argued. He didn't really address many studies on why guns are important, he kind of just vaguely stated the book "Shooting Straight" proves that the second amendment is important without actually quoting it, nor did he debunk any claims of easy gun access or how is it many criminals or mass shooters obtain guns. He could have done better. Another part I disliked was his chapter on social issues where he discussed abortions, and how it's a life and death issue, where a woman's right to kill her baby is more important than the baby's right to life. He even references one article from a pro choice woman who says that even though a fetus is alive, the mother's right to abortion is more important, and he uses this one woman as evidence of some people admitting that it is a life and death issue. Series of problems. For starters, who the fuck was that bitch? Not exactly an authority figure here. Second, he's making the assumption that life begins at conception, which is baseless at best and mostly just debunked. He didn't even provide any ways to reduce or stop abortions, which has been done with serious consequences. He sort of addresses the claim that fetuses are just a bunch of cells, but like I said , doesn't debunk that it's all they are. Yeah, they're cells. So are skin cells. If life begins at conception despite the fact that they have no brain waves, no heart beat, no autonomous body, are are even unable to feel pain up to the second trimester, then are all cells alive the same way? In that case, scratching an itch is an apocalypse, or hands jobs are genocide. He kind of fucked that one up. The only way Cooke stands out in this is that he is actually an atheist on the right, so his views on these issues don't come from a religious right perspective. Although he did pretty well most of the book, not on all his beliefs, which is unfortunate. But, over all, not a bad book.
May 31, 2015
Since Barack Obama's election in 2008, the conservative movement and its primary vehicle, the Republican Party, have been adrift. (The midterm success of 2010 and 2014 notwithstanding.) Cooke doesn't hope to bring the wayward craft back to shore; his goal is the more modest one of pointing it in the right direction.
The future of conservatism is, in Cooke's view, a fusion of conservative and libertarian principles. Hence "conservatarianism." The principles Cooke elucidates will be familiar to those who pay close attention to politics. But for those who don't (and that is in fact most people in the USA, as their more attuned brethren always lament), Cooke's book is a good primer for one path conservatives and Republicans might take.
Cooke calls for a return to fundamental conservative principles such as federalism and respect for the Constitution. His first chapters concentrate on this. He also notes some of the structural disadvantages conservatives now face, such as the near total colonization of non-political institutions by the left; e.g. popular culture, academia, and the news media.
Cooke espouses a live-and-let-live philosophy of individual liberties, autonomy, and limited government. If there's a primary goal of "conservatarianism," it is to reduce the massive scope and weight of the federal government as it exists now. The federal government is huge, overbearing, and oppressive. As Cooke notes, conservatives have been complicit in its expansion. They can't have it both ways, he argues, supporting it when they run it and opposing it when the Democrats are in charge.
Cooke, as many conservatives now do, indicts the war on drugs as a prime example of government overreach and the betrayal of conservative values. It is his case study of a "failure" of conservative ideas, resulting in a vastly expanded federal government, mass incarceration, the militarization of police, and the like. The drug war stands for the criminalization of broad swathes of life, something libertarians and libertarian-inclined conservatives see as a grave threat to civil liberties and civil society.
The defeat of the gun control movement is Cooke's example of a conservatarian success. Whereas at one point it was considered uncontroversial to want to ban handguns, the Second Amendment is now held to grant individuals the right to bear arms. As gun laws have loosened, crime rates have plunged. The link, if any, between these two trends is controversial; but that both have happened is indisputable. Conservatives and libertarians demanded the government recognize the right to bear arms, advocated for this recognition, and won it. This right is imperiled by those who wish to undo it, but, as Cooke notes, any attempt to ban guns and enforce this ban – perhaps via mandatory confiscation – would result in violent resistance, perhaps even a civil war. Cooke chastises those on the left unwilling or incapable of admitting this reality to themselves as naive and unreal.
He admonishes libertarians on these same grounds several times, notably in discussing immigration. Most libertarians support open borders and free movement of peoples. A fine sentiment in the abstract, Cooke says, but harmful in reality. It makes no sense, he argues, to allow unlimited immigration when there are more people than jobs and mass welfare exists. You are just inviting people to become additional burdens on taxpayers. This sort of unreal wishful thinking, Cooke suggests, is one reason libertarians make little headway with the public. He makes similar criticisms of libertarian views on foreign policy. Retrenchment may sound good in the abstract, but Cooke sides with conservatives who believe a global order secured by the US a better alternative than a world in which the US retreats and less capable and/or more hostile powers play a greater role.
Cooke doesn't refrain from chastising conservatives, either. He implores them to give up the fight against gay marriage and instead focus on securing the liberties of those who oppose it. As recent events have shown, this may well be impossible. Government is a leviathan in its own right. So is big business. Their combination may well be a monstrosity in which any liberty and resistance are nullified.
Another area in which Cooke challenges conservatives is their addiction to defense spending. A robust military and foreign policy are good, Cooke agrees, but Republicans' tendency to support any defense program they meet undermines their claims of fiscal restraint and belief in small government. If conservatives really do believe in smaller government with less spending, their sacred cows will have to bleed, too.
Cooke doesn't advocate any specific policies or proposals, save for broad ones like drug legalization. He doesn't, for example, say the tax rate should be this high, that the IRS should be abolished, that the Export-Import bank must go, how to reform Social Security, or the like. He didn't set out to write a party platform, nor did he. This is a manifesto, a statement of principles. It's less a road map than it is a sign pointing in a particular direction. But there's a question mark on the sign, as this isn't necessarily the only way forward for conservatives and Republicans. It's one possibility. Some will find it attractive, some won't. Cooke's purpose is to get those who read it, especially those who don't pay attention to politics on a daily basis, to think about it.
