tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6742937789480545855.post2363822135181416568..comments2023-11-03T06:22:12.111-07:00Comments on An American Manifesto: McCloskey Again: The Bourgeoisie is not That Interested In PowerChristopher Chantrillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04115398168797134843noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6742937789480545855.post-46083432278459635452016-06-02T08:00:04.486-07:002016-06-02T08:00:04.486-07:00And in fact a main point of Bourgeois Equality is ...And in fact a main point of Bourgeois Equality is that liberal ideas were exactly those you call an interest in power. Our hypotheses are identical, which makes your claim to disagree more puzzling yet!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05638820963402539684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6742937789480545855.post-20253064275661637942016-06-02T07:57:45.520-07:002016-06-02T07:57:45.520-07:00"Chanrtill," not "Cantrill"! ..."Chanrtill," not "Cantrill"! As someone subject to name misspelling, I am embarrassed!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05638820963402539684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6742937789480545855.post-36261659276520827912016-06-01T09:32:05.477-07:002016-06-01T09:32:05.477-07:00Dear Mr. Cantrill,
I am sorry you believe the thi...Dear Mr. Cantrill,<br /><br />I am sorry you believe the third volume did not progress over the first two. I disagree, of course. You must have missed the 450 pages in which I document that change of attitude towards the bourgeoisie, and try to explain it. Or the 100 pages in which I take on the left with new arguments. <br /><br />Anyway, I am puzzled at the vehemence of your columns on it, considering that you have been kind to my views in the past. I believe<br />some of your new readers might get the impression that such views are simply rubbish, and not worth reading. Even those 450 + 100 pages. <br /><br />It led me to reflect: why is the right unable to win nowadays, against a left without any new or feasible old ideas? (Bernie Sanders and I agreed in 1960, when we were both Marxist kids. The difference is that he hasn't altered any of his 1960 views.) Could it be that splitting hairs makes for ineffective politics? It certainly makes for bad political and historical and economic science.<br /><br />I'm intrigued by your thought that a lack of interest in power is what damages the bourgeoisie. You need to talk to Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is working on a similar theme. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Deirdre Nansen McCloskey<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05638820963402539684noreply@blogger.com