 |
| Link here |
I heard James Mumford interviewed the other day, I think on Australia's ABC. His main point caught my attention: why do you have to be assumed to have all the beliefs of the Left (or the Right) just because you believe one of them.
From Amazon:
In this refreshing and eye-opening book, James Mumford, a public thinker and independent commentator, questions the basic assumptions of our political groups. His challenge is simple: 'Why should believing strongly about one topic mean the automatic adoption of so many others?'
One example he gave in the interview: those on the conservative side stress the importance of family. Those on the Left the importance of increasing real wages. But the family is helped by an increase in real wages (which, btw, in the west have been flat for decades). So, a person on the right ought support policies, including strengthening labour unions, which will increase the share of company income going to wages. And those on the Left ought to support policies to help the family because it will help reduce inequality gap.
I noted many years ago (11, actually) what I called "Swimming with right wing fishies". That was about what I felt at the time: that having some views about Islam, the ideology not the people, made one automatically right wing, even as I considered myself left of centre and had always, till then, voted Labor in Oz.
So this is sounds like a welcome addition to the "heterodoxy is good"genre. I've ordered my copy.
ADDED, other heterodox people and places:
Triggernometry YouTube channel
