What do you think?
Rate this book
Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle
In a bold act of conscience, Republican Senator Jeff Flake takes his party to task for embracing nationalism, populism, xenophobia, and the anomalous Trump presidency. The book is an urgent call for a return to bedrock conservative principle and a cry to once again put country before party.
Dear Reader,
I am a conservative.
I believe that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered, free from government interference or coercion. I believe that these ideas, tested by time, offer the most freedom and best outcomes in the lives of the most people.
But today, the American conservative movement has lost its way. Given the state of our politics, it is no exaggeration to say that this is an urgent matter.
The Republican party used to play to a broader audience, one that demanded that we accomplish something. But in this era of dysfunction, our primary accomplishment has been constructing the argument that we're not to blame. We have decided that it is better to build and maintain a majority by using the levers of power rather than the art of persuasion and the battle of ideas. We've decided that putting party over country is okay. There are many on both sides of the aisle who think this a good model on which to build a political career--destroying, not building.
And all the while, our country burns, our institutions are undermined, and our values are compromised. We have become so estranged from our principles that we no longer know what principle is.
America is not just a collection of transactions. America is also a collection of ideas and values. And these are our values. These are our principles. They are not subject to change, owing to political fashion or cult of personality. I believe that we desperately need to get back to the rigorous, fact-based arguments that made us conservatives in the first place. We need to realize that the stakes are simply too high to remain silent and fall in line.
That is why I have written this book and am taking this stand.
--Jeff Flake
Dear Reader,
I am a conservative.
I believe that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered, free from government interference or coercion. I believe that these ideas, tested by time, offer the most freedom and best outcomes in the lives of the most people.
But today, the American conservative movement has lost its way. Given the state of our politics, it is no exaggeration to say that this is an urgent matter.
The Republican party used to play to a broader audience, one that demanded that we accomplish something. But in this era of dysfunction, our primary accomplishment has been constructing the argument that we're not to blame. We have decided that it is better to build and maintain a majority by using the levers of power rather than the art of persuasion and the battle of ideas. We've decided that putting party over country is okay. There are many on both sides of the aisle who think this a good model on which to build a political career--destroying, not building.
And all the while, our country burns, our institutions are undermined, and our values are compromised. We have become so estranged from our principles that we no longer know what principle is.
America is not just a collection of transactions. America is also a collection of ideas and values. And these are our values. These are our principles. They are not subject to change, owing to political fashion or cult of personality. I believe that we desperately need to get back to the rigorous, fact-based arguments that made us conservatives in the first place. We need to realize that the stakes are simply too high to remain silent and fall in line.
That is why I have written this book and am taking this stand.
--Jeff Flake
140 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2017
285 people are currently reading
1614 people want to read
About the author
Jeff Flake
2 books13 followersSenator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is a fifth-generation Arizonan who was raised on a cattle ranch in Snowflake, Arizona. Snowflake was named in part for Senator Flake's great-great grandfather.
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Jeff served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001-2013 representing the East Valley.
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Jeff sits on the Judiciary Committee where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and the Foreign Relations Committee where he also serves as chairman of Subcommittee on African Affairs.
Taken from the official website
There is more than one author with this pen name
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Jeff served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001-2013 representing the East Valley.
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Jeff sits on the Judiciary Committee where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and the Foreign Relations Committee where he also serves as chairman of Subcommittee on African Affairs.
Taken from the official website
There is more than one author with this pen name
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 306 reviews
August 2, 2017
I am not a conservative; I am not a Republican; I am an American citizen who wants a government based on facts, rational discourse and hopes for a better future. Not a reality show; not a demagogue; not lies and finger pointing. This book from a conservative republican is an amazingly introspective look into the "sugar high" of the Republican party that is a harbinger of the political crash to come. Amazingly candid and appropriate. I hope more politicians like Flake rise up and take back the right... the left can't balance itself. We as a healthy nation need rational people on both sides of the aisle.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the current state of politics in our government.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the current state of politics in our government.
September 10, 2017
There is much to criticize in Flake’s new book—and I will get to that—but there is a moment in his last chapter when Flake talks about how oppressed people around the world, or people with poor governance, view the United States. This reminds us what all of us, right or left, should be striving for, what we’ve been given, and how we have debased it with our partisanship. We aren’t acting worthy of what came before.
I am not as cynical as the smooth operators we sent to Washington, or the know-it-all pundits outside. They may spend their days trying to upend the opposition’s goals but I am looking at our noble experiment from the point of view of a speck who wishes only to pursue my dreams in concert with others. It takes government to protect citizens, and we used to have one of the best ones.
Flake tries to remind readers what it is to be conservative, hearkening back to Goldwater’s 1960 treatise The Conscience of a Conservative. Flake named his book with the same title, though one could argue that was a mistake on a number of fronts. First, this bears no resemblance to Goldwater’s book which raised a number of topics that were under discussion in Congress and in society and showed how conservative principles would deal with them. He did not inject personal anecdotes & friendly over-the-fence jaw-boning like Flake does.
Second, Flake spends quite a bit of the first chapters aw-shucks-ing us and claiming he isn’t smart enough to actually lead anyone or come up with a new idea. “I’m from a family of eleven & I could never run a cattle operation…” Please, no one suggest he take the presidency. I’ve had enough of these gosh-darn down home guys whose only valuable lessons were learned at their father’s knee. Goldwater would have run the world if he could have. Thank goodness someone stopped him. Hubris is not where I’m going with this.
Third, Goldwater was a big fat bigot whose world was made up of winners and losers, whether Flake chooses to believe that or not. It’s all over Goldwater’s writings and speeches. Why this kind of mindset doesn’t qualify for the far right today is a mystery to me. Flake was supported by the Goldwater foundation for a number of years so he may have some reason for wishing to blur the record a bit. However, naming his book after Goldwater’s was a mistake then, because we’re going to draw parallels.
Flake openly discusses the way his family benefitted from cross-border, apparently illegal, labor. Every year Mexican workers on his father’s ranch would get picked up by the border patrol when the time came to go home, and they’d get a ride home. What is he trying to tell us here? That he thinks it okay, or that the migrants are clearly not evil, or that man is venal? I am not sure we got to the “conservative” angle on this argument.
When Flake tries to convey what a conservative is, he returns to Goldwater:
It’s interesting, what Flake tells us about the John Birch Society and Goldwater: they didn’t get along. Conservative columnist Buckley and Goldwater bookended the Birchers with an opinion piece followed by a letter to the editor which effectively exorcised the group from flying the Conservative banner. Well, they’re b-a-a-c-k, “the emblem of irresponsibility,” the right-wing nut jobs. Flake doesn’t address how to exorcise them again, but tries to redefine Conservatism for today.
The Austrian economist Hayek, followed assiduously by Speaker Paul Ryan, is given top billing as conservative economist, followed by Milton Friedman who reputedly said of a sprawling, unplanned Arizona suburb, “It’s beautiful, isn’t it?” I suppose he’d also say that corporations will self-police environmental standards. “The market will handle it.” Haven’t we already been through this charade?
And this is why Flake should not have used Goldwater’s title. Flake raises no controversy. Goldwater was blunt, openly critical of Liberals, their adherents, and their ideals. Flake covers over any differences, saving them for…when will he surprise us with what he calls the “sometimes brutal” way conservative ideas play out in the economy? He wants free trade because the companies need it to survive, and therefore their employees need it to survive. Somehow we haven’t gotten to the tax issue.
We have ordinary men trying to do extraordinary work. What Flake did do for me was give me a chance to breathe (as opposed to rage) while he spoon-fed me itty bits of conservative ideas without giving me the whole kit-and-caboodle, perhaps afraid readers like me would not finish the book. I still have not seen a good argument for unfettered markets. And no one else has either.
I am not as cynical as the smooth operators we sent to Washington, or the know-it-all pundits outside. They may spend their days trying to upend the opposition’s goals but I am looking at our noble experiment from the point of view of a speck who wishes only to pursue my dreams in concert with others. It takes government to protect citizens, and we used to have one of the best ones.
Flake tries to remind readers what it is to be conservative, hearkening back to Goldwater’s 1960 treatise The Conscience of a Conservative. Flake named his book with the same title, though one could argue that was a mistake on a number of fronts. First, this bears no resemblance to Goldwater’s book which raised a number of topics that were under discussion in Congress and in society and showed how conservative principles would deal with them. He did not inject personal anecdotes & friendly over-the-fence jaw-boning like Flake does.
Second, Flake spends quite a bit of the first chapters aw-shucks-ing us and claiming he isn’t smart enough to actually lead anyone or come up with a new idea. “I’m from a family of eleven & I could never run a cattle operation…” Please, no one suggest he take the presidency. I’ve had enough of these gosh-darn down home guys whose only valuable lessons were learned at their father’s knee. Goldwater would have run the world if he could have. Thank goodness someone stopped him. Hubris is not where I’m going with this.
Third, Goldwater was a big fat bigot whose world was made up of winners and losers, whether Flake chooses to believe that or not. It’s all over Goldwater’s writings and speeches. Why this kind of mindset doesn’t qualify for the far right today is a mystery to me. Flake was supported by the Goldwater foundation for a number of years so he may have some reason for wishing to blur the record a bit. However, naming his book after Goldwater’s was a mistake then, because we’re going to draw parallels.
Flake openly discusses the way his family benefitted from cross-border, apparently illegal, labor. Every year Mexican workers on his father’s ranch would get picked up by the border patrol when the time came to go home, and they’d get a ride home. What is he trying to tell us here? That he thinks it okay, or that the migrants are clearly not evil, or that man is venal? I am not sure we got to the “conservative” angle on this argument.
When Flake tries to convey what a conservative is, he returns to Goldwater:
“…Conservatism…allows for the separate identity of individual human beings…and is not mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism.”I think even Liberals might be able to claim that definition. Nobody wants a tyranny of the majority. Obviously. That’s why minorities, who oftentimes find themselves aligned with Liberals politically, have fought for so long for their rights. They don’t want a tyranny of the majority. Duh? When Conservatives stop hiding behind this blade of grass, they might be able to talk with Liberals more reasonably.
It’s interesting, what Flake tells us about the John Birch Society and Goldwater: they didn’t get along. Conservative columnist Buckley and Goldwater bookended the Birchers with an opinion piece followed by a letter to the editor which effectively exorcised the group from flying the Conservative banner. Well, they’re b-a-a-c-k, “the emblem of irresponsibility,” the right-wing nut jobs. Flake doesn’t address how to exorcise them again, but tries to redefine Conservatism for today.
