Billed as a "manifesto", key terms are made proper nouns (e.g., "the Conservative", "the Statist") to flag the right-wing code words. The things Levin likes are of course "Liberty", and everything else is equated to "Tyranny", sometimes with no supporting logic except that he does a short rant about something and concludes the paragraph with, "and that is tyranny."There's nothing new in this book you won't find in Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Jonah Goldberg, except for more recent examples of Obama's evils, and that Levin frames his Good-vs-Evil battle as between the Conversative and the Statist.If you like to base your moral code on what was thought 2000 years ago and your political analysis on what was written 200 years ago, you may find some well-selected quotes here. There are even some statistics and quotes relevant to today in the later chapters, if you can trust their use by someone who is out to prove everything related to government is part of a Statist plot to tyrannize everyone.

I asked a conservative family member to recommend some authors/books on conservative thought and practice. This book came highly recommended and was a decent delivery, though he should probably stick to radio.As a liberal democrat and a scientist, the first several chapters were fairly painful to read. The subtitle was very well-chosen, it is a manifesto: all opinions intended to be interpreted as facts. Reading the first several chapters always made me think "But why?! What about ___?!" to nearly every topic that was brought up. While reading it, I gave it one star.Thereafter, the book took a turn for the better. In particular, the chapters on the economy, welfare, and immigration were considerably more compelling. The author felt compelled to include numbers, research conclusions, and statistics. I ate it up, albeit with some skepticism. I fully intend to do some fact-checking and research based on his references. The bottom line is that these few chapters appealed to the scientist in me.Despite being a very biased reader, I think the author does a generally good job of portraying the pros of conservative thought (while bashing the intentions of the liberal). I intend to look for more reads like this.On a minor side note, his insistent use of the word "import" as opposed to "importance" annoyed me.

Do you believe that our country is moving in the wrong direction and has been for quite a while now? Mark Levin, a radio talk show host and constitutional lawyer, spells out his insights into the actions taken by government officials and presidents in recent years. He speaks of "Statism" or the belief that the state (government) is far superior in administering rights, freedoms and possessions than the individual as a dangerous movement in United States politics. He also defines what Conservatism really is a compassionate belief that equality before the law, liberty, and freedom are more important than the radical egalitarianism growing throughout the world and our country. The strongest point he makes is that liberty and individualism is superior to state controlled welfare. My older brother who is quite political introduced me to this book on our way down to New Mexico, and as I identify with conservatives and hold my freedoms and liberties to be god given sacred rights I was thoroughly interested, and was not disappointed. I would recommend this to anyone seeking to better understand conservatism, or the nature of some of our recent administrations. Those not interested in politics won't necessarily enjoy the book but I highly recommend it regardless.

OK, I have to start by saying there was only one or two things I didn't agree with in this book. This is the conservative's bible. I already felt everything in this book, and now I know why and am armed with the facts behind my beliefs. I love how everything is footnoted so if you want to read the original copy of Levin's information you can get right to it. So much history I never learned because we aren't taught it. I should have gone after it myself. We are following in histories footsteps and making the same mistakes FDR made with the new deal. I hope everyone reads this so we can do something before it is too late.