Any reader of such a book will find things to criticize, either things that were left out or arguments he didn't find convincing. Cooke's focus is on government, but I think any successful "conservatarianism" will have to confront conservatives' and Republicans' reflexive support of big business. Cooke does note that support of free markets is a core conservative and libertarian principle, and that one of the successes of the tea party was forcing a recognition among the broader conservative movement and the GOP that supporting big business isn't the same as supporting free markets. They can, in fact, be antithetical. My most substantive criticism, then, is that there isn't a chapter on economics. Any successful future conservative movement will have a substantial economic component. Conservatarianism will be no exception.
I'm uncertain whether Cooke's exercise was one of pouring a new wine into an old bottle, simply slapping on a new label onto the old bottle, or pouring the old wine into a new bottle. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose. It is a synthesis. Cooke embraces some conservative principles (a robust foreign policy, staunch opposition to abortion and unlimited immigration, staunch support of the Second Amendment) while trying to wed them to libertarian positions (embracing gay marriage, ending the drug war and decriminalizing controlled substances). It is provocative. I'm not sure on what side of the old Rousseauean distinction of persuading and convincing it falls on. But it is well worth considering. Given where the GOP and conservatives find themselves these days, it surely couldn't hurt.
Published 31 May 2015
The future of conservatism is, in Cooke's view, a fusion of conservative and libertarian principles. Hence "conservatarianism." The principles Cooke elucidates will be familiar to those who pay close attention to politics. But for those who don't (and that is in fact most people in the USA, as their more attuned brethren always lament), Cooke's book is a good primer for one path conservatives and Republicans might take.
Cooke calls for a return to fundamental conservative principles such as federalism and respect for the Constitution. His first chapters concentrate on this. He also notes some of the structural disadvantages conservatives now face, such as the near total colonization of non-political institutions by the left; e.g. popular culture, academia, and the news media.
Cooke espouses a live-and-let-live philosophy of individual liberties, autonomy, and limited government. If there's a primary goal of "conservatarianism," it is to reduce the massive scope and weight of the federal government as it exists now. The federal government is huge, overbearing, and oppressive. As Cooke notes, conservatives have been complicit in its expansion. They can't have it both ways, he argues, supporting it when they run it and opposing it when the Democrats are in charge.
Cooke, as many conservatives now do, indicts the war on drugs as a prime example of government overreach and the betrayal of conservative values. It is his case study of a "failure" of conservative ideas, resulting in a vastly expanded federal government, mass incarceration, the militarization of police, and the like. The drug war stands for the criminalization of broad swathes of life, something libertarians and libertarian-inclined conservatives see as a grave threat to civil liberties and civil society.
The defeat of the gun control movement is Cooke's example of a conservatarian success. Whereas at one point it was considered uncontroversial to want to ban handguns, the Second Amendment is now held to grant individuals the right to bear arms. As gun laws have loosened, crime rates have plunged. The link, if any, between these two trends is controversial; but that both have happened is indisputable. Conservatives and libertarians demanded the government recognize the right to bear arms, advocated for this recognition, and won it. This right is imperiled by those who wish to undo it, but, as Cooke notes, any attempt to ban guns and enforce this ban – perhaps via mandatory confiscation – would result in violent resistance, perhaps even a civil war. Cooke chastises those on the left unwilling or incapable of admitting this reality to themselves as naive and unreal.
He admonishes libertarians on these same grounds several times, notably in discussing immigration. Most libertarians support open borders and free movement of peoples. A fine sentiment in the abstract, Cooke says, but harmful in reality. It makes no sense, he argues, to allow unlimited immigration when there are more people than jobs and mass welfare exists. You are just inviting people to become additional burdens on taxpayers. This sort of unreal wishful thinking, Cooke suggests, is one reason libertarians make little headway with the public. He makes similar criticisms of libertarian views on foreign policy. Retrenchment may sound good in the abstract, but Cooke sides with conservatives who believe a global order secured by the US a better alternative than a world in which the US retreats and less capable and/or more hostile powers play a greater role.
Cooke doesn't refrain from chastising conservatives, either. He implores them to give up the fight against gay marriage and instead focus on securing the liberties of those who oppose it. As recent events have shown, this may well be impossible. Government is a leviathan in its own right. So is big business. Their combination may well be a monstrosity in which any liberty and resistance are nullified.
Another area in which Cooke challenges conservatives is their addiction to defense spending. A robust military and foreign policy are good, Cooke agrees, but Republicans' tendency to support any defense program they meet undermines their claims of fiscal restraint and belief in small government. If conservatives really do believe in smaller government with less spending, their sacred cows will have to bleed, too.
Cooke doesn't advocate any specific policies or proposals, save for broad ones like drug legalization. He doesn't, for example, say the tax rate should be this high, that the IRS should be abolished, that the Export-Import bank must go, how to reform Social Security, or the like. He didn't set out to write a party platform, nor did he. This is a manifesto, a statement of principles. It's less a road map than it is a sign pointing in a particular direction. But there's a question mark on the sign, as this isn't necessarily the only way forward for conservatives and Republicans. It's one possibility. Some will find it attractive, some won't. Cooke's purpose is to get those who read it, especially those who don't pay attention to politics on a daily basis, to think about it.