The Austrian economist Hayek, followed assiduously by Speaker Paul Ryan, is given top billing as conservative economist, followed by Milton Friedman who reputedly said of a sprawling, unplanned Arizona suburb, “It’s beautiful, isn’t it?” I suppose he’d also say that corporations will self-police environmental standards. “The market will handle it.” Haven’t we already been through this charade?
And this is why Flake should not have used Goldwater’s title. Flake raises no controversy. Goldwater was blunt, openly critical of Liberals, their adherents, and their ideals. Flake covers over any differences, saving them for…when will he surprise us with what he calls the “sometimes brutal” way conservative ideas play out in the economy? He wants free trade because the companies need it to survive, and therefore their employees need it to survive. Somehow we haven’t gotten to the tax issue.
We have ordinary men trying to do extraordinary work. What Flake did do for me was give me a chance to breathe (as opposed to rage) while he spoon-fed me itty bits of conservative ideas without giving me the whole kit-and-caboodle, perhaps afraid readers like me would not finish the book. I still have not seen a good argument for unfettered markets. And no one else has either.
August 4, 2017
A disclaimer before I begin: I do have a sort of shirttail connection to Senator Flake, whose sister is married to my father's brother. That said, I've only actually met him once, at a party he was hosting for my uncle, and though he was very pleasant to me, unless he has the memory of an elephant, I don't imagine he'd recognize me if I ran into him on the street.
**
Conscience of a Conservative has a twofold mission: to set out Flake's conception of what American conservatism is, and to draw a distinction between that conception and what could be called Trumpism.
Flake's conception of conservatism is essentially Goldwater Libertarianism, which itself is more or less a continuation of Antifederalism/Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism/Coolidge Republicanism. He frames it, interestingly, almost exclusively in economic terms -- in addition to Goldwater, there's plenty of discussion of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and the economic planks of Ronald Reagan's platform. Even his most passionate condemnation of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination is introduced by a story about the hard work and economic productivity of the migrant Mexican laborers Flake met during his childhood on a cattle ranch. What I think of as "social conservatism" is hardly discussed at all; if you want to know Flake's position on abortion, LGBTQ rights, the legal status of marijuana, and the like, you'll have to look elsewhere (though he does come out in favor of a reading of the first amendment that seems at odds with the view of the Evangelical "religious freedom" crowd).
Where the book excels is in its eyes-open, brutally honest examination of the rise of Trumpism. Calling figures including Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Alex Jones on the carpet, Flake traces the historical development of a Republican party that now seems to have few guiding principles other than a naked will to power. His no-holds-barred indictment of Trump himself -- policies, rhetoric, and personal character included -- is both thundering and perceptive. I also appreciated his humane, even sympathetic, discussion of the reason that the ostensibly conservative portion of the electorate would reach for Trumpism in a time of great difficulty.
Also worth the price of admission is Flake's admission of his own mistakes, and self-excoriation of his failures of courage, such as his vote against the TARP bailout, and his initial willingness to try to ignore some of Trump's cruel rhetoric. He additionally pens a searing defense of the acceptance of objective truth as the sine qua non of a functioning democratic society.
It's not a perfect book. I found Flake's constant devotion to Goldwater a bit much, and although Flake does state that he disagrees with Goldwater's decision to vote against the Civil Rights Act (and details both Goldwater's reasons for doing so and his own for differing), I'm unconvinced that he fully confronts that fact. (I think of it not as Goldwater's great mistake, but as the logical conclusion of his stated principles, as well as one of the sources of the right wing's persistent resistance to any governmental action on behalf of disadvantaged populations.)
Flake repeatedly refers to himself, proudly, as a conservative. If you haven't guessed by this point in the review, I am not -- labels are reductive, but if I had to describe my positions in a label, I'd say that I'm more or less a Sanders/Warren progressive. I find the great majority of Flake's policy positions misguided, and it'll take me a long time to fully forgive him for introducing S.J. Resolution 34 (A.K.A., the reason that ISPs can now share your personal data with advertisers).
However, even that (awful) decision at least proceeds logically from Flake's stated principles. In Hamilton terms, Flake has beliefs, where huge swathes of his party have none. Although I'm far to the left of center, I want a healthy, robust, sane political right; I believe that decisions made without someone bringing up alternative points of view will usually fail, and that a healthy democracy depends on vibrant debate. Flake comes across as someone who could be engaged with in the realm of ideas and facts, and who doesn't believe in obstruction for the sake of a power grab. I have no idea how this book will affect his already difficult reelection chances -- in today's climate, it's hard for me to see how it would help -- but as much as I disagree with him, I'd rather see him as the future of the Republican party than the elements currently in charge.
**
Conscience of a Conservative has a twofold mission: to set out Flake's conception of what American conservatism is, and to draw a distinction between that conception and what could be called Trumpism.
Flake's conception of conservatism is essentially Goldwater Libertarianism, which itself is more or less a continuation of Antifederalism/Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism/Coolidge Republicanism. He frames it, interestingly, almost exclusively in economic terms -- in addition to Goldwater, there's plenty of discussion of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and the economic planks of Ronald Reagan's platform. Even his most passionate condemnation of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination is introduced by a story about the hard work and economic productivity of the migrant Mexican laborers Flake met during his childhood on a cattle ranch. What I think of as "social conservatism" is hardly discussed at all; if you want to know Flake's position on abortion, LGBTQ rights, the legal status of marijuana, and the like, you'll have to look elsewhere (though he does come out in favor of a reading of the first amendment that seems at odds with the view of the Evangelical "religious freedom" crowd).
Where the book excels is in its eyes-open, brutally honest examination of the rise of Trumpism. Calling figures including Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Alex Jones on the carpet, Flake traces the historical development of a Republican party that now seems to have few guiding principles other than a naked will to power. His no-holds-barred indictment of Trump himself -- policies, rhetoric, and personal character included -- is both thundering and perceptive. I also appreciated his humane, even sympathetic, discussion of the reason that the ostensibly conservative portion of the electorate would reach for Trumpism in a time of great difficulty.
Also worth the price of admission is Flake's admission of his own mistakes, and self-excoriation of his failures of courage, such as his vote against the TARP bailout, and his initial willingness to try to ignore some of Trump's cruel rhetoric. He additionally pens a searing defense of the acceptance of objective truth as the sine qua non of a functioning democratic society.
It's not a perfect book. I found Flake's constant devotion to Goldwater a bit much, and although Flake does state that he disagrees with Goldwater's decision to vote against the Civil Rights Act (and details both Goldwater's reasons for doing so and his own for differing), I'm unconvinced that he fully confronts that fact. (I think of it not as Goldwater's great mistake, but as the logical conclusion of his stated principles, as well as one of the sources of the right wing's persistent resistance to any governmental action on behalf of disadvantaged populations.)
Flake repeatedly refers to himself, proudly, as a conservative. If you haven't guessed by this point in the review, I am not -- labels are reductive, but if I had to describe my positions in a label, I'd say that I'm more or less a Sanders/Warren progressive. I find the great majority of Flake's policy positions misguided, and it'll take me a long time to fully forgive him for introducing S.J. Resolution 34 (A.K.A., the reason that ISPs can now share your personal data with advertisers).
However, even that (awful) decision at least proceeds logically from Flake's stated principles. In Hamilton terms, Flake has beliefs, where huge swathes of his party have none. Although I'm far to the left of center, I want a healthy, robust, sane political right; I believe that decisions made without someone bringing up alternative points of view will usually fail, and that a healthy democracy depends on vibrant debate. Flake comes across as someone who could be engaged with in the realm of ideas and facts, and who doesn't believe in obstruction for the sake of a power grab. I have no idea how this book will affect his already difficult reelection chances -- in today's climate, it's hard for me to see how it would help -- but as much as I disagree with him, I'd rather see him as the future of the Republican party than the elements currently in charge.
August 2, 2017
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! This is exactly what I've been saying for two years, and it's not because I'm "liberal" like the Trump Zombies claim. It's because I am exceptionally concerned about the fate of the country and the Republican Party. Conservatives have lost their way. The party has been infiltrated by Neo-Fascists and White Nationalists. It is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. Flakes work is a well timed call to arms that all people who call themselves "conservative" should certainly heed. It's time for some serious soul searching among Republicans, and saying so is no treason.
August 12, 2017
I didn't read this because I agree with Jeff Flake's views - I read it because I was impressed by what he's said in so many interviews. It saddens me that such a smart, articulate, caring conservative who believes in fact-based discourse should now be considered vulnerable to a primary challenge from the extreme right in 2018. We need more people like Jeff across the entire political spectrum.
Now I'm hoping to find a liberal/progressive author who is as articulate and thoughtful as this book.
Now I'm hoping to find a liberal/progressive author who is as articulate and thoughtful as this book.
October 31, 2017
Full review to come!
"I am proud conservative and a lifelong Republican. That does not make the Democrats my enemies. America has too many real enemies to indulge such nonsense. We ill serve the American people when our tribal impulses take over and we cease to have human responses to each other. When we have governed best, we have sought comity and consensus. We fight and argue vehemently for our positions and our principles, understanding that policies that last always bear the imprint of both sides. That is when America is at her best. And when we are at our worst, well, we reach the point where we are today." (pg.101)
About a week ago, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona gave a passionate and articulate speech before the Senate floor on the destructive political persona the Republican party had taken under President Trump and how he could no longer associate himself with the lack of moral authority surrounding our contemporary politics, and announced he wouldn't run again for the people of Arizona in the 2018 election. Being a political junkie sitting transfixed and realising the enormity of the moment, Flake just helped cement my respect for him. Critical as I can be of both conservative and liberal policies, there are certain senators on both sides of the aisle I can fully respect, even if I don't agree with all their opinions. Profiles of political courage on the conservative side during the Trump administration include John McCain, Bob Corker, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and certainly, Jeff Flake.
Invoking Barry Goldwater, (in essence and book title) Conscience of a Conservative is timely, humble, informative, and short enough to properly digest. Whether or not one can agree with conservative politics, it is appreciative that Flake is able to address the dangers of indecency and populism that has run amok in American politics. Of equal importance is how Flake is considerate towards all colleagues of the political system, and his eagerness to form lasting legislation with members across the political aisle. His membership with the "Gang of Eight" on immigration reform and partnership with Democrat Tim Kaine are both professional and approving. His historical juxtaposition between the Mormon plight of 1838 and the current Muslim ban, the understanding of hispanic immigrants, and knowledge of the context of NAFTA among other things makes it a sad fact he's leaving the Senate.