=== SynopsisThe Conservative believes that there is an underlying moral order: an interlocking set of virtues, duties, and rights. The (often unwritten) rules of cooperation that promote the betterment of individual and society are what the author calls "civil society."Civil society and the moral order are encoded in, and executed through, the collection of culture, language, family, religion, and local, state, and federal government. When these pieces interlock smoothly, it creates maximum prosperity and liberty for all. When one or more of these pieces are absent or corrupted, the system starts to falter, and people suffer.The author asserts that most parts of of civil society cannot be executed at the level of national government. Political philosophies such as monarchism, fascism, and socialism attempt to concentrate all of civil society's parts (and therefore, all of its power) in the national government. The author lumps all such philosophies together under the label "Statist," and views them all equally as tyranny. An oppressive king, a state-enforced religion, or a high income tax -- all pull resources and responsibilities away from families, communities, and local governments.One of the greatest sins of the modern Statist (by which the author means liberals / Democrats in the US) is the burdening of future generations with massive debt used to fund today's social programs. Social security and medicare are two examples of programs which provide benefits to current generations at huge cost to subsequent generations. He regards this as a criminal act of a people against its own children and their children.Faith is an important part of civil society, because belief in a divine creator is the basis for natural law. Without a God, we cannot have God-given rights, only State-given ones. This opens the door to chaos because "rights" are something that can be granted, revoked, or changed on the whim of whoever happens to be in power at the moment. The Conservative sees the Athiest as someone with the same potential to damage society as the Statist -- and in fact, they can often be one and the same, as in as the USSR's replacement of religious dogma with its own nationalist dogma.The Conservative believes that America is the greatest society and culture ever created by mankind. The evidence is in the huge amount of wealth, art, science, technology, culture, and ideas which have flourished in the the US for the last two hundred years; and by the large number of people who wish to immigrate here from other nations. It's something that is worth protecting, and it is thus the first duty of the national government as well as its citizens to protect all of the elements that make America great.The increased flow of immigration since a change in immigration law in 1965 risks diluting (and possibly even destroying) this greatness by introducing new people faster than they can acclimate to the culture and become native members of it. The concept of multiculturalism as a virtue and anything which blocks immigrants learning the native language (such as bilingual schools or government forms) are harmful to both the immigrants and natives because they block this acclimation.If civil society is a great machine, one whose parts have been discovered slowly over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, changes introduce entropy which risk throwing it off-balance. Unchecked immigration, abandonment of the family unit and religion, massive fiscal irresponsibility to fund social programs, violations of or changes to the Constitutional values which guide governance at a national level -- all of these introduce entropy into the known-working system of America society.The Conservative urges that we be aware of the potential impact of these changes, and to understand what is at stake: the most prosperous, happy, healthy society ever known to mankind. American society is a rare and precious thing, and deserves both our respect and our caution when we engage in activities which have the potential to disrupt or injure it.=== Some quotes"so numerous are liberty's treasures that they defy cataloging""the New Deal breached the constitution's firewalls""the free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model""all cultures are not equal, as evidenced, in part, by the alien fleeing his own country for the American culture and the American citizen staying put""The Statist believes that Americans are gluttonous and wasteful, taking from the world that which belongs to others, whereas the Conservative believes Americans are successful and productive, contribution to their own preservation and improvement."=== AnalysisI read this book hoping to understand the mind of the conservative, and I came away with more respect for their position. In particular, it had been hard for me to see what first principles drive modern US conservatism. The answer, I believe, is: historical evidence shows the overwhelming success of American civil society. We should do everything possible to preserve and continue that extraordinary success, from protecting American interests with a strong military, to keeping the culture unified though controlled immigration. A reductionist approach won't work. The free market, Judeo-Christian faith, family units, federalism, the English language -- these are all gears in the vast machine of American civil society, and removing or changing any of them causes the entire machine to falter and break down.My counter-argument to this stance is that there are unavoidable changes happening the world. Globalization, increased individual mobility, the internet, an increasingly-connected world economy -- these things are happening surely as forces of nature, and the conservative's quest to resist these changes seems quixotic. Young professionals are moving to cities and leaving behind religion and the family unit. This clearly leads to moral decay in the conservative's perspective, but what do we do, try to talk those people to move back to their hometown and switch professions to working the family farm? Perhaps conservatives would argue there is a middle ground, but it's unclear to me what it would be, or how we could achieve it.Moreover, there is something that feels icky about the conservative viewpoint. I generally agree that the society created in America 200 years ago was the best governmental and societal innovation of its time, and we continue to reap the benefits to this day. But the insular, us-vs-them vibes that seem to emanate from the conservative's stance on immigration, military, and faith are a severe turn-off. I have been a part of many insular cultures, from underground music scenes to silicon valley startups; I understand that these cultures display "us" as a fundamental unit which is unique, special, and better in some way from "them" (everyone else -- the muggles). This us-vs-them perspective is both a symptom and a cause of a strong culture. But I hope that the cultures I participate in have a slightly more balanced view of those outside the walls of their stronghold.=== Conservatism vs LiberalismI read this book immediately after "The Conscience of a Liberal," which I read to try to understand the modern liberal's mind and first principles. It's easy to see why the two big political groups in the US talk past each other: they start from fundamentally different places.In many cases, there is very direct disagreement about the evidence: Conscience of a Liberal cited numbers showing that immigrant households use fewer welfare services than their native counterparts; Liberty and Tyranny cited numbers showing the opposite. It would be an interesting exercise to dig in and try to figure out if one or both sides are spinning the numbers, or if the best available information is simply inconclusive.Both books have the same issue, though: their most aggressive statements come with the least evidence. They both rely heavily on opinion pieces and news articles as their backing evidence for smaller points, and typically don't provide any citations whatsoever for their boldest claims.In this sense, they are both pure philosophy. The authors have observed the world, thought upon their observations, and generated their viewpoints. Rigor, evidence, and a scientific approach rarely enter the equation. Perhaps it is difficult or impossible to apply these modes of analysis to these vast societal questions, but it does leave me with the sense that political discourse boils down to a matter of who can talk the loudest and longest. This leaves little in the way of debate that I will find useful for forming my own opinions on these issues.