Any reader of such a book will find things to criticize, either things that were left out or arguments he didn't find convincing. Cooke's focus is on government, but I think any successful "conservatarianism" will have to confront conservatives' and Republicans' reflexive support of big business. Cooke does note that support of free markets is a core conservative and libertarian principle, and that one of the successes of the tea party was forcing a recognition among the broader conservative movement and the GOP that supporting big business isn't the same as supporting free markets. They can, in fact, be antithetical. My most substantive criticism, then, is that there isn't a chapter on economics. Any successful future conservative movement will have a substantial economic component. Conservatarianism will be no exception.
I'm uncertain whether Cooke's exercise was one of pouring a new wine into an old bottle, simply slapping on a new label onto the old bottle, or pouring the old wine into a new bottle. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose. It is a synthesis. Cooke embraces some conservative principles (a robust foreign policy, staunch opposition to abortion and unlimited immigration, staunch support of the Second Amendment) while trying to wed them to libertarian positions (embracing gay marriage, ending the drug war and decriminalizing controlled substances). It is provocative. I'm not sure on what side of the old Rousseauean distinction of persuading and convincing it falls on. But it is well worth considering. Given where the GOP and conservatives find themselves these days, it surely couldn't hurt.
Published 31 May 2015
May 17, 2018
The book is written well enough, so it doesn't get one star. The entire premise is wrong though.
For a libertarian, there may be more individual policies they would share support with many conservatives than liberal progressives. For example, spending cuts, deregulation, the right to arm and defend ourselves. But ideologically there is no overlap whatsoever.
Libertarianism is based on the idea that every individual has the right to their life and property, and as such may not legally aggress against the life or property of others. These are rights to which human beings are entitled, which means there cannot exist a legitimate authority than can take them away.
That means the government has no rightful say in who a person wants to marry, what chemical they want to ingest into their own body, what someone's immigration status is if you want to hire them, or what products they want to own for defense.
The other sides are much closer to each other ideologically, in fact nearly indistinguishable. No one has rights, only privileges granted by the mercy of government. Each side has their special interest groups that fight for these privileges, but the effect is the same. Conservatives want smaller government, at least when a Democrat is president. Otherwise they don't worry about it. Progressives want to end the wars when a Republican is president. Otherwise who cares?
As it appears that the progressive special interests are winning the PR war, a book like this linking libertarianism to conservativism only serves to attempt to discredit libertarians in the eyes of the lesser informed by lumping them with the crowd that wants border walls and steel tariffs and other big government ridiculousness.
For a libertarian, there may be more individual policies they would share support with many conservatives than liberal progressives. For example, spending cuts, deregulation, the right to arm and defend ourselves. But ideologically there is no overlap whatsoever.
Libertarianism is based on the idea that every individual has the right to their life and property, and as such may not legally aggress against the life or property of others. These are rights to which human beings are entitled, which means there cannot exist a legitimate authority than can take them away.
That means the government has no rightful say in who a person wants to marry, what chemical they want to ingest into their own body, what someone's immigration status is if you want to hire them, or what products they want to own for defense.
The other sides are much closer to each other ideologically, in fact nearly indistinguishable. No one has rights, only privileges granted by the mercy of government. Each side has their special interest groups that fight for these privileges, but the effect is the same. Conservatives want smaller government, at least when a Democrat is president. Otherwise they don't worry about it. Progressives want to end the wars when a Republican is president. Otherwise who cares?
As it appears that the progressive special interests are winning the PR war, a book like this linking libertarianism to conservativism only serves to attempt to discredit libertarians in the eyes of the lesser informed by lumping them with the crowd that wants border walls and steel tariffs and other big government ridiculousness.
June 11, 2020
This book largely takes for granted that conservatism and libertarianism share views on the free market: 250 pages glossing over the most consequential political topic. That assumption has been entirely invalidated by the 5 years following its release in 2015, in which the conservative movement (evidenced by Trump, Tucker Carlson, the success of the American Conservative, Josh Hawley, Oren Cass, and more) has shifted away from Reaganite views of the market and towards the so-called pro-worker, pro-family, localist American economy.
The sections on Federalism are priceless; I enjoyed the book, but the lack of attention given to the market prevents me from giving anything above 3 stars. Or Charlie should re-visit the topic, write an addendum to the book, a sequel, something like that. (That's a challenge.)
The sections on Federalism are priceless; I enjoyed the book, but the lack of attention given to the market prevents me from giving anything above 3 stars. Or Charlie should re-visit the topic, write an addendum to the book, a sequel, something like that. (That's a challenge.)
January 20, 2019
A sagacious and historically well-researched look at the past and future of the Republican Party, and a call-to-arms for conservatives to work smarter, not harder, in the fight against the progressive liberal hijacking of American politics. I'd recommend it to any conservative who's disillusioned with the GOP, any libertarian who wants to appeal to a broader audience, and any American or foreigner who wishes to understand American politics and conservative values better.
October 27, 2025
As I don’t tend to see a ton of the old legacy media where I once saw Cooke from time to time, I honestly don’t know what he is up to these days (and regardless, he probably isn’t on legacy media). Most of this book isn’t overly surprisingly to me, and is in line with my personal-life libertarian leanings…his takes on defense/foreign policy and a more conservative than libertarian view of immigration provided some food for contemplation.