Even more touching are his interactions with Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. Giffords, wanting to stand for a speech President Obama was giving to his fellow politicians, was unable to without help due to her injuries from the infamous shooting she experienced. Flake, sitting next to her, kindly helps her up to stand, and in doing so involuntarily becomes the lone Republican standing for the presidents speech. When Scalise was shot on the baseball field Flake helped attend to his wounds, arriving to work in a bloody baseball uniform. Even with moral authority, Flake takes a lot of heat from both Republicans for not being "conservative enough" in not always standing with President Trump, and from liberals for having traditional conservative values they unapproved of. Perhaps that's a good thing. "S0 as I saw it - if I was making people on both sides uncomfortable, maybe I was where I needed to be." (pg.59) Much appreciated Senator Flake.
"I am proud conservative and a lifelong Republican. That does not make the Democrats my enemies. America has too many real enemies to indulge such nonsense. We ill serve the American people when our tribal impulses take over and we cease to have human responses to each other. When we have governed best, we have sought comity and consensus. We fight and argue vehemently for our positions and our principles, understanding that policies that last always bear the imprint of both sides. That is when America is at her best. And when we are at our worst, well, we reach the point where we are today." (pg.101)
About a week ago, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona gave a passionate and articulate speech before the Senate floor on the destructive political persona the Republican party had taken under President Trump and how he could no longer associate himself with the lack of moral authority surrounding our contemporary politics, and announced he wouldn't run again for the people of Arizona in the 2018 election. Being a political junkie sitting transfixed and realising the enormity of the moment, Flake just helped cement my respect for him. Critical as I can be of both conservative and liberal policies, there are certain senators on both sides of the aisle I can fully respect, even if I don't agree with all their opinions. Profiles of political courage on the conservative side during the Trump administration include John McCain, Bob Corker, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and certainly, Jeff Flake.
Invoking Barry Goldwater, (in essence and book title) Conscience of a Conservative is timely, humble, informative, and short enough to properly digest. Whether or not one can agree with conservative politics, it is appreciative that Flake is able to address the dangers of indecency and populism that has run amok in American politics. Of equal importance is how Flake is considerate towards all colleagues of the political system, and his eagerness to form lasting legislation with members across the political aisle. His membership with the "Gang of Eight" on immigration reform and partnership with Democrat Tim Kaine are both professional and approving. His historical juxtaposition between the Mormon plight of 1838 and the current Muslim ban, the understanding of hispanic immigrants, and knowledge of the context of NAFTA among other things makes it a sad fact he's leaving the Senate.
Even more touching are his interactions with Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. Giffords, wanting to stand for a speech President Obama was giving to his fellow politicians, was unable to without help due to her injuries from the infamous shooting she experienced. Flake, sitting next to her, kindly helps her up to stand, and in doing so involuntarily becomes the lone Republican standing for the presidents speech. When Scalise was shot on the baseball field Flake helped attend to his wounds, arriving to work in a bloody baseball uniform. Even with moral authority, Flake takes a lot of heat from both Republicans for not being "conservative enough" in not always standing with President Trump, and from liberals for having traditional conservative values they unapproved of. Perhaps that's a good thing. "S0 as I saw it - if I was making people on both sides uncomfortable, maybe I was where I needed to be." (pg.59) Much appreciated Senator Flake.
August 6, 2017
A powerful and principled conservative case against not only President Trump, but what the Republican Party has become. Here are some representative quotes.
"Conservatives can hold no one else responsible for this. It is a crisis of our own making."
"In the election campaign of 2016, it was as if we no longer had the courage of our convictions and so chose to abandon conviction altogether, taking up instead an unfamiliar banner and a new set of values that had never been our own."
"But in the tweeting life of our president, strategy is difficult to detect...it's all noise and no signal."
"We have given in to the politics of anger...a dangerous impulse in a pluralistic society."
"[In promoting] this culture of vicious dehumanization...in the election of 2016, our side outdid itself."
"We as party stopped being governed by principle and began instead to exist merely to win the next election."
All that is in Chapter 1. He goes on to condemn the Muslim ban, the embrace of "alternative facts," the "birthers," and demonstrably false anti-Clinton conspiracy theories. "We are only as good as our information, and if we lose our sense of objective truth, we lose everything."
"In our most recent season of scapegoating, it is the dehumanizations of vast groups of people based on nationality or ethnicity that is the worst of it."
Senator Flake's strongest condemnation of Trump and his supporters for abandoning free trade in favor of "powerful nativist impulses that have arisen in the face of fear and insecurity over the swiftly evolving global economy."
He castigated conservatives over their reluctance to face the facts of climate change, just as some were (and are) reluctant to accept evolution.
Okay, you get the idea. Every Republican should read this book.
And, as always, #NeverTrump!
"Conservatives can hold no one else responsible for this. It is a crisis of our own making."
"In the election campaign of 2016, it was as if we no longer had the courage of our convictions and so chose to abandon conviction altogether, taking up instead an unfamiliar banner and a new set of values that had never been our own."
"But in the tweeting life of our president, strategy is difficult to detect...it's all noise and no signal."
"We have given in to the politics of anger...a dangerous impulse in a pluralistic society."
"[In promoting] this culture of vicious dehumanization...in the election of 2016, our side outdid itself."
"We as party stopped being governed by principle and began instead to exist merely to win the next election."
All that is in Chapter 1. He goes on to condemn the Muslim ban, the embrace of "alternative facts," the "birthers," and demonstrably false anti-Clinton conspiracy theories. "We are only as good as our information, and if we lose our sense of objective truth, we lose everything."
"In our most recent season of scapegoating, it is the dehumanizations of vast groups of people based on nationality or ethnicity that is the worst of it."
Senator Flake's strongest condemnation of Trump and his supporters for abandoning free trade in favor of "powerful nativist impulses that have arisen in the face of fear and insecurity over the swiftly evolving global economy."
He castigated conservatives over their reluctance to face the facts of climate change, just as some were (and are) reluctant to accept evolution.
Okay, you get the idea. Every Republican should read this book.
And, as always, #NeverTrump!
October 21, 2017
No review yet… pondering.
(But cf. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10... )
The author was interviewed on KQED's Forum, and expressed a lot of points that appeal to the “radical centrist” in me, but he waffled on others.
For example, he strenuously defended the confirmation to SCOTUS of Neil Gorsuch along party lines by pointing out that he had been unanimously confirmed when named to the 10th Circuit, effectively asserting that the change in stance by the Democrats was an unconscionable partisan tactic. But when the partisan tactics with respect to Merrick Garland was noted by a listener, Flake denied the parallel. He blames Democrats for some things, such as wholesale denial of appointments, and changing Senate rules (e.g., the filibuster) to disempower the GOP when it was in the minority, apparently misremembering Newt Gingrich’s take-no-prisoners initiatives in the 1990s — or Nixon’s “southern strategy” decades earlier.
On the other hand, he did take a low-key stand against continuing the Bengazi hearings.
The New Republic says his book “rings hollow”, but I’m struggling to get outside of the liberal echo chamber, so I’m suspicious of their conclusions. I like the Economist’s review, which is more balanced in its criticisms.
Senator Flake has extraordinarily low approval ratings in his home state, at only 18%. If I was going to point to an ulterior motive for his writing this book, it would be to position himself as a principled and thoughtful person to kick off his post-electoral career, and, perhaps, to boost his chances at return if Trump’s tenure ends poorly for the nation and/or GOP. He seems somewhat reconciled to the prospect of losing his seat, repeating that “some things ‘are more important than a political career.’”
(But cf. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10... )
The author was interviewed on KQED's Forum, and expressed a lot of points that appeal to the “radical centrist” in me, but he waffled on others.
For example, he strenuously defended the confirmation to SCOTUS of Neil Gorsuch along party lines by pointing out that he had been unanimously confirmed when named to the 10th Circuit, effectively asserting that the change in stance by the Democrats was an unconscionable partisan tactic. But when the partisan tactics with respect to Merrick Garland was noted by a listener, Flake denied the parallel. He blames Democrats for some things, such as wholesale denial of appointments, and changing Senate rules (e.g., the filibuster) to disempower the GOP when it was in the minority, apparently misremembering Newt Gingrich’s take-no-prisoners initiatives in the 1990s — or Nixon’s “southern strategy” decades earlier.
On the other hand, he did take a low-key stand against continuing the Bengazi hearings.
The New Republic says his book “rings hollow”, but I’m struggling to get outside of the liberal echo chamber, so I’m suspicious of their conclusions. I like the Economist’s review, which is more balanced in its criticisms.
Senator Flake has extraordinarily low approval ratings in his home state, at only 18%. If I was going to point to an ulterior motive for his writing this book, it would be to position himself as a principled and thoughtful person to kick off his post-electoral career, and, perhaps, to boost his chances at return if Trump’s tenure ends poorly for the nation and/or GOP. He seems somewhat reconciled to the prospect of losing his seat, repeating that “some things ‘are more important than a political career.’”
November 10, 2017
I read this for Reading Challenge category #36, a book by an author you disagree with politically. Jeff Flake is a Republican, something I am emphatically not, yet I found surprisingly little to disagree with here.
A representative sample:
"Peace, order, education, hard work, initiative, enterprise, cooperation, community spirit, patriotism, fair play, service to one's country, and honesty. These are all conservative values. Now, perhaps it is not allowed under the current rules of politics to say so, but I believe--and know from direct experience--that most liberals believe in these values, too. So what distinguishes a conservative? Well, that all comes down to the idea of government and its intersection with the lives of a free people. Conservatives recognize that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve and shouldn't blunder into, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered." (p.54)
However, just a few pages later, Flake relates an anecdote that occurred as he was driving with one of his heroes, Milton Friedman, from the Phoenix airport to a suburb to receive the conservative Goldwater Award. As they drove through "what can only be described as suburban sprawl," a fellow passenger remarked that it "'looked like there was no planning at all.' Fridman just nodded his head and said, 'Yes, isn't it beautiful?'" (p. 69)
I don't find this sort of every-man-for-himself chaos beautiful, useful, or conducive to our ability to live together in peace and harmony. To me it represents failure. And although I can understand Flake's position that humans should be free and unfettered from an oppressive government, I don't believe that in practice that "freedom" does always, or even frequently, result in the best outcomes for everyone.
