Perspectives on Political Science 

About: Perspectives on Political Science is an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & Democracy. It has an ISSN identifier of 1045-7097. Over the lifetime, 618 publications have been published receiving 2441 citations.

The Rebirth of Political Socialization

Abstract: (1995). The Rebirth of Political Socialization. Perspectives on Political Science: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 7-16.

Reply to My Critics

Abstract: ttm grateful to my colleagues for their thoughtful and generous comnients on my Adam Smith and the ;Virtues of Enlightenment. Their reflections not only [?ring out important points of disagreement in our iinderstanding of Smith but also elicit issues of current concrirn raised by Smith’s work. It is, of course, the relevance of Smith’s thought to our self-understanding as the troubkd children of the Enlightenment and the philosophical dqpth of Smith’s thought that animate our interest in him. The contributors to this exchange have admirably illuminated the pressing issues and problems to which Smith’s worh ;is addressed.’ 1 sti~c this as an occasion for discussion not just about my book or about Smith but also about the issues his work raises. Rather than attempt a blow-by-blow response, 1 shall focus on a few of the central points that have been raised, with dhe aim of furthering dialogue among readers of this exchange.

Refraining the Meaning of “Political” in Research with Adolescents

Abstract: (1995). Refraining the Meaning of “Political” in Research with Adolescents. Perspectives on Political Science: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 34-41.

Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain and How We Can Fix It: Blond, Phillip. (London: Faber and Faber, 2010) 309 pp. ISBN-10 0571251676 ISBN-13 978–057125 $14.10 (paperback)

Abstract: To be a philosopher-king is the stuff of many an academic’s dreams. College campuses teem with professors bent on setting the world aright, sometimes getting their ideas onto the op-ed pages and even, on occasion, securing a place in government. In very rare instances, an academic gets to have a hand in fundamental policy decisions. Henry Kissinger is a name that comes to mind. Today, it is likely that the intellectual with the most concrete influence on government policy in the West is Phillip Blond. Phillip who? Even if you read the British newspapers on a regular basis, you would not come across mention of someone named “Phillip Blond” in the front page accounts of British politics. While reading the papers, however, you would get the strong sense that major reform of government and government services is afoot in the UK, that the new Conservative coalition government (with the leftof-center Liberal Democratic Party) is energetically reworking the established order. Moreover, you would come away with the strong sense that this reform government was marked by a high degree of innovation; that genuinely new policy perspectives are at work. You would have the thought that someone, somewhere, was producing new ideas. And if you really delved into the papers, you eventually would come across the name of Phillip Blond, mention of his book Red Tory, and where he can be found, in London at the think tank he founded, ResPublica. Academics happy to learn that one of their own was having a significant say in practical politics might be further cheered upon learning more about Blond and his intriguing itinerary. Daydreaming professors perhaps wonder how their fate might have been different if they had a Chair at Harvard and could hang out with the smart set, with entrée to government and policy circles. Blond’s example would fuel hope. Previous to the last two years, Blond was known only to a few professors sitting on the extreme fringes of the modern academy. Having edited a book called Post-Secular Philosophy, Blond was read by a handful of college teachers with sympathies for Thomas Aquinas, Catholic ideas about social philosophy, and the hope that theology might be taken seriously again. A more marginal group could hardly be imagined. Not only that (and one needs to know England well to grasp this), Blond was a teacher of religious studies at one of the “new universities”; his was in Cumbria, a quiet stretch of England’s Northwest, just south of Scotland. The new universities are often mentioned with a sneer in established English academic circles, having until recently been technical colleges until rebranded as universities by Tony Blair’s image-driven government. Teaching religious studies in an increasingly secular country, to students just able to get into a new university, and one “up North” as the phrase has it, far from the spires of Oxford, and you get a picture of an academic sitting about as low on the professional totem pole as you are likely to find. Imagine going to a conference and telling a named Chair at Yale that you teach at a two-year college in Texas and you will get the picture. Through a series of unsolicited oped pieces sent to Britain’s prestigious newspapers, Blond’s name and ideas started creeping into the public domain. Editors were likely impressed by the innovative suggestions for how the UK’s sclerotic public services could be revitalized. They probably were also intrigued by the intellectual label attached to the reform ideas: Red Tory. The name given to this framework is as clever as the core ideas. Blond was a sharp critic of both liberals and conservatives and sought to unman both. He laid claim to a fundamental concern for the poor (Red) and thought that a proper valorization of property (Tory) is the key to helping them. Liberalism, argues Blond, has failed miserably. With its cult of autonomy, it has dissolved the organic communities that layer society and constitute its pluralism. Families, community schools, loyalty to place, and local ethos have all withered. Vulnerability is the consequence, and ham-handed big government tries to pick up the pieces, relying on increasingly coercive techniques as it frantically tries to stop the disintegration. If liberalism betrays itself, conservatism intensifies the problems. Contemporary conservatism is not throne-and-altar stuff, nor antimodern militancy, but Whiggery. It is the conviction that market logic, and its attendant virtues of hard work, cautious risk-taking, and practical inventiveness, are good for families, country, and government. Atlantic conservatism sits in the shadow of Reagan and Thatcher. It was their conviction that markets, driven by interest and widely disseminated information, discipline the mind and men; companies and government deliver their respective goods more efficiently with the whip of market transparency behind their backs; and individual families will compete with application and ingenuity to hold hearth intact and home secure. Market discipline is akin to reading the Riot Act: everyone, and every institution, is put on notice. Blond is a radical conservative because he thinks this Atlantic consensus also is a miserable failure. Market efficiencies demand constant mobility to keep up with rapid changes, with the consequence that families and local communities are shredded as jobs and resources shift around a global economy. Conservatives find themselves in the same boat as liberals: relying on ham-handed government to hold the pieces together. Contemporary conservatism has made an egregious mistake: business is one thing, but the logic of civil institutions, and the proper provision of public goods, quite another. Public services are distorted out of all recognition when market motifs are