April 21, 2019
Presents a compelling and brilliantly articulated philosophy of modern American conservatism. Initially attracted to the movement by Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative,” I’ve since been unsuccessful in finding a tome that captures his perspective in a more comprehensive and relevant way. I shall look no longer.
January 29, 2018
Brilliant. There needs to be a sequel.
April 17, 2015
“The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”
The Conservatarian Manifesto is a book that I should have really, really liked. Cooke may be my number one must-read journalist right now. I could fairly be described as a conservatarian (a neologism that flows off the tongue a bit better than conservative-libertarian). I’m also adamant that conservatism and libertarianism are reconcilable and that the modern American Right is evidence of that. The message couldn’t be more timely after fourteen years of suffering through a big government Republican and an EVEN BIGGER government Democrat in the White House. He uses an oxford comma in the sub-title. But, sitting down to write this review a few weeks after reading the book (I received an advanced copy through NetGalley), I remember precious little about it.
I don’t know that I can do The Conservatarian Manifesto justice. Cooke speaks to the backlash against George W. Bush’s embrace of big government. He discusses the marked trend toward a libertarian position in a couple areas (gay marriage and drug legalization). He would seem to seek to reconcile conservatism and libertarianism, although he doesn’t really dwell on the topic. He mentions Reform Conservatism, but I’m not sure how it fits into his message. He walks through a number of topics and includes a rousing defense of the American constitutional system. There is a lot of good stuff that somehow winds up less than the sum of its parts.
Cooke covers guns (he’s pro-gun, but as perhaps National Review’s most eloquent defender of the Second Amendment, he’s surprisingly wishy-washy here), drugs (he sees a problem with both the militarization of our police and with setting drug policy at the federal level), gay marriage (his main point is that the battle is lost), abortion (“[T]here is no ‘libertarian’ or ‘moderate’ case against the prohibition of murder”), and immigration (he comes out staunchly in favor of restricting it). He points out the problem of talking about being “socially liberal,” especially when young people do it, is that it tends to mean only socially liberal on two or three issues, such as gay marriage and marijuana. The problem with his point is that while young people tend to be socially liberal on only a couple issues, that makes them illiberal on pretty much everything else, which makes small government in defense of liberty an awfully tough sell. Cooke also makes the oft-forgotten point that foreign policy is not a binary choice between isolationism and neoconservatism.
But it is when Cooke is making a spirited defense of looking to the Founding of our country that he is at his best. “Just as a scholar of Shakespeare must understand the Elizabethan era, anyone who believes in the American rule of law must inevitably acquaint himself with the late eighteenth century—with the prevailing ideologies, the linguistic norms, the political fights, the hopes and the fears of its leading players, and the circumstances that impelled them to write down some ground rules in the first place.” A common retort from the Left is to highlight the sins of the Founding Fathers—on slavery, on gender, etc. Cooke responds that “[a]ny honest critique of the American Revolution must . . . do three things: First it must compare the values that it established to those that were prevalent elsewhere at the time; second, it must take into account the consequences of those values; and third, it must evaluate their longevity. On all three counts, I consider the Founding to be a triumph.” He’s right. And American progress, when it is truly that, has always been about fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The “history of the United States has been a slow history of recompense—not of fixing fundamental problems with what remains a remarkable and relevant piece of work, but of augmenting access to its protections.” Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t seek to tear down the system; he demanded it be expanded to protect the liberty of everyone. To that end, “the significant postbellum alterations to the American constitutional settlement have been expansive, not restrictive.”
Disclosure: I received a free copy of The Conservatarian Manifesto via NetGalley.
The Conservatarian Manifesto is a book that I should have really, really liked. Cooke may be my number one must-read journalist right now. I could fairly be described as a conservatarian (a neologism that flows off the tongue a bit better than conservative-libertarian). I’m also adamant that conservatism and libertarianism are reconcilable and that the modern American Right is evidence of that. The message couldn’t be more timely after fourteen years of suffering through a big government Republican and an EVEN BIGGER government Democrat in the White House. He uses an oxford comma in the sub-title. But, sitting down to write this review a few weeks after reading the book (I received an advanced copy through NetGalley), I remember precious little about it.
I don’t know that I can do The Conservatarian Manifesto justice. Cooke speaks to the backlash against George W. Bush’s embrace of big government. He discusses the marked trend toward a libertarian position in a couple areas (gay marriage and drug legalization). He would seem to seek to reconcile conservatism and libertarianism, although he doesn’t really dwell on the topic. He mentions Reform Conservatism, but I’m not sure how it fits into his message. He walks through a number of topics and includes a rousing defense of the American constitutional system. There is a lot of good stuff that somehow winds up less than the sum of its parts.
Cooke covers guns (he’s pro-gun, but as perhaps National Review’s most eloquent defender of the Second Amendment, he’s surprisingly wishy-washy here), drugs (he sees a problem with both the militarization of our police and with setting drug policy at the federal level), gay marriage (his main point is that the battle is lost), abortion (“[T]here is no ‘libertarian’ or ‘moderate’ case against the prohibition of murder”), and immigration (he comes out staunchly in favor of restricting it). He points out the problem of talking about being “socially liberal,” especially when young people do it, is that it tends to mean only socially liberal on two or three issues, such as gay marriage and marijuana. The problem with his point is that while young people tend to be socially liberal on only a couple issues, that makes them illiberal on pretty much everything else, which makes small government in defense of liberty an awfully tough sell. Cooke also makes the oft-forgotten point that foreign policy is not a binary choice between isolationism and neoconservatism.