In any case, the biggest target in this book isn't so-called "liberal" ideas or especially policies, but Donald Trump--which is probably why I found myself so frequently agreeing. It was refreshing to see a well-read, well-traveled thinker and student of history, and especially a Republican, coherently outline just how dangerous and damaging Trump--and the willingness of the Republican party to follow him--truly are.
Reading Challenge Tags: #4, published this year; #14, nonfiction; #36, author I disagree with politically; #41, author I've never read before
...And, WOW! That's 50 of 50!
A representative sample:
"Peace, order, education, hard work, initiative, enterprise, cooperation, community spirit, patriotism, fair play, service to one's country, and honesty. These are all conservative values. Now, perhaps it is not allowed under the current rules of politics to say so, but I believe--and know from direct experience--that most liberals believe in these values, too. So what distinguishes a conservative? Well, that all comes down to the idea of government and its intersection with the lives of a free people. Conservatives recognize that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve and shouldn't blunder into, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered." (p.54)
However, just a few pages later, Flake relates an anecdote that occurred as he was driving with one of his heroes, Milton Friedman, from the Phoenix airport to a suburb to receive the conservative Goldwater Award. As they drove through "what can only be described as suburban sprawl," a fellow passenger remarked that it "'looked like there was no planning at all.' Fridman just nodded his head and said, 'Yes, isn't it beautiful?'" (p. 69)
I don't find this sort of every-man-for-himself chaos beautiful, useful, or conducive to our ability to live together in peace and harmony. To me it represents failure. And although I can understand Flake's position that humans should be free and unfettered from an oppressive government, I don't believe that in practice that "freedom" does always, or even frequently, result in the best outcomes for everyone.
In any case, the biggest target in this book isn't so-called "liberal" ideas or especially policies, but Donald Trump--which is probably why I found myself so frequently agreeing. It was refreshing to see a well-read, well-traveled thinker and student of history, and especially a Republican, coherently outline just how dangerous and damaging Trump--and the willingness of the Republican party to follow him--truly are.
Reading Challenge Tags: #4, published this year; #14, nonfiction; #36, author I disagree with politically; #41, author I've never read before
...And, WOW! That's 50 of 50!
October 4, 2018
Senator Flake has demonstrated through this book and his various public and official acts that even though we have widely different political beliefs we can still agree on a large range of issues. It makes me wish for the Republican party to reverse course and for both sides to act with respect and dignity towards one another and work like a functioning government again.
October 10, 2017
My problem with this book comes less from the style of the book - it reads quickly and Flake understands how to transition better than most political memoirs - and more from the argument. I am a bleeding heart liberal (I had to read this for a class) and the part of the book where Flake appeals to the problems of the conservative movement in the last half century were appealing and I agreed with many of them. His appeals to bipartisanship seem genuine, and I like that Flake has shown that he is bipartisan on issues like immigration. But I can't help but read this and look at his more recent actions - he has called out Trump many times, but has voted with him over 90% of the time. Bipartisanship pre-Trump is great, but post-Trump seems even more important. My bigger problem with the book is that it is entirely based on praise for Sen. Goldwater of AZ and calling for a return to traditional conservatism. But Goldwater is often thought of as a sort of Trump 1.0; his presidential campaign was based on the "southern strategy" that appealed to racism and xenophobia. I found that I couldn't disentangle the two when I was reading.
September 28, 2018
It's a brave book, but I wish it were a better one.
September 28, 2018
A work of fiction.
December 5, 2017
Jeff Flake talks a good game. He spends the entire book explaining the dysfunction and extreme partisanship of modern day American politics. He appeals to the better angels of our nature to see past the divisions and work to come together, as a nation, and truly “make America great again.” And yes, he takes the time to tear down Trump in ways that make my little liberal heart beam with joy.
But... Senator Flake is a hypocrite. He mentions in his book that the Senate must return to “regular order”, where bills are debated on the floor, amendments are considered from both parties, and ultimately the best bills receive bipartisan support. He even gives the eerily prescient example of a hypothetical tax bill that wasn’t getting any Democratic support in the Senate, and would be rammed through with the Republicans’ slim majority. Flake said that in that situation, he would not support the hypothetical bill because any good legislation should be open to debate from both sides of the spectrum.
Late last night, December 1st, 2017, Senate Republicans voted to pass their tax reform bill by a vote of 51-49. Amendments where being added until the final hour. Senators were given less than 60 minutes to actually read what was in the 500+ page bill before a vote was called. Hardly what anyone, especially not Senator Flake in his book, would call “regular order”. Not a single Democrat voted for it. But do you know who did? Senator Jeff Flake.
He can talk all he wants about conservative values and the need to heal our political divide. His words are empty. In the end, he and the rest of the Republican Party sold out the American people, showing a brazen disregard for the needs of ordinary Americans so that the rich can get richer.
Screw you, Jeff Flake.
But... Senator Flake is a hypocrite. He mentions in his book that the Senate must return to “regular order”, where bills are debated on the floor, amendments are considered from both parties, and ultimately the best bills receive bipartisan support. He even gives the eerily prescient example of a hypothetical tax bill that wasn’t getting any Democratic support in the Senate, and would be rammed through with the Republicans’ slim majority. Flake said that in that situation, he would not support the hypothetical bill because any good legislation should be open to debate from both sides of the spectrum.
Late last night, December 1st, 2017, Senate Republicans voted to pass their tax reform bill by a vote of 51-49. Amendments where being added until the final hour. Senators were given less than 60 minutes to actually read what was in the 500+ page bill before a vote was called. Hardly what anyone, especially not Senator Flake in his book, would call “regular order”. Not a single Democrat voted for it. But do you know who did? Senator Jeff Flake.
He can talk all he wants about conservative values and the need to heal our political divide. His words are empty. In the end, he and the rest of the Republican Party sold out the American people, showing a brazen disregard for the needs of ordinary Americans so that the rich can get richer.
Screw you, Jeff Flake.
August 2, 2017
Hollow.... shallow.... Senator Flake takes every opportunity to critize Donald Trump, his supporters, and the Republican Party in general. Yet, he offers not one single suggestion on how the process could become better, or how the destructive politics could come to an end. Not mentioned in this book, is the fact that he has voted for everything President Trump has put forward... I was hoping for something more substantial and meaningful... I would not recommend this book. A waste of time.
August 7, 2017
I thought it was a rather "pie in the sky" look at American politics. Yes it is about how things should be in a better world. Senator Flake seems to be a good, honest, sincere man, but in the world of cut-throat politics in this part of the world, it's like "Leo the Lip" said years ago....."nice guys finish last." The best current example of that sits in the oval office now.
August 15, 2017
A worthy book.
I do not share Senator Flake's political worldview (even when I called myself a conservative, I wasn't his brand exactly) but it is a recognizable, legitimate, and rational American political position with which one can dialogue and compromise.
But the bulk of this book is not Flake expounding a version of conservatism, it is his conservative critique of the current state of American politics, particularly his criticism of the Republican party selling its soul to Donald Trump. And his criticisms are scathing.
Since the election I have believed it important to work with folks across the spectrum who identify our current moment as one of crisis. I believe now is a time for finding common ground for the common good.
The one glaring absence in Flake's book is any serious discussion of race and the role it has played in our current crisis.
The book has caused me to reflect upon my Republicanism of the 1990's and how as a Gen Xer I held out hope for a modernizing of the party that would advance environmental protection and LGBT rights. I left the party when it became clear that the Fundamentalists and NeoCons had gained control.
I do not share Senator Flake's political worldview (even when I called myself a conservative, I wasn't his brand exactly) but it is a recognizable, legitimate, and rational American political position with which one can dialogue and compromise.
But the bulk of this book is not Flake expounding a version of conservatism, it is his conservative critique of the current state of American politics, particularly his criticism of the Republican party selling its soul to Donald Trump. And his criticisms are scathing.
Since the election I have believed it important to work with folks across the spectrum who identify our current moment as one of crisis. I believe now is a time for finding common ground for the common good.
The one glaring absence in Flake's book is any serious discussion of race and the role it has played in our current crisis.
The book has caused me to reflect upon my Republicanism of the 1990's and how as a Gen Xer I held out hope for a modernizing of the party that would advance environmental protection and LGBT rights. I left the party when it became clear that the Fundamentalists and NeoCons had gained control.
May 2, 2018
Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle by Jeff Flake
“Conscience of a Conservative” is a succinct plea on how the American conservative movement can correct course in the age of Trump. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona is taking a public stance against Trump while defending traditional conservative principles. Find out what this progressive reviewer thinks about this book. This concise 162-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. The Crisis We Face Chapter, 2. Questioning Power, 3. On Bad Information and the Threat to Democracy Chapter, 4. Conscience of a Conservative, 5. On Free Trade, Not-So-Free Trade, Populism, Nationalism, and the Collapse of What We Believe In, 6. How Did This Happen? (Our Faustian Bargain), 7. Note to Selves: Country Before Party, 8. Dear World: Bear, and 9. Toward a New Conservatism.
Positives:
1. A well-written, concise book.
2. I’m always interested in the political views of prominent politicians particularly ones that oppose my views.
3. Clearly states the purpose of this book. It’s an homage to Barry Goldwater. “This book aims to describe how it went wrong, and why, and how it might correct course. Given the state of our politics, it is no exaggeration to say that this is an urgent matter.”
4. Explains how the conservative movement has lost its way. “That conservatism has become compromised by other powerful forces—nationalism, populism, xenophobia, extreme partisanship, even celebrity—explains part of how and why we lost our way.”
5. A prominent current Republican Senator taking aim at Trump but with reservations, he doesn’t enjoy being in this position but feels compelled in the best interest of the country to be a voice of reason. “Anger and resentment and blaming groups of people for our problems might work politically in the short term, but it’s a dangerous impulse in a pluralistic society, and we know from history that it’s an impulse that, once acted upon, never ends well.”
6. A balanced tone of candor and respect. It’s the ability to be very upset without uttering a bad word. “It must be noted that it is we, the Republicans, who were pioneers of pay-to-play politics as much as anyone else.” “We decided that it was better to build and maintain a majority by using the levers of power rather than the art of persuasion and the battle of ideas.”
7. Does a good job of clearly stating his points. “Only in anti-democratic propaganda states do we see ‘alternate facts’ successfully compete with the truth for primacy. Only in such states do we see a sustained program of bad information emanate from the highest levels of the government.”
