The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It from Itself

by Lawrence E. Harrison

Book Overview

Which cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes best promote democracy, social justice, and prosperity? How can we use the forces that shape cultural change, such as religion, child-rearing practices, education, and political leadership, to promote these values in the Third World--and for underachieving minorities in the First World? In this book, Lawrence E. Harrison offers intriguing answers to these questions, in a valuable follow-up to his acclaimed...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0195300416
• ISBN13: 9780195300413
• Release Date: May 2006
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
• Length: 288 Pages
• Weight: 1.30 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.3" x 9.3" x 6.3"

Customer Reviews

Great book!

This is a book that's great for people interested in cultural issues. It's based on sound economic facts and makes a good case as how culture can influence a country's fate.

A Companion Read To GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL

If you like books that offer explanations for humankind's big questions, this book attemps such. Depending on how much stock you put in Harrison's well-conceived and sufficiently supported (in my opinion) thoery, it can be construed to either add to or take precedence over Diamond's GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. I think together these books help to explain the world's current political situation (mess). Unlike Diamond's "geography is fate" analysis, much can be accomplished politically to correct Harrison's "culture is fate" explanation. Culture relativists, hackneyed liberals, and Bushian neo-cons will all take offense - that in itself may be sufficient reason to read it. The writing and editing could have been better, but because there were many contributors this is somewhat excusable.

Reality is the cure for ideology.

I must say that reading this book was a quantum leap from the last several political books that I've read, which were written by pundits. This book is a bit dry at times, but it contains real reasearch about reality. The "take home lesson" I got out of reading this book is: First, "Freedom and Democracy" isn't for every nation because a nation, or culture, must have certain values internalized before freedom or democracy can work. This is a rebuke to ideologues on the "right" who think that we can superimpose our style of government on any nation out there. However, this book is also a stinging rebuttal of the leftist who believes that John Lennon's "Imagine" expressed the ideal for humanity. "Imagine no religion..." No, we really can't afford to "imagine no religion" because it seems that decentralized Christianity (Protestantism) gave the world the most "progressive" culture that has even been. And, we can't "Imagine no possessions" because it is the possibility of home ownership that gives people a stake in their society. Finally, this book delivers a body blow to "multiculturalism". Some cultures are sick, and this book explains how they can get better. I could go on, but my point is that an exhaustive study has been completed that ties culture to "progress", and it's probably not what anyone who is narcissistically attached to a particular political ideology wants to hear. However, it is in this book, which I would recommend to anyone interested in politics and culture.

Foreign Policy Makers Must Read!

Professor Harrison's book is a well researched, timely and necessary study of why some cultures do better than others and how outside forces may or may not affect change when desired. The cases described within are necessary background for decisions being made today,and I sincerely hope our policymakers will study them. This book is a perfect complement to the Jared Diamond thesis and one should not be read without the other. A pivotal book for our times.

Essential reading and an excellent resource

I would hope (probably in vain) that Lawrence Harrison's "The Central Liberal Truth" be required reading for all those involved in the making of foreign policy, especially those within the government of the United States. I specifically mention the United States government, not because other countries need not reflect on their foreign policies but simply, as the world's only remaining superpower, American foreign policy is crucial and virtually defines the status of contemporary international relations. While recognizing that the history of the United States is fraught with foreign policy mistakes and disasters, it must also be recognized that it does not stand alone in this area. The past two centuries have experienced many bullies in the global arena and, at least, the United States has not been responsible for as much human destruction as that brought about by Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Communist China under Mao. I will not join those who think the U.S.A. is always wrong, the greatest threat to world peace, or the planet's "Great Satan." Now, with that disclaimer taken care of and before I get into Harrison's book, I need to bring up something which I found confusing at the outset. The book's description includes the following statement: "Harrison rejects the Bush administration's doctrine that 'the values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society.'" I assume that this inclusion had the author's approval. Nowhere in the book, however, do I find a definitive rejection of this so-called "Bush doctrine." The actual text in the book (p. 2) is this and it relates to the influence of "culture": "It [culture] is also a key factor in foreign policy, with particular relevance to the Bush administration's keystone policy of promoting democracy: '[the] values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society.' If culture matters in making democracy work...and as the disappointing experience of the United States in promoting democracy...suggests, then the keystone is likely to crumble under the pressure of cultures averse to democracy, as in the Arab countries..." I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a "rejection" of such a "doctrine" (or "principle" as I would call it). I agree that making democracy "work" in a country that has no history of democratic ideas or institutions or is fundamentally averse to democracy in the first place might be virtually impossible, but that does not mean that the ideal of the "values of freedom" are not universally "right and true." I would like to interpret Harrison to mean that, while the "ideal" is universally true and desirable, it is not a "realistic" and immediate goal at the present time in the current international situation. After all, it took England centuries to evolve its democratic institutions and the United States itself was built on this tradition and it still took the U.S. many years after its founding to give women the right to vote and