But it is when Cooke is making a spirited defense of looking to the Founding of our country that he is at his best. “Just as a scholar of Shakespeare must understand the Elizabethan era, anyone who believes in the American rule of law must inevitably acquaint himself with the late eighteenth century—with the prevailing ideologies, the linguistic norms, the political fights, the hopes and the fears of its leading players, and the circumstances that impelled them to write down some ground rules in the first place.” A common retort from the Left is to highlight the sins of the Founding Fathers—on slavery, on gender, etc. Cooke responds that “[a]ny honest critique of the American Revolution must . . . do three things: First it must compare the values that it established to those that were prevalent elsewhere at the time; second, it must take into account the consequences of those values; and third, it must evaluate their longevity. On all three counts, I consider the Founding to be a triumph.” He’s right. And American progress, when it is truly that, has always been about fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The “history of the United States has been a slow history of recompense—not of fixing fundamental problems with what remains a remarkable and relevant piece of work, but of augmenting access to its protections.” Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t seek to tear down the system; he demanded it be expanded to protect the liberty of everyone. To that end, “the significant postbellum alterations to the American constitutional settlement have been expansive, not restrictive.”
Disclosure: I received a free copy of The Conservatarian Manifesto via NetGalley.
January 7, 2017
I'm a fan of Cooke, I enjoy hearing his perspective on a myriad of shows (podcasts primarily) as he generally represents ideas in an intellectually honest and thoughtful way. In his book he presents strong Conservative/Libertarian arguments on a good selection of modern hot button political and social issues, but his disregard of obvious counter points to some of the bigger ones makes me question my support for his ideas that I believed to be sensible. I'm aware that these books are generally written for the 'choir' if you will, as I'm not a supporter of Conservative or Libertarian ideologies I was aware of this bias as I read and attempted to get past the unflattering and hyperbolic descriptions of "Liberal" reactions to modern problems. It's hard to find strong intellectual arguments on political subjects that don't rely on presenting the opposing side as the mean spirited and evil anti-patriot, and Cooke almost gets there but too many of his arguments depend on that assumption being accurate that I would probably tend not to recommend this book, though I do still look forward to his insights on current events on shows like L.R.C., Both Sides Now, Real Time and all the other Political talking head shows that he pops up on.
March 15, 2015
Refreshingly inventive, imaginative and historically informed, Charles C.W. Cooke clearly articulates common goals and rhetorical strategies that conservatives and libertarians can both work towards together against an increased centralization of our government in the coming years. Rather than giving a rallying cry for some new “conservatarian” movement, Cooke instead calmly calls for conservatives to pay attention to the growing discontent and changing diversity within their own ranks. There are a large number of people on the right who are dissatisfied with the often hypocritical positions their leaders are now taking. By way of an answer, and within the prudential tradition of Edmund Burke, Cooke urges conservatives to be willing to adapt the application of their unchanging principles to inevitable historical change.
Not only would this be more persuasive to the American public, but it would also be more intellectually honest and internally consistent to their own limited government principles. Moreover, Cooke suggests that it could practically accomplish real world goals in preventing radical (yet inevitable) reforms from being controlled by the progressive inclination to destroy as much heritage and tradition as possible. There is a sense in which some former conservative positions have simply not been working. Two instances of this are drug prohibition and gay marriage. Instead of taking a “socially liberal” position, Cooke instead applies traditionalist conservative principles with a strength and flexibility that is encouraging to see, while avoiding giving undue ground on non-negotiables like abortion and the 2nd Amendment.
For instance, on pgs. 143-144, Cooke writes:
“National Review’s founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., coined a useful aphorism. What ‘is legal,’ Buckley wrote, ‘is not necessarily reputable.’ Here he was pushing back at the fundamentally statist conceit that the government must be the arbiter of all public morality - a notion best summed up by the fatuous claim that ‘if you make something legal, everyone will start doing it.’ Buckley’s phrase is a profitable one, not least because it highlights the space that exists between agitating for liberty and endorsing the consequences. The merits of doing so to one side, it should be perfectly clear to those on the Right that to end the failed War on Drugs would no more require opponents of drug use to relinquish their steadfast opposition than to refuse to punish the Ku Klux Klan for exercising its right to free speech requires us to cease opposing white supremacy. As government grows and civil society recedes, establishing in the public imagination that to allow something is not to endorse it becomes increasingly crucial. There is an opportunity here.”
What makes this book refreshing is Cooke’s reasoned calls for prudence. Such calls are rare these days, but they are strongly compelling - and acting upon them could result in a persuasive power that conservatism has lacked for at least the last couple decades.
Not only would this be more persuasive to the American public, but it would also be more intellectually honest and internally consistent to their own limited government principles. Moreover, Cooke suggests that it could practically accomplish real world goals in preventing radical (yet inevitable) reforms from being controlled by the progressive inclination to destroy as much heritage and tradition as possible. There is a sense in which some former conservative positions have simply not been working. Two instances of this are drug prohibition and gay marriage. Instead of taking a “socially liberal” position, Cooke instead applies traditionalist conservative principles with a strength and flexibility that is encouraging to see, while avoiding giving undue ground on non-negotiables like abortion and the 2nd Amendment.
