"This book is for those who are alarmed by the current state of politics in America. It is a plea for moderation, a defense of our 300-year old constitutional democracy, a criticism of political extremism, and a warning of the destructive consequences of the politicization of aspects of life that should be left to the discretion of individuals. Quarter of a century ago I published the twin volumes of Against Liberalism and A Case for Conservatism. I thought then that liberals and conservatives had fundamental political disagreements. I entered the fray on the side of conservatives. I now realize that I was mistaken. Liberals and conservatives certainly disagreed, but not fundamentally"--

"Conservatism focuses on an exemplary core of France, Britain, Germany and the United States. It describes the parties, politicians and thinkers of the right, bringing out strengths and weaknesses in conservative thought"--Provided by publisher.

Contemporary American conservatism – a mélange of ideas, people, and organizations – is difficult to define; even conservatives themselves are unable to agree about its essential meaning. Yet the conservative movement is well financed, exerts strong influence in the Republican Party, inspires followers throughout the land, and has spawned a network of think tanks and media outlets that are the envy of its competitors. It is a powerful political force with which to be reckoned. This book examines how that has come about and what contemporary conservatism signifies for US politics and policy. It looks at the recent history of conservatism in America as well as its antecedents in the UK, traces changes over time using American National Election Study data from 1972 to the present in what it means when people say they are conservatives, and assesses the prospects for American conservatism, both in the near term electoral context and over the longer term as well.

Congress is crippled by ideological conflict. The political parties are more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War. Americans disagree, fiercely, about just about everything, from terrorism and national security, to taxes and government spending, to immigration and gay marriage. Well, American elites disagree fiercely. But average Americans do not. This, at least, was the position staked out by Philip Converse in his famous essay on belief systems, which drew on surveys carried out during the Eisenhower Era to conclude that most Americans were innocent of ideology. In Neither Liberal nor Conservative, Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe argue that ideological innocence applies nearly as well to the current state of American public opinion. Real liberals and real conservatives are found in impressive numbers only among those who are deeply engaged in political life. The ideological battles between American political elites show up as scattered skirmishes in the general public, if they show up at all. If ideology is out of reach for all but a few who are deeply and seriously engaged in political life, how do Americans decide whom to elect president; whether affirmative action is good or bad? Kinder and Kalmoe offer a persuasive group-centered answer. Political preferences arise less from ideological differences than from the attachments and antagonisms of group life.

"This book is an original, important, and interesting contribution to the literature on President Eisenhower and on American history in the years before and after World War II. It will make a difference in the way historians and political scientists think about a critical period of national history. Too few books have that sort of impact...." -- Michael A. McGerr, author of A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870--1920 Arthur Larson was the chief architect of moderate conservatism -- one of the most influential and least studied political forces in U.S. history. During the Eisenhower administration, Larson held three major posts: Under Secretary of Labor, Director of the United States Information Agency, and chief presidential speechwriter. In each of these roles, Larson's most important achievement was to explain clearly and cogently what the administration stood for on matters foreign and domestic. Larson's views were put forth most forcefully in A Republican Looks at His Party, published in 1956. Larson and his book provided the Eisenhower administration with "the vision thing." His limitations and disappointments also help explain Eisenhower-era conservatism. They illuminate the extent to which there was a gap between what the "Modern Republicans" believed and what they said and were able to accomplish, and why those beliefs, values, and achievements did not always mesh. Larson's ultimately unsuccessful efforts to prevent the rise of the New Right are especially enlightening, for they help to clarify why the party of Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s gradually became the party of the more conservative Ronald Reagan by the 1980s. Modern Republican will enlighten readers who want to understand more fully the historical context of today's divisive political arena.

The fierce polarization of contemporary politics has encouraged Americans to read back into their nation's past a perpetual ideological struggle between liberals and conservatives. However, in this timely book, David S. Brown advances an original interpretation that stresses the critical role of moderate statesmen, ideas, and alliances in making our political system work. Beginning with John Adams and including such key figures as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and Bill Clinton, Brown charts the vital if uneven progress of centrism through the centuries. Moderate opposition to both New England and southern secessionists during the early republic and later resistance to industrial oligarchy and the modern Sunbelt right are part of this persuasion's far-reaching legacy. Time and again moderates, operating under a broad canopy of coalitions, have come together to reshape the nation's electoral landscape. Today's bitter partisanship encourages us to deny that such a moderate tradition is part of our historical development--one dating back to the Constitutional Convention. Brown offers a less polemical and far more compelling assessment of our politics.