8. Takes aim at unfounded assertions. “When a conspiracy theory becomes litmus-test orthodoxy, objective reality is at risk.” “We are only as good as our information, and if we lose our sense of objective truth, we lose everything.”
9. Provides examples of reckless conspiracies. “And in a more recent example of outrageous alternate reality, by the election of 2016 the right-wing Internet was ablaze with stories of how the former secretary of state and Democratic nominee for president was the supposed leader of a massive international child-enslavement ring run out of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C., and of how her campaign chairman, John Podesta, also said to be part of this ring, engaged in satanic rituals as well.”
10. Respectful position on immigration. “But in our most recent season of scapegoating, it is the dehumanization of vast groups of people based on nationality or ethnicity that is the worst of it. This dehumanization is the symptom of a bad impulse being surrendered to.”
11. In defense of conservative principles. “Conservatives recognize that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve and shouldn’t blunder into, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered.”
12. Provides insights into the formation and development of his conservatism.
13. Provides compelling arguments against nationalism. “Because nationalism, though understandable as a cultural and political phenomenon, is bad both for policy and for markets.” “It is obvious but worth repeating that patriotism and nationalism are distinct, if not opposing, ideas.”
14. In defense of globalism. “The old adage holds true: When goods don’t cross borders, guns do. Trade and the global expansion of capitalism have been central to conservative economic philosophy for as long as there has been a conservative movement.” “Globalization has occurred. That is reality. Free trade agreements didn’t create globalization; they are a result of it. The question is, do we adapt to inexorable global trends and lead them as we have always done, maintaining our position as the largest and most innovative economy in the world?”
15. Explains the difference between key concepts. “But there is a vast difference between policy and principle. One is infinitely negotiable, the other is not. Principles are not selective, preferential, temporary, or incoherent. Principles last, presidents do not.”
16. Sharp criticism. “But if this was a cruel fiction, all of us who called ourselves “conservative” were its co-authors. Rather than fighting the populist wave that threatened to engulf us, rather than defending the enduring principles that were consonant with everything that we knew and had believed in, we pretended that the emperor wasn’t naked. Even worse: We checked our critical faculties at the door and pretended that the emperor was making sense.”
17. Political philosophy I agree on. “The better path, always, is to break out of rigid ideological thinking, to listen to reasoned arguments on both sides, and to use your best judgment.”
18. I really appreciate Flake’s good will. “Tim and I had entered the Senate together, and we obviously disagreed on many things, but I knew him to be exceptionally smart, hardworking, and patriotic. His son Nat was a Marine, on active duty. By way of congratulating Tim on being named to the Democratic ticket, I tweeted a playful jab: ‘Trying to count the ways I hate Tim Kaine. Drawing a blank. Congrats to a good man and a good friend.’”
19. His history against earmarks. “The most offensive type of spending, which was exploding in the late 1990s and early 2000s, was “earmarking,” the practice of quietly inserting parochial spending items deep within large appropriation bills. While bipartisanship was waning in other areas in Congress, it was alive and well when it came to earmarking. I immediately set my sights on trying to end this type of spending by proposing amendments to strip out earmarks when spending bills came to the House floor for a vote.”
20. I found Flake to be very fair. “An astonishing confirmation of this vulnerability came when—as the Obama White House was going around the Congress in its negotiations with Iran—forty-seven of my Republican colleagues in the Senate signed a letter addressed to the mullahs who govern Iran, essentially informing them that their negotiations with our president were invalid.
Negatives:
1. Lacks depth.
2. Of course this progressive will have plenty of beef against some of the conservative stances made by Senator Flake. Consider the following statement, “Planning requires control, control empowers government, and empowered government = disempowered individuals.” That may be the case under a tyranny but consider that in America the rich have disempowered individuals by rigging the system in their favor. Through unlimited lobbying and buying favors our government is catering to the well off. We need a return to a hybrid form of government where government and industry work well together in the best interest of the country.
3. One thing that bothers me about conservatives is the taking credit for progressive Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt as an example may have been a Republican but he as was a progressive!
4. Lacks supplementary materials.
In summary, Senator Flake comes across as fair and his conservative conscience has bothered him to the point of taking aim at President Trump. He provides an honest assessment of what is wrong with conservatives and in particular with the current president. I may be a progressive but Senator Flake is the kind of conservative I can have a civil disagreement without losing my mind. A recommendation tempered with the fact that I wanted more depth and supplementary materials.
Further suggestions: “Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry Goldwater, “The Price of Politics” by Bob Woodward, “Trumpocracy” by David Frum, “Up from Liberalism” by William Buckley Jr., “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Freedman, “How the Right Lost Its Mind” by Charles J. Sykes, “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky, and “Democracy in Chains” by Nancy MacLean.
“Conscience of a Conservative” is a succinct plea on how the American conservative movement can correct course in the age of Trump. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona is taking a public stance against Trump while defending traditional conservative principles. Find out what this progressive reviewer thinks about this book. This concise 162-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. The Crisis We Face Chapter, 2. Questioning Power, 3. On Bad Information and the Threat to Democracy Chapter, 4. Conscience of a Conservative, 5. On Free Trade, Not-So-Free Trade, Populism, Nationalism, and the Collapse of What We Believe In, 6. How Did This Happen? (Our Faustian Bargain), 7. Note to Selves: Country Before Party, 8. Dear World: Bear, and 9. Toward a New Conservatism.
Positives:
1. A well-written, concise book.
2. I’m always interested in the political views of prominent politicians particularly ones that oppose my views.
3. Clearly states the purpose of this book. It’s an homage to Barry Goldwater. “This book aims to describe how it went wrong, and why, and how it might correct course. Given the state of our politics, it is no exaggeration to say that this is an urgent matter.”
4. Explains how the conservative movement has lost its way. “That conservatism has become compromised by other powerful forces—nationalism, populism, xenophobia, extreme partisanship, even celebrity—explains part of how and why we lost our way.”
5. A prominent current Republican Senator taking aim at Trump but with reservations, he doesn’t enjoy being in this position but feels compelled in the best interest of the country to be a voice of reason. “Anger and resentment and blaming groups of people for our problems might work politically in the short term, but it’s a dangerous impulse in a pluralistic society, and we know from history that it’s an impulse that, once acted upon, never ends well.”
6. A balanced tone of candor and respect. It’s the ability to be very upset without uttering a bad word. “It must be noted that it is we, the Republicans, who were pioneers of pay-to-play politics as much as anyone else.” “We decided that it was better to build and maintain a majority by using the levers of power rather than the art of persuasion and the battle of ideas.”
7. Does a good job of clearly stating his points. “Only in anti-democratic propaganda states do we see ‘alternate facts’ successfully compete with the truth for primacy. Only in such states do we see a sustained program of bad information emanate from the highest levels of the government.”
8. Takes aim at unfounded assertions. “When a conspiracy theory becomes litmus-test orthodoxy, objective reality is at risk.” “We are only as good as our information, and if we lose our sense of objective truth, we lose everything.”
9. Provides examples of reckless conspiracies. “And in a more recent example of outrageous alternate reality, by the election of 2016 the right-wing Internet was ablaze with stories of how the former secretary of state and Democratic nominee for president was the supposed leader of a massive international child-enslavement ring run out of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C., and of how her campaign chairman, John Podesta, also said to be part of this ring, engaged in satanic rituals as well.”
10. Respectful position on immigration. “But in our most recent season of scapegoating, it is the dehumanization of vast groups of people based on nationality or ethnicity that is the worst of it. This dehumanization is the symptom of a bad impulse being surrendered to.”
11. In defense of conservative principles. “Conservatives recognize that there are limits to what government can and should do, that there are some problems that government cannot solve and shouldn’t blunder into, and that human initiative is best when left unfettered.”
12. Provides insights into the formation and development of his conservatism.
13. Provides compelling arguments against nationalism. “Because nationalism, though understandable as a cultural and political phenomenon, is bad both for policy and for markets.” “It is obvious but worth repeating that patriotism and nationalism are distinct, if not opposing, ideas.”
14. In defense of globalism. “The old adage holds true: When goods don’t cross borders, guns do. Trade and the global expansion of capitalism have been central to conservative economic philosophy for as long as there has been a conservative movement.” “Globalization has occurred. That is reality. Free trade agreements didn’t create globalization; they are a result of it. The question is, do we adapt to inexorable global trends and lead them as we have always done, maintaining our position as the largest and most innovative economy in the world?”
15. Explains the difference between key concepts. “But there is a vast difference between policy and principle. One is infinitely negotiable, the other is not. Principles are not selective, preferential, temporary, or incoherent. Principles last, presidents do not.”
16. Sharp criticism. “But if this was a cruel fiction, all of us who called ourselves “conservative” were its co-authors. Rather than fighting the populist wave that threatened to engulf us, rather than defending the enduring principles that were consonant with everything that we knew and had believed in, we pretended that the emperor wasn’t naked. Even worse: We checked our critical faculties at the door and pretended that the emperor was making sense.”
17. Political philosophy I agree on. “The better path, always, is to break out of rigid ideological thinking, to listen to reasoned arguments on both sides, and to use your best judgment.”
18. I really appreciate Flake’s good will. “Tim and I had entered the Senate together, and we obviously disagreed on many things, but I knew him to be exceptionally smart, hardworking, and patriotic. His son Nat was a Marine, on active duty. By way of congratulating Tim on being named to the Democratic ticket, I tweeted a playful jab: ‘Trying to count the ways I hate Tim Kaine. Drawing a blank. Congrats to a good man and a good friend.’”
19. His history against earmarks. “The most offensive type of spending, which was exploding in the late 1990s and early 2000s, was “earmarking,” the practice of quietly inserting parochial spending items deep within large appropriation bills. While bipartisanship was waning in other areas in Congress, it was alive and well when it came to earmarking. I immediately set my sights on trying to end this type of spending by proposing amendments to strip out earmarks when spending bills came to the House floor for a vote.”
20. I found Flake to be very fair. “An astonishing confirmation of this vulnerability came when—as the Obama White House was going around the Congress in its negotiations with Iran—forty-seven of my Republican colleagues in the Senate signed a letter addressed to the mullahs who govern Iran, essentially informing them that their negotiations with our president were invalid.
