Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« CBC conspiracy theory | Main | Kyoto "cap and trade": A very 21st-century Ponzi scheme? »

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Best Conservative Books of the 20th Century

I stumbled upon this list from National Review. It's a few years old and, since NR is an American mag, Canadians, let alone Western Canadians, aren't well-represented. Still, good for a list of conservative classics. 

Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on February 27, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Best Conservative Books of the 20th Century:


I dunno how you can include something by Keynes and nothing by Ayn Rand.

Posted by: Brian Mallard | 2007-02-27 10:52:01 AM

uh...because Ayn Rand was a nutbar?

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-27 5:17:07 PM

Have you read anything by her or were you turned off because she didn't include crayons?

Posted by: Brian Mallard | 2007-02-27 6:34:58 PM

I've read and dislisked. It's ok. I'm inclined to dislike 'popular ' authors with deficient philosophy. You go ahead and like her.

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-27 8:05:09 PM

THREE much interesting and informative smart conservative books I appreciate are: 1. Godless The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter / 2. On Higher Ground by William D. Gairdner / 3. All Things Considered by Michael Coren. Give these three books a read-their great!. {Weekly Telegraph is a good conservative newspaper read}.

Posted by: Larry | 2007-02-28 11:28:25 AM

Yeah that deficient philiosphy of competitive capialism versus total capitualtion to the state. I can't see why anybody would want that.

Posted by: Brian Mallard | 2007-02-28 8:06:03 PM

There's more to a philosophy than 'me'. As 'brilliant' as she may be considered, Rand couldn't find anything more than 'me'. In my way of sorting, this puts her in the 'sad nutbar' category. I'm sure you have a different sorting criteria. I'd rather read someone more enlightened, even if they're a tad brash like Coulter. (I admit Coulter is also lighter reading.)

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-28 8:23:21 PM

I dunno. After reading Anthem, We the living, the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged, I got the impression she was talking out the masses and how they continue to whine "me".

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-28 8:26:47 PM

I got the impression she was saying there is nothing else but 'me'. Individually. Therefore why should 'I' give a second thought to the 'masses'. What's in it for 'me'. It would be stupid to consider outside of 'me'. (I suppose in her case also painful.)
Anyway, different strokes etc..

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-28 8:37:29 PM

I saw Ann Coulter arguing with a guy from CTV saying that the Canadian government weren't wimps back in viet nam days (liek they are now) when they sent troops there to help the americans.

HAHAHAHA! The news guy corrected her and she still insisted it was true.. What a douchebag.

Posted by: Dale | 2007-02-28 8:43:28 PM

"HAHAHAHA! The news guy corrected her and she still insisted it was true.. What a douchebag."

Do you always refer to women in such a sexist, derogatory fashion?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-28 8:47:07 PM

very yucky dale.

I really enjoyed her book midst soccer and beach this summer. Its always a treat to 'hear' someone say these things outloud. She's also pretty good at research, and referencing her statements for those inclined to check up.

I didn't see the interview in question, but
she isn't the only one in the world to think better of us than we are!

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-02-28 8:58:40 PM

I haven't seen the interview either but I do remember when it first came up. Assuming she is wrong in the absolute sense, I think there is at least some wiggle room for the recognition that there were thousands of Canadian volunteers.

She should clarify. Canada should acknowledge the bravery and selflessness of those who chose to protect us.

Dale should, of course, translate her interview into Farsi.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-28 9:06:32 PM

Ayn Rand argued that the rights of the individual were superior to the common good. She argued that there was no such thing as the common good since it was really a lie designed to pit one element of society against another. When this lie is told, one group of individuals will impose their will forcefully to the disadvantage of another group of individuals. She argued that this form of "statism" was the root cause of totalitarianism. Her views were and are supported by some very prominent thinkers, notably Alan Greenspan and Milton Freidman. Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club. By 1991, it had sold more that 7 million copies. It is historically one of the few books that has been continuously in print since it was published in 1957. Interestingly, her books are all still in print and, in aggregate, have sold more than 20 million copies. Why? Her thoughts and philosophy will out live her and be debated by future generations. Anne Coulter, while entertaining and irreverent, will fade in her own life time. To mention her in the same genre as Rand does both authors a disservice.

My original comment was disbelief at the inclusion of Keynes and the ommission of Rand. Mr. Westin does not address my disbelief, he merely engages in ad hominem attack upon one of the ackowledged great thinkers of the past century and then dismisses her philosophy by assertng that she was all about "me" as opposed to her actual philosphical celebration of the rights of the individual. He then then compares her to Coulter, a lightweight if there ever was one. Rand deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with von Hayek, Schumpter, Friedman and Orwell.

Posted by: Brian Mallard | 2007-03-01 11:53:28 AM


Obviously you're a fan of Rand. Sorry to take her reputation so lightly, and cause offense.
That said, I stick to my preference of philosophy and company. I don't mind reading other stuff, but I always ENJOY things written by those with whom I have something in common. Like the belief in God and the afterlife.
You must admit that Rand's 'teachings' did not even ensure HER a happy life. Her personal disappointments and bitterness, I believe, contributed to her 'philosophy'.
I do have friends who are torn between putting her on a pedestal and their own knowledge of her error, so obviously there's talent. I just don't like her message, or agree with it.
Sometimes, too much value is put on academics, ahead of truth.

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-02 9:20:59 AM

Mrs. Westin

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-02 9:24:11 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.