For instance, on pgs. 143-144, Cooke writes:
“National Review’s founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., coined a useful aphorism. What ‘is legal,’ Buckley wrote, ‘is not necessarily reputable.’ Here he was pushing back at the fundamentally statist conceit that the government must be the arbiter of all public morality - a notion best summed up by the fatuous claim that ‘if you make something legal, everyone will start doing it.’ Buckley’s phrase is a profitable one, not least because it highlights the space that exists between agitating for liberty and endorsing the consequences. The merits of doing so to one side, it should be perfectly clear to those on the Right that to end the failed War on Drugs would no more require opponents of drug use to relinquish their steadfast opposition than to refuse to punish the Ku Klux Klan for exercising its right to free speech requires us to cease opposing white supremacy. As government grows and civil society recedes, establishing in the public imagination that to allow something is not to endorse it becomes increasingly crucial. There is an opportunity here.”
What makes this book refreshing is Cooke’s reasoned calls for prudence. Such calls are rare these days, but they are strongly compelling - and acting upon them could result in a persuasive power that conservatism has lacked for at least the last couple decades.
January 1, 2016
The idea of overlap between politically conservative and libertarian philosophies isn't new -- both place a pretty high value on individual freedoms, for example. In economic arenas, conservatives are often seen as champions of free-market policies that match very well with the libertarian idea of reducing government economic interference to the bare minimum.
They've generally differed on social issues, with the theme of individual liberty underlying the libertarian positions against laws that criminalize drug use or same-sex unions. Conservative social positions, often informed by religious conviction or an overall reluctance to change, usually clash with those ideas.
National Review writer Charles C. W. Cooke, a transplant from Merrie Olde England, finds ways to blend the two positions into something he calls a "conservatarian" position, believing that the portmanteau represents the political beliefs of many people in the United States today and offers a way forward in a country struggling with a number of serious economic, social and political issues. His Conservatarian Manifesto is a cleanly-written basic explanation of these ideas, both concise and precise in its presentation.
Whether or not the ideas convince is left up to the reader, of course. My own positions match pretty well with Cooke on economic issues, for example. He sees the conservative-libertarian mix as a good antidote to both stifling government overregulation and the kind of crony capitalism that seems to know no party lines, and I agree. But while I am less loving of the idea of engineering society through government policy than are many of my fellow knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers mired with me in traditional Christian theism, I can't just shrug my shoulders at, say, redefining marriage. Nor am I as convinced as many that legalizing several currently illegal substances will reduce some of our country's drug problems -- perfectly legal prescription drugs are abused pretty often and their legality doesn't seem to have hampered criminal enterprises based on them.
The Manifesto, though, is definitely a handy read. Cooke offers some good ammunition in a discussion if your position matches his and offers some good counter-proposals against which to test yourself if those positions differ. The odd word in the title and the fact that he writes for the National Review might steer a lot of people away from this particular Cooke book, but people who genuinely like to read other ideas than their own should find it worth their time.
Original available here.
They've generally differed on social issues, with the theme of individual liberty underlying the libertarian positions against laws that criminalize drug use or same-sex unions. Conservative social positions, often informed by religious conviction or an overall reluctance to change, usually clash with those ideas.
National Review writer Charles C. W. Cooke, a transplant from Merrie Olde England, finds ways to blend the two positions into something he calls a "conservatarian" position, believing that the portmanteau represents the political beliefs of many people in the United States today and offers a way forward in a country struggling with a number of serious economic, social and political issues. His Conservatarian Manifesto is a cleanly-written basic explanation of these ideas, both concise and precise in its presentation.
Whether or not the ideas convince is left up to the reader, of course. My own positions match pretty well with Cooke on economic issues, for example. He sees the conservative-libertarian mix as a good antidote to both stifling government overregulation and the kind of crony capitalism that seems to know no party lines, and I agree. But while I am less loving of the idea of engineering society through government policy than are many of my fellow knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers mired with me in traditional Christian theism, I can't just shrug my shoulders at, say, redefining marriage. Nor am I as convinced as many that legalizing several currently illegal substances will reduce some of our country's drug problems -- perfectly legal prescription drugs are abused pretty often and their legality doesn't seem to have hampered criminal enterprises based on them.
The Manifesto, though, is definitely a handy read. Cooke offers some good ammunition in a discussion if your position matches his and offers some good counter-proposals against which to test yourself if those positions differ. The odd word in the title and the fact that he writes for the National Review might steer a lot of people away from this particular Cooke book, but people who genuinely like to read other ideas than their own should find it worth their time.
Original available here.
February 19, 2017
This made for a pleasurable afternoon reading. Despite my disagreeing with a sizable fractions of the issues raised, I am left with the feeling of having listened to a well-informed, intellectually honest and patient (but not condescending) interlocutor. Some positions are much better argued than others, I found, but all presented an aspect that was unknown, or unexplored, to me. I am left with the impression that, at the very least, this book is a comprehensive, if high-level, map of the Republican policies that are derived from the uneven, but not thoroughly forced, combination of libertarian and [classical] conservative ideologies. As such, it is very illuminating.