Negatives:
1. Lacks depth.
2. Of course this progressive will have plenty of beef against some of the conservative stances made by Senator Flake. Consider the following statement, “Planning requires control, control empowers government, and empowered government = disempowered individuals.” That may be the case under a tyranny but consider that in America the rich have disempowered individuals by rigging the system in their favor. Through unlimited lobbying and buying favors our government is catering to the well off. We need a return to a hybrid form of government where government and industry work well together in the best interest of the country.
3. One thing that bothers me about conservatives is the taking credit for progressive Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt as an example may have been a Republican but he as was a progressive!
4. Lacks supplementary materials.
In summary, Senator Flake comes across as fair and his conservative conscience has bothered him to the point of taking aim at President Trump. He provides an honest assessment of what is wrong with conservatives and in particular with the current president. I may be a progressive but Senator Flake is the kind of conservative I can have a civil disagreement without losing my mind. A recommendation tempered with the fact that I wanted more depth and supplementary materials.
Further suggestions: “Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry Goldwater, “The Price of Politics” by Bob Woodward, “Trumpocracy” by David Frum, “Up from Liberalism” by William Buckley Jr., “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Freedman, “How the Right Lost Its Mind” by Charles J. Sykes, “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky, and “Democracy in Chains” by Nancy MacLean.
May 16, 2018
This is a well-written book by Senator Flake directed to his Republican colleagues - clearly, Mr. Flake is distressed by the direction the Republican Party lurched in with the 2016 election. Although I'm not a Republican I agree with Mr. Flake on his opposition to Trump and Trumpism and many of the more general principles he discusses are one that all Americans hold in common.
Of course, I'll never be an admirer of the late Senator Barry Goldwater or President Ronald Reagan. In the book, Senator Goldwater is a touchstone for Senator Flake, and clearly, Mr. Flake was inspired by Mr. Goldwater's stubborn independence and record as a modern conservative founder. I'll never be a conservative but even during the Reagan presidency, I thought President Reagan was effective and empathetic during the Challenger disaster; he also did manage to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction agreement and set in motion the dissolution of the USSR - so he won the Cold War.
Mr. Flake is trying to position himself for a run for the presidency in 2020 - this is clear. Although I obviously won't be voting for him, I wish him luck in trying to bring his Party back to sanity.
I've never agreed with the Republicans but they previously never veered into outright craziness as they did in 2016 with Trump - Trump's base cheering Trump's conspiracy theories, vile slogans, condemnation of the press and judiciary, his "alternative facts" and his incessant lies - much less the blatant and runaway corruption of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, in a surreal turn of events, Trump cozies up to authoritarian leaders - yet this is exactly the last thing traditional conservatives would do, since, according to Sen. Flake, conservatives regard freedom as sacrosanct.
Here are some quotes from the book:
"Every four years in this country, electorate gets about two percentage points less white..."
"...the stories of constant renewal brought by wave after wave of immigrants, creating our country over and over again, stories that have made America unique in the history of the world."
"...I will not concede the underlying principle of religious freedom."
"It is difficult to find successful tech firms in Silicon Valley that don't have Iranian Americans in positions of leadership."
"Presidential power should be questioned, continually."
"Over time, a determined effort to undermine the very idea of truth softens the grund for anti-democratic impulses."
"Perhaps most destructive of all, we haven't ever had an occupant of the White House who so routinely calls true reports that irk him "fake news" while giving hsi seal of approval to fake reports that happen to support his position."
"This penchant for false reports and conspiracy theories is not something that we can take lightly or dismiss as "just politics.""
"...the impact of the conditioning that the minds of American conservatives receive on some of these Fox shows also cannot be overstated."
"This impulse to dehumanize, to ascribe the worst possible motives to people who in more normal times would be regarded not as "the enemy" but merely as political opponents, is a signal that something is terribly wrong."
"...what is to be done, when the technology has so radically changed the pace of life itself and lends itself so easily to deception on a mass scale?"
"The information ecosystem as it exists online has enabled the creation of alternative truths, which wear down our ability to discern truth from falsity and could, with time, hobble our capacity to care."
"Seldom if ever in human history have we witnessed such an explosive social experiment, and seldom have we had less understanding of the effect of technology on us, both as a society and as individuals, and seldom have we seen businesses with the potential to do both good and harm grow with such speed and on such a grand scale."
"The nativist impulse is always destructive, always comes with a cost, and never ends well."
"...our Mexican migrant laborers worked hard, and we could count on them."
"Rather than leaning in to the economy of the future, this nativist vision would have us clambering to reclaim an economy of the past -- an economy, by the way, that even if it were possible to somewhat reconstitute would make no sense in the twenty-first century."
"The conservative philosophy -- not just the conservative philosophy but the American philosophy -- since World War II in particular is that America does well when everybody else does well."
"Specialization, modernization,and mechanization mean a better standard of living for everyone and make for a more peaceful world as well."
"Principles last, presidents do not."
"If America were to abandon multilateral trade agreements, either in fits of pique or in the vague hope of negotiating better bilateral deals, then China and other free-trading nations would rush in to fill the void, leaving America behind and doing lasting harm to our economic position and standing in the world."
"The truth is that we are producing about twice as much as we did in the 1980s with 30 percent fewer workers."
"With proper notice, [Trump]... could simply withdraw from [NAFTA]... The effects of a move like that would be seismic. The United States would be seen as an unreliable trading partner and other countries would increasingly hesitate before entering into free trade agreements with us."
"Far from conservative, the president's comportment was rather a study in the importance of conflict in reality television -- that once you introduce conflict, you cannot de-escalate conflict. You must continually escalate."
"It certainly didn't occur to me that I should worry what Republicans might think, because life is too short to worry about such things."
"...the period of collapse and dysfunction set in, amplified by the Internet and our growing sense of alienation from each other, and we lost our way and began to rationalize away our principles in the process."
"We cannot claim to place the highest premium on character, then abruptly suspend the importance of character in the most vital civic decision that we make."
"[James] Madison [in Federalist #51] makes clear his intention that "in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates," by which he meant that the members of Congress stand for election just as the president does, and they serve at the pleasure of no one but the people from whom their authority is derived."
"We must be willing to risk our careers to save our principles."
"[Vaclav Havel in 1990 said:] "When Thomas Jefferson wrote that 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,' it was a simple and important act of the human spirit. What gave meaning to that act, however was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words; it was his deed as well."
"The values that will redeem us are ancient and the road ahead is difficult, which is as it should be, because we know as conservatives that nothing that lasts and is worthwhile comes easily or quickly."
"Hyper-partisans ...are probably the greatest greatest impediments to real progress, because they thrive in an atmosphere of dysfunction."
"It is that miasma [of dysfunction] that brought on the anomalous presidency of Donald Trump and a political era in which our democratic norms are flouted and the durability of our institutions is tested as severely as ever before."
"Conservatives know that as Americans we are loyal to no man but rather to the principles of our founding."
"We must recognize that government and the process by which we go about electing our leaders ought never be confused for entertainment or graded for its entertainment value or its ratings. We degrade our politics enough as it is without turning our democracy over to carnival barkers and reality television."
Senator Flake's speech in 2017 on the floor of the Senate announcing his intention to not run for re-election in 2018, which was a thunderous denunciation of Donald Trump's politics, was said by some
to be the most important speech of 2017. It is possible that Senator Flake will run for POTUS starting next year -- will he have a chance vs. the Trump juggernaut? Time will tell.
Of course, I'll never be an admirer of the late Senator Barry Goldwater or President Ronald Reagan. In the book, Senator Goldwater is a touchstone for Senator Flake, and clearly, Mr. Flake was inspired by Mr. Goldwater's stubborn independence and record as a modern conservative founder. I'll never be a conservative but even during the Reagan presidency, I thought President Reagan was effective and empathetic during the Challenger disaster; he also did manage to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction agreement and set in motion the dissolution of the USSR - so he won the Cold War.
Mr. Flake is trying to position himself for a run for the presidency in 2020 - this is clear. Although I obviously won't be voting for him, I wish him luck in trying to bring his Party back to sanity.
I've never agreed with the Republicans but they previously never veered into outright craziness as they did in 2016 with Trump - Trump's base cheering Trump's conspiracy theories, vile slogans, condemnation of the press and judiciary, his "alternative facts" and his incessant lies - much less the blatant and runaway corruption of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, in a surreal turn of events, Trump cozies up to authoritarian leaders - yet this is exactly the last thing traditional conservatives would do, since, according to Sen. Flake, conservatives regard freedom as sacrosanct.
Here are some quotes from the book:
"Every four years in this country, electorate gets about two percentage points less white..."
"...the stories of constant renewal brought by wave after wave of immigrants, creating our country over and over again, stories that have made America unique in the history of the world."
"...I will not concede the underlying principle of religious freedom."
"It is difficult to find successful tech firms in Silicon Valley that don't have Iranian Americans in positions of leadership."
"Presidential power should be questioned, continually."
"Over time, a determined effort to undermine the very idea of truth softens the grund for anti-democratic impulses."
"Perhaps most destructive of all, we haven't ever had an occupant of the White House who so routinely calls true reports that irk him "fake news" while giving hsi seal of approval to fake reports that happen to support his position."
"This penchant for false reports and conspiracy theories is not something that we can take lightly or dismiss as "just politics.""
"...the impact of the conditioning that the minds of American conservatives receive on some of these Fox shows also cannot be overstated."
"This impulse to dehumanize, to ascribe the worst possible motives to people who in more normal times would be regarded not as "the enemy" but merely as political opponents, is a signal that something is terribly wrong."
"...what is to be done, when the technology has so radically changed the pace of life itself and lends itself so easily to deception on a mass scale?"
"The information ecosystem as it exists online has enabled the creation of alternative truths, which wear down our ability to discern truth from falsity and could, with time, hobble our capacity to care."
"Seldom if ever in human history have we witnessed such an explosive social experiment, and seldom have we had less understanding of the effect of technology on us, both as a society and as individuals, and seldom have we seen businesses with the potential to do both good and harm grow with such speed and on such a grand scale."
"The nativist impulse is always destructive, always comes with a cost, and never ends well."
"...our Mexican migrant laborers worked hard, and we could count on them."
"Rather than leaning in to the economy of the future, this nativist vision would have us clambering to reclaim an economy of the past -- an economy, by the way, that even if it were possible to somewhat reconstitute would make no sense in the twenty-first century."
"The conservative philosophy -- not just the conservative philosophy but the American philosophy -- since World War II in particular is that America does well when everybody else does well."