May 3, 2015
An interesting look at the beliefs of those who compose the center right; conservatives and libertarians, and despite differences in their philosophy, some suggestions into devising a rapprochement that pays tribute to the ideal that both sides hold dear, the belief in liberty. Cooke does well in both commending and criticizing both conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives on their hypocrisy of supporting an intrusive drug war and unneeded costly intervention and nation building, yet he also criticizes libertarians believing that the United States's political hegemony is important to securing free trade and representative democracy around the world, this being the one bone of contention I have with this work. He criticizes libertarians by adopting the mantra of becoming "socially liberal", claiming that the Left does not seek to protect the views and beliefs of those who disagree with them on social issues, and that libertarians are underestimating the political cohesion that the Left holds over its adherents. Immigration too was an issue where he criticized libertarians, referring to their views as overly idealistic, and that nations are more than just economies, addressing the point made by economists that immigration helps economies rather than hurt them. His main point being that newly admitted immigrants do not understand the philosophy of liberty as well as native born Americans, a point that has some merit, but I do not fully agree with. Despite his criticism however, he made suggestions for the future that all those who are conservative, libertarian or generally right of center should take to heart: to not fall for the Left's trap of personal assassination and wholesale surrender to Identity politics, and to take its principles of limited government and federalism to heart, to not just evoke the words and ideas of the Founding Fathers, but to live by them. There are some points where I disagreed with Mr. Cooke, but he supported his positions well without general derision or malice. I believe that this work will be essential in not only the upcoming 2016 election, but the future of our country at large. Kudos to Mr. Cooke for having both the honesty and gallantry to criticize those who comprise his own tribe.
September 7, 2016
Apparently "manifestos" are making a comeback, with Matt Kibbe's last year and now Charles C.W. Cooke's new release. Attempting to fuse together coalitions on the right, Cooke has written "The Conservatarian Manifesto: Where Conservative and Libertarian Politics Meet." And unlike Kibbe's book which focused on mostly himself and some basic libertarian views, Cooke actually writes what could be considered a manifesto.
The first few chapters lays a foundation for libertarians and conservatives to find common ground. While I wish books claiming to be manifestos would give more philosophical underpinnings to their views (e.g., Locke, Bastiat, etc. in this case), Cooke pulls in several modern writers to make his points.
Cooke is unafraid to chastise both conservatives and libertarians when he feels one side is too entrenched in their worldview to see reality. I count twice that he points out that many of libertarian positions would make sense if the government system they want was actually in effect, but that with our current system as it is, these positions are rather pie in the sky.
Cooke is at his best a little over midway through the book when he takes on in successive chapters, drugs, guns, and "social issues." I imagine Cooke chuckled the first time he heard the line of wanting gay married couple to be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns. Avoiding hypocrisy, liberty is preached on all issues from owning firearms, the failed war on drugs, gay marriage, and abortion. Cooke rightfully acknowledges that abortion, unlike other issues, is a matter of life vs. life, rather than liberty vs. tyranny. In addition, his defense of religious dissent on same sex marriage, indeed, his challenging of modern day civil rights laws, is well-stated and rather brave.
While "The Conservatarian Manifesto" started slow, it picked up quickly once terms were defined and parameters marked off. Charles C.W. Cooke is one of the finest political writers today, and a feather in the cap of "National Review" for which he writers. It's an excellent first book from the Brit, and I look forward to more in the future.
The first few chapters lays a foundation for libertarians and conservatives to find common ground. While I wish books claiming to be manifestos would give more philosophical underpinnings to their views (e.g., Locke, Bastiat, etc. in this case), Cooke pulls in several modern writers to make his points.
Cooke is unafraid to chastise both conservatives and libertarians when he feels one side is too entrenched in their worldview to see reality. I count twice that he points out that many of libertarian positions would make sense if the government system they want was actually in effect, but that with our current system as it is, these positions are rather pie in the sky.
Cooke is at his best a little over midway through the book when he takes on in successive chapters, drugs, guns, and "social issues." I imagine Cooke chuckled the first time he heard the line of wanting gay married couple to be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns. Avoiding hypocrisy, liberty is preached on all issues from owning firearms, the failed war on drugs, gay marriage, and abortion. Cooke rightfully acknowledges that abortion, unlike other issues, is a matter of life vs. life, rather than liberty vs. tyranny. In addition, his defense of religious dissent on same sex marriage, indeed, his challenging of modern day civil rights laws, is well-stated and rather brave.
While "The Conservatarian Manifesto" started slow, it picked up quickly once terms were defined and parameters marked off. Charles C.W. Cooke is one of the finest political writers today, and a feather in the cap of "National Review" for which he writers. It's an excellent first book from the Brit, and I look forward to more in the future.
June 14, 2015
This book is absolutely outstanding. The author fleshes out the distinctions between libertarians & conservatives marking the areas of overlap along the way. In areas of disagreement, Cooke explores the nuances that set the two political philosophies apart.
In some cases Cooke explains that he holds to the libertarian view in theory but that circumstances do not allow for it currently.
Case in point, he agrees with the libertarian idea that people aught to be able to move across borders freely. However, he explains Milton Friedman's analysis that one cannot have open borders and *also* have a welfare state. As such, he holds to the conservative premise of secure borders precisely because we have forsaken our free market values in favor of a European welfare state model.
He offers an exhortation that both libertarians & conservatives join ranks to combat the Left's ongoing project to follow the European model of big, welfare government and State control over the citizens' lives, not to mention the Left's habit of racializing all aspects of society and its concomitant balkanization of America.
Cooke is an immigrant from Britain and, for this reason, i believe he has a much clearer view of American politics precisely because he is an outsider looking in. I found his explanation of what it means to be American to be completely accurate and pleasing. His definition is the one i grew up with in Michigan but one i no longer see among young people in California who grow up with the Left's multicultural doctrine. It takes a foreigner to remind us that America is indeed EXCEPTIONAL.
In some cases Cooke explains that he holds to the libertarian view in theory but that circumstances do not allow for it currently.