"Specialization, modernization,and mechanization mean a better standard of living for everyone and make for a more peaceful world as well."
"Principles last, presidents do not."
"If America were to abandon multilateral trade agreements, either in fits of pique or in the vague hope of negotiating better bilateral deals, then China and other free-trading nations would rush in to fill the void, leaving America behind and doing lasting harm to our economic position and standing in the world."
"The truth is that we are producing about twice as much as we did in the 1980s with 30 percent fewer workers."
"With proper notice, [Trump]... could simply withdraw from [NAFTA]... The effects of a move like that would be seismic. The United States would be seen as an unreliable trading partner and other countries would increasingly hesitate before entering into free trade agreements with us."
"Far from conservative, the president's comportment was rather a study in the importance of conflict in reality television -- that once you introduce conflict, you cannot de-escalate conflict. You must continually escalate."
"It certainly didn't occur to me that I should worry what Republicans might think, because life is too short to worry about such things."
"...the period of collapse and dysfunction set in, amplified by the Internet and our growing sense of alienation from each other, and we lost our way and began to rationalize away our principles in the process."
"We cannot claim to place the highest premium on character, then abruptly suspend the importance of character in the most vital civic decision that we make."
"[James] Madison [in Federalist #51] makes clear his intention that "in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates," by which he meant that the members of Congress stand for election just as the president does, and they serve at the pleasure of no one but the people from whom their authority is derived."
"We must be willing to risk our careers to save our principles."
"[Vaclav Havel in 1990 said:] "When Thomas Jefferson wrote that 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,' it was a simple and important act of the human spirit. What gave meaning to that act, however was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words; it was his deed as well."
"The values that will redeem us are ancient and the road ahead is difficult, which is as it should be, because we know as conservatives that nothing that lasts and is worthwhile comes easily or quickly."
"Hyper-partisans ...are probably the greatest greatest impediments to real progress, because they thrive in an atmosphere of dysfunction."
"It is that miasma [of dysfunction] that brought on the anomalous presidency of Donald Trump and a political era in which our democratic norms are flouted and the durability of our institutions is tested as severely as ever before."
"Conservatives know that as Americans we are loyal to no man but rather to the principles of our founding."
"We must recognize that government and the process by which we go about electing our leaders ought never be confused for entertainment or graded for its entertainment value or its ratings. We degrade our politics enough as it is without turning our democracy over to carnival barkers and reality television."
Senator Flake's speech in 2017 on the floor of the Senate announcing his intention to not run for re-election in 2018, which was a thunderous denunciation of Donald Trump's politics, was said by some
to be the most important speech of 2017. It is possible that Senator Flake will run for POTUS starting next year -- will he have a chance vs. the Trump juggernaut? Time will tell.
December 9, 2018
I try to read things from both sides of the aisle but I had to put this book aside for a few months as I felt bombarded by the politics and diviseveness of the day in the run up to the midterm election and the aftermath. I have to stop listening to Trump's twitter storms, they are infuriating!!!
Anyway, I enjoyed reading Flake's book on what it means to be a conservative to him and most of the Republican establishment. It is a fair and clear treatise on true conservatism and I admire that he has been speaking out, although too little, too late. He even owns up to regretting some of the votes he has cast that fell into the "party over country" box. It is sad that a man of principle feels that in today's political environment he would have no chance of keeping his Senate seat. I highlighted quite a bit in this book and have bought copies to gift to some friends that I hope will help to take the blinders off.
"Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party."
Anyway, I enjoyed reading Flake's book on what it means to be a conservative to him and most of the Republican establishment. It is a fair and clear treatise on true conservatism and I admire that he has been speaking out, although too little, too late. He even owns up to regretting some of the votes he has cast that fell into the "party over country" box. It is sad that a man of principle feels that in today's political environment he would have no chance of keeping his Senate seat. I highlighted quite a bit in this book and have bought copies to gift to some friends that I hope will help to take the blinders off.
"Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party."
November 16, 2019
While I think Senator Flake has a deep intrinsic bias, I appreciate his candor. There are few conservatives that have risked their careers for their principles in this Trump era. I have many criticisms of Senator Flake, but enjoyed this short read. I felt more informed of the thought processes of those individuals that adhere to “conservative values” and hope they recapture the leadership of the Republican Party. As most conservatives, Senator Flake moderates his views with personal experience; however, I welcome the principled conservative with progressive views, where experience allows, than those without principle at all. This a worthwhile and quick read for those who enjoy politics and considering all political points of view.
December 6, 2020
In late October 2017, U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, gave an extraordinary speech on the Senate floor denouncing his own party’s new president for his consistently “reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior.” Flake said he had reached the point of refusing to be silent or complicit in Donald Trump’s “casual undermining of our democracy”. With that, he announced that he would not stand for reelection when his term expired in late 2018.
This book, published two months before, laid out the case for Flake’s formal denunciation of Trump before his Senate colleagues. That certainly makes it an historic document, if not an especially powerful or well-written one. Much of the book (too much, for this reader) is autobiography. Flake was one of 11 children born to Mormon parents in SnowFlake, AZ, a town named in part after his great-great grandfather. After college at – where else? – Brigham Young U., he set off on his missionary work to southern Africa. His missionary zeal proved useful once back home, where he was hired to manage the Goldwater Institute, dedicated to former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, author of an earlier, shorter Conscience of a Conservative and grandfather of hard-right "movement conservatism."
Flake portrays his“old school conservatism” as the heart-warming brand closely linked to his twin heroes, Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. His identification with Goldwater is not total: he claims that, unlike Goldwater, he would have voted for the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. But he somehow neglects to mention that Goldwater also opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Affirmative Action and Medicare. So did Reagan. Both of them warned publicly and often that Medicare was “socialized medicine.” Goldwater routinely labeled Presidents Kennedy and Johnson “socialists.” And Reagan, of course, opposed any sanctions against apartheid South Africa and heavily relied in all his campaigns on dog-whistle attacks against mythical “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” allegedly devouring the federal budget.
Flake’s disdain for Trump seems completely sincere, especially his personal behavior, authoritarianism, treaty-shredding and immigrant-bashing. But aside from that, Flake voted for killing Obamacare (three times) and for the budget-busting, billionaire-enriching 2017 tax cuts and voted against gun control and abortion rights. In fact, Flake supported White House policies some 83% of the time. Worth keeping in mind when judging just how much distance there is between his heroes and villain.
This book, published two months before, laid out the case for Flake’s formal denunciation of Trump before his Senate colleagues. That certainly makes it an historic document, if not an especially powerful or well-written one. Much of the book (too much, for this reader) is autobiography. Flake was one of 11 children born to Mormon parents in SnowFlake, AZ, a town named in part after his great-great grandfather. After college at – where else? – Brigham Young U., he set off on his missionary work to southern Africa. His missionary zeal proved useful once back home, where he was hired to manage the Goldwater Institute, dedicated to former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, author of an earlier, shorter Conscience of a Conservative and grandfather of hard-right "movement conservatism."
Flake portrays his“old school conservatism” as the heart-warming brand closely linked to his twin heroes, Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. His identification with Goldwater is not total: he claims that, unlike Goldwater, he would have voted for the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. But he somehow neglects to mention that Goldwater also opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Affirmative Action and Medicare. So did Reagan. Both of them warned publicly and often that Medicare was “socialized medicine.” Goldwater routinely labeled Presidents Kennedy and Johnson “socialists.” And Reagan, of course, opposed any sanctions against apartheid South Africa and heavily relied in all his campaigns on dog-whistle attacks against mythical “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” allegedly devouring the federal budget.
Flake’s disdain for Trump seems completely sincere, especially his personal behavior, authoritarianism, treaty-shredding and immigrant-bashing. But aside from that, Flake voted for killing Obamacare (three times) and for the budget-busting, billionaire-enriching 2017 tax cuts and voted against gun control and abortion rights. In fact, Flake supported White House policies some 83% of the time. Worth keeping in mind when judging just how much distance there is between his heroes and villain.
February 19, 2018
I skimmed a fair amount (mostly the parts where Jeff Flake was tooting his own horn, and repetitively paying homage to Barry Goldawater and Ronald Reagan) but overall I enjoyed reading this book. I enjoyed hearing a republican senator point out flaws in his party. His main points of contention seemed to be: conservative inability to adapt to the times (declaring global warming a hoax), and the way that it has gone astray due to excessive cynicism and cowardice (politicians focused more on their voting...vote no and hope yes).
Article from "New Republic"
Conscience of a Conservative is not a work of political philosophy, at least not in any traditional sense. “We must return to the conservatism of our best traditions as if for the first time,” he writes. “If this is a call for a new conservatism—and it is—then it is just as well a call for the old conservatism.” If that sounds like it doesn’t mean anything, that’s because it doesn’t. Instead, Flake’s conservatism is mostly a mix of worn cliches about self-reliance (learned, as they so often are, on a rugged Arizona ranch) and freedom.
In terms of policies, Flake is an unrepentant free trader and globalist. He is a pro-immigration Republican who is disquieted by his party’s embrace of racism, which he seems to think is a recent phenomenon. He is what you would call a Jeb Bush Republican, which is probably the loneliest thing there is to be.
Article from "New Republic"
Conscience of a Conservative is not a work of political philosophy, at least not in any traditional sense. “We must return to the conservatism of our best traditions as if for the first time,” he writes. “If this is a call for a new conservatism—and it is—then it is just as well a call for the old conservatism.” If that sounds like it doesn’t mean anything, that’s because it doesn’t. Instead, Flake’s conservatism is mostly a mix of worn cliches about self-reliance (learned, as they so often are, on a rugged Arizona ranch) and freedom.
In terms of policies, Flake is an unrepentant free trader and globalist. He is a pro-immigration Republican who is disquieted by his party’s embrace of racism, which he seems to think is a recent phenomenon. He is what you would call a Jeb Bush Republican, which is probably the loneliest thing there is to be.
August 28, 2017
Jeff Flake, Republican Senator from Arizona, has apparently written this slim book to express his views as a conservative regarding our current government and perhaps, and this is only my guess, to throw his hat in the ring to run as vice presidential candidate to Mike Pence's possible presidential candidacy In the next election. Early on, he states how much he admires Mr Pence with whom he has worked in the past. He also goes to great lengths to explain some of his own voting history on several bills.
A Mormon from a large fifth generation ranching family in northern Arizona, Mr Flake expresses respect for the hard working Mexican laborers without whom their ranch along with others could not survive.
Mr Flake is critical of our current president and, refreshingly to my mind, makes the case for bipartisanship.
Along the way, he explains "earmarking" which was finally abolished in 2009, his belief in small government and lower taxes, his views on fiscal responsibility, as well as his support of our trade agreements which may currently be in jeopardy.
An enlightening and interesting read.
A Mormon from a large fifth generation ranching family in northern Arizona, Mr Flake expresses respect for the hard working Mexican laborers without whom their ranch along with others could not survive.
Mr Flake is critical of our current president and, refreshingly to my mind, makes the case for bipartisanship.
Along the way, he explains "earmarking" which was finally abolished in 2009, his belief in small government and lower taxes, his views on fiscal responsibility, as well as his support of our trade agreements which may currently be in jeopardy.
An enlightening and interesting read.
January 3, 2021
I was a bit worried that I had missed the bus on this one - after all, it was written by then-Sen. Jeff Flake in opposition (I presumed) to Donald Trump. The former is now a private citizen well on his way to being a nonentity, and the latter has been successfully ousted.
And while the book certainly critiques Trump, it does not do so to the extent that it becomes irrelevant without him. Rather, the main target of the book is the demagoguery and insincerity within the GOP - and the conservative movement broadly - which gave rise to Trump. These traits are still very much at large, and Flake's book remains timely - and will, unless I greatly mistake myself, remain so for quite a while, as the conservative movement attempts to put itself back together post-Trump.
Every conservative, and everybody who would call themself one, ought to read this book.
And while the book certainly critiques Trump, it does not do so to the extent that it becomes irrelevant without him. Rather, the main target of the book is the demagoguery and insincerity within the GOP - and the conservative movement broadly - which gave rise to Trump. These traits are still very much at large, and Flake's book remains timely - and will, unless I greatly mistake myself, remain so for quite a while, as the conservative movement attempts to put itself back together post-Trump.
Every conservative, and everybody who would call themself one, ought to read this book.
August 6, 2017
The Republican Party has apostatized, rejecting conservatism in favor of nationalism and populism. Senator Jeff Flake is a voice crying in the wilderness, reminding Republicans what they once stood for- limited government, decentralized government, fact-based policy, free trade, free markets and on and on. Flake invokes Lincoln, Hayek, Friedman, Buckley and Reagan in his indictment, voices and minds which would certainly not be welcome in Trump's Republican Party.
Flake decries both the Republican philosophical rejection of conservatism in 2016 as well as the absence of any kind of cohesive principle. Flake argues that politicians should exercise "fidelity" in principle and compromise in policy. As an example, he recounts the immigration reform bill authored by the "Gang of 8," of which he was a member. Instead, Trump's Republican Party is unyielding on policy dogma and completely flexible as to principles and philosophy. This is why, in spite of his strong anti-tax, free market, limited government, bona fides, Flake is loathed by the base. To them, Flake is a "liberal" for no other reason that he doesn't genuflect to the Republican dogma of the moment (never mind that such dogma isn't conservative). Flake is the asshole in the back of the crowd ruining the parade by shouting some crazy nonsense about a naked Donald Trump. I'm quite confident they'll shut him up by "primarying" him, then we can all enjoy the parade again.
It's hard for me to understand why Flake wrote this book. Is he running for President? The book so harshly (but truthfully) indicts the nuttiness in the GOP base, that it could only seem to hurt his chances of election. Still, it contains all the hallmarks of someone who is about to run for President: the values instilled in the candidate growing up (in Flake's case it was on a northern Arizona cattle ranch), some self-serving anecdotes about standing up for the right thing in Washington, DC, etc. Flake (like myself) is Mormon, and, unlikely Romney, fully embraces his Mormon heritage in this book including recounting that a great grandfather was imprisoned in Tuscon, Arizona for polygamy. He also speaks frankly about the way his LDS mission to South Africa influenced the direction of his life. These things make Flake more relatable to me, but I wonder how non-Mromon readers will react.
I doubt Jeff Flake will win re-election in 2018, which makes me sad. He is the kind of informed, measured and nuanced conservative leader that America desperately needs. Unfortunately, Flake's virtues and conservative politics have no place in Trump's populist/nationalist Republican Party. That said, history will be very, very kind to Jeff Flake. And, maybe as a man of integrity, that's all he really wants.
Flake decries both the Republican philosophical rejection of conservatism in 2016 as well as the absence of any kind of cohesive principle. Flake argues that politicians should exercise "fidelity" in principle and compromise in policy. As an example, he recounts the immigration reform bill authored by the "Gang of 8," of which he was a member. Instead, Trump's Republican Party is unyielding on policy dogma and completely flexible as to principles and philosophy. This is why, in spite of his strong anti-tax, free market, limited government, bona fides, Flake is loathed by the base. To them, Flake is a "liberal" for no other reason that he doesn't genuflect to the Republican dogma of the moment (never mind that such dogma isn't conservative). Flake is the asshole in the back of the crowd ruining the parade by shouting some crazy nonsense about a naked Donald Trump. I'm quite confident they'll shut him up by "primarying" him, then we can all enjoy the parade again.
It's hard for me to understand why Flake wrote this book. Is he running for President? The book so harshly (but truthfully) indicts the nuttiness in the GOP base, that it could only seem to hurt his chances of election. Still, it contains all the hallmarks of someone who is about to run for President: the values instilled in the candidate growing up (in Flake's case it was on a northern Arizona cattle ranch), some self-serving anecdotes about standing up for the right thing in Washington, DC, etc. Flake (like myself) is Mormon, and, unlikely Romney, fully embraces his Mormon heritage in this book including recounting that a great grandfather was imprisoned in Tuscon, Arizona for polygamy. He also speaks frankly about the way his LDS mission to South Africa influenced the direction of his life. These things make Flake more relatable to me, but I wonder how non-Mromon readers will react.
I doubt Jeff Flake will win re-election in 2018, which makes me sad. He is the kind of informed, measured and nuanced conservative leader that America desperately needs. Unfortunately, Flake's virtues and conservative politics have no place in Trump's populist/nationalist Republican Party. That said, history will be very, very kind to Jeff Flake. And, maybe as a man of integrity, that's all he really wants.
August 23, 2017
This book is only 136 pages. I saw Jeff Flake on Charlie Rose and decided I wanted to read what he has to say. He points out all that is wrong in Washington DC and our state of political affairs and admits his own participation in it. He is a Mormon and actually seems to have some integrity which is clearly lacking in most politicians and since saying what needed to be said and hopefully believing it and wanting to help make changes, he has raised the ire of Trump and will probably lose his re-election next year. Not sure that I can agree with his solidly conservative politics but do agree that compromise and bipartisan action are needed to clean up the swamp. But as soon as "collegiality, consensus and compromise" are broached that person is swiftly voted out the door. I have said tongue in cheek for years that the downfall of the US would be at our own hands and it is scary how it gets truer every year.
August 24, 2017
I have been waiting to see either political party pull themselves out of their respective tailspins for quite sometime and I am not a Republican mind you, nor a Democrat for that matter. However, for our democracy to work as the framers had intended, we need two healthy and vibrant political parties to guide our country.
With this book Jeff has offered a thoughtful explanation of how the Republicans, and the Democrats as well, have strayed off course from governing to a fixation on winning at any cost in attempts to control the political discourse in this country and I for one was extremely heartened to read it. We as a nation can only hope that this work will remind those that would lead in Washington and elsewhere what good stewardship of this imperfect union of ours truly means.
Thank you Jeff, for writing something badly needed at this time in our history as a nation.
All the Best,
J Ramsey
With this book Jeff has offered a thoughtful explanation of how the Republicans, and the Democrats as well, have strayed off course from governing to a fixation on winning at any cost in attempts to control the political discourse in this country and I for one was extremely heartened to read it. We as a nation can only hope that this work will remind those that would lead in Washington and elsewhere what good stewardship of this imperfect union of ours truly means.
Thank you Jeff, for writing something badly needed at this time in our history as a nation.
All the Best,
J Ramsey
April 8, 2018
This dude loves Barry Goldwater. And Ronald Reagan.
He ignores the social issues that seem to divide conservatives and liberals like abortion and gay marriage, presumably to strengthen his argument that we aren't all that different and everyone can get along. This is unproductive; however, his call for people to live in reality without falling prey to conspiracy theories and "fake news" gives me hope for reconciliation among the parties. His writing asks readers to pay attention to nuance and think more critically, which wouldn't hurt any of us to do more frequently.
He ignores the social issues that seem to divide conservatives and liberals like abortion and gay marriage, presumably to strengthen his argument that we aren't all that different and everyone can get along. This is unproductive; however, his call for people to live in reality without falling prey to conspiracy theories and "fake news" gives me hope for reconciliation among the parties. His writing asks readers to pay attention to nuance and think more critically, which wouldn't hurt any of us to do more frequently.
August 15, 2017
This book should be a must read. Jeff Flake is the Junior Senator from Arizona who thinks the Senate should begin to act like grown-ups. In a relatively short book he explains why he has consistently as a conservative opposed the current President. He makes a strong case for immigration reform, including a story of how two immigrants saved his Father in Law's life. He describes the Gang of Eight's plan on comprehensive immigration reform which passed the Senate but which the House killed. He has a detailed discussion of what should happen next on tax policy. He even makes a case for Simpson Bowles - which proposed to reduce federal spending by $3 for every $1 of tax increase. (I am not sure the ratio is right but his logic is impeccable). He explains in depth why the Senate needs to keep the filibuster but why its use should encourage all members to begin to think about how they work together rather than as both sides of the Senate have used it to excuse why they fail to act responsibly on tough issues.
In short this is a case for having the Senate do what it was designed to do - to work from what the rules call "regular order" - to force members to get away from gotcha issues and begin to think carefully about real issues where we need to make progress.
I am not sure whether this is an opening salvo for a Presidential campaign in 2020 but it is now a clear statement of a politician who takes his responsibilities seriously. Would that the Senate had a half dozen more like him.
In short this is a case for having the Senate do what it was designed to do - to work from what the rules call "regular order" - to force members to get away from gotcha issues and begin to think carefully about real issues where we need to make progress.
I am not sure whether this is an opening salvo for a Presidential campaign in 2020 but it is now a clear statement of a politician who takes his responsibilities seriously. Would that the Senate had a half dozen more like him.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 306 reviews