Case in point, he agrees with the libertarian idea that people aught to be able to move across borders freely. However, he explains Milton Friedman's analysis that one cannot have open borders and *also* have a welfare state. As such, he holds to the conservative premise of secure borders precisely because we have forsaken our free market values in favor of a European welfare state model.
He offers an exhortation that both libertarians & conservatives join ranks to combat the Left's ongoing project to follow the European model of big, welfare government and State control over the citizens' lives, not to mention the Left's habit of racializing all aspects of society and its concomitant balkanization of America.
Cooke is an immigrant from Britain and, for this reason, i believe he has a much clearer view of American politics precisely because he is an outsider looking in. I found his explanation of what it means to be American to be completely accurate and pleasing. His definition is the one i grew up with in Michigan but one i no longer see among young people in California who grow up with the Left's multicultural doctrine. It takes a foreigner to remind us that America is indeed EXCEPTIONAL.
December 15, 2014
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley in an exchange for an honest review.
Pros: I share the political leanings of the author so I am favorably disposed to the ideas he presents in the book. In the chapters related to specific policies, the author does a nice job of using headings to guide the reader and using numbered lists for conservatarians to follow.
Cons: The first two chapters of the book are haphazardly written with the author jumping from topics that (at best) loosely relate to the chapters’ titles. The book was also clearly written before the 2014 election results were in. Since the book is not being released until several months after the election, the references to the election should be updated. The author sometimes resorts to a writing tactic that I despise: supporting his opinion with somebody else’s opinion. It is also clear that the author is more conservative than libertarian as in any tension between the two sides, he comes down on the conservative side and lectures the libertarian side on why they are wrong (this is especially clear in the chapter on immigration). When the conservative side is wrong, the author makes sympathetic excuses (this is largely in the War on Drugs chapter). The book tends to feel more like an individual espousing his opinions rather than writing a manifesto for a group.
Pros: I share the political leanings of the author so I am favorably disposed to the ideas he presents in the book. In the chapters related to specific policies, the author does a nice job of using headings to guide the reader and using numbered lists for conservatarians to follow.
Cons: The first two chapters of the book are haphazardly written with the author jumping from topics that (at best) loosely relate to the chapters’ titles. The book was also clearly written before the 2014 election results were in. Since the book is not being released until several months after the election, the references to the election should be updated. The author sometimes resorts to a writing tactic that I despise: supporting his opinion with somebody else’s opinion. It is also clear that the author is more conservative than libertarian as in any tension between the two sides, he comes down on the conservative side and lectures the libertarian side on why they are wrong (this is especially clear in the chapter on immigration). When the conservative side is wrong, the author makes sympathetic excuses (this is largely in the War on Drugs chapter). The book tends to feel more like an individual espousing his opinions rather than writing a manifesto for a group.
March 20, 2015
Charles Cooke is my favorite political writer today, so my expectations for this book were sky-high. Fortunately, I was not disappointed. I lost count of how many times I nodded vigorously and/or said "Yes!" out loud while reading this book. It is aimed at anyone who considers themselves on the Right and aims to reconcile the differences between conservatism and libertarianism to strengthen both. The Conservatarian Manifesto is a love letter to federalism and local control as well as to the U.S. Constitution. Cooke's comparison between guns and drugs is masterful and his distinctions between the "social issues" are clear(short summary: the right should come around on marriage equality and vehemently oppose the drug war as an affront to liberty, but continue to oppose abortion since a) the country is becoming more pro-life and b)abortion is a matter of life and death). I particularly enjoyed Ch. 4, "Outside the Government", which describes small cultural changes Republicans can make if/when they take the presidency-not taking lavish vacations abroad, only answering questions regarding the executive branch during press conferences, discontinuing the imperial spectacle that is the State of the Union address- and ways in which conservatives can frame the Left as the establishment and themselves as the truly radical philosophy. Would recommend to right and left alike.
March 31, 2015
I've seen the author as a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher and read a few of his essays in National Review, so I already have a bit of familiarity with his point of view. Although I don't necessarily share his political persuasion, he makes a strong case for finding a "middle way" between conservatism and libertarianism.
I especially enjoyed his chapter on federalism and localism. He presents these concepts in a straightforward manner, explaining why conservatives and libertarians believe that most government decisions should be made at the local level whenever possible.
I don't completely agree with his approach to social issues, but I found it interesting that he rebukes the "prevailing wisdom" that all Republican candidates need to do in order to engender more young voters is to adopt socially liberal platforms. The data that he presents appears to counter this popular mantra.
His chapter on the drug war is refreshingly honest, and his discussion of the wasteful spending undertaken by the Department of Defense is badly needed and too-often ignored by those in the neo-con camp.
Overall, this is worth a read to anyone looking to understand the conservative and classical liberal positions presented in an articulate and clear manner.
I especially enjoyed his chapter on federalism and localism. He presents these concepts in a straightforward manner, explaining why conservatives and libertarians believe that most government decisions should be made at the local level whenever possible.
I don't completely agree with his approach to social issues, but I found it interesting that he rebukes the "prevailing wisdom" that all Republican candidates need to do in order to engender more young voters is to adopt socially liberal platforms. The data that he presents appears to counter this popular mantra.
His chapter on the drug war is refreshingly honest, and his discussion of the wasteful spending undertaken by the Department of Defense is badly needed and too-often ignored by those in the neo-con camp.
Overall, this is worth a read to anyone looking to understand the conservative and classical liberal positions presented in an articulate and clear manner.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews