The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 😌
chelseadarling's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
nickjagged's review against another edition
3.0
Lower review since I'm not as tied in to the line of argument or reasoning in this book as I feel would allow me to maximally benefit from it. That's not saying that it would necessarily be better if it were explicated further within though, just that the conceptualization of conservativism is strikingly different from the synthesis I've put together through my reading up to this point. The strongest aspect is the best description I've yet read of how the right uses left jargon (to co-opt not their aims but the sentiment).
Tldr: not as coherent as "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank, though contains a glimmer of an equally cogent historical counternarrative.
Tldr: not as coherent as "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank, though contains a glimmer of an equally cogent historical counternarrative.
ashrafulla's review
2.0
This book is a great example of the delusion of intellectuals. For all that Corey Robin finds fault in the Kristols I think that he is one of them. The countless times that the author characterizes conservatism by some snarky attribute, I wonder why it is that he cannot find a confirmation of the opposite value in his beloved leftists.
The worst part to me is his continuous attempt to deride conservatism as simpleton responses to dynamic events. The book is an attempt to classify conservatives as counter-revolutionaries, which makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense is his belief that all things revolutionary are positive social changes. This thread pins conservatism as the force of a backwards-marching devil fighting the virtues of guerrillas and populists.
Then at the end his conclusion has nothing to do with the first nine chapters. It is just an appendage to chapter 10, where he tries to was philosophical by stealing the words of his conservative counterparts. I'd suggest trying to read this without the quotations; then you will see how poorly made this book was. I can believe that each chapter merits respect as an essay, but this collection does not merit respect as a book.
The worst part to me is his continuous attempt to deride conservatism as simpleton responses to dynamic events. The book is an attempt to classify conservatives as counter-revolutionaries, which makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense is his belief that all things revolutionary are positive social changes. This thread pins conservatism as the force of a backwards-marching devil fighting the virtues of guerrillas and populists.
Then at the end his conclusion has nothing to do with the first nine chapters. It is just an appendage to chapter 10, where he tries to was philosophical by stealing the words of his conservative counterparts. I'd suggest trying to read this without the quotations; then you will see how poorly made this book was. I can believe that each chapter merits respect as an essay, but this collection does not merit respect as a book.
gabesteller's review
4.0
Conservatism is not as incoherent as its very weird modern incarnations might make it seem but it is definitely more evil that you think!
Fetishizing violence, war, purity, and victimhood go all the way back baby!
Most enjoyed the hilarious chapter on Ayn Rand and the discussion early in the book of how
the Right often appropriates the language of the Left, for their own ends, E.G Phyllis Schalfly in arguing against the ERA claims She is pro women’s rights, and that the ERA strips women “of their right to be supported by their husbands… and for their children to be supported”
or how anti-LGBT laws are now religious freedom laws etc.
I mean basically its just cause the left talks in the positive language of giving people stuff, and the it sounds ugly to just say your denying people things so you gotta coat it in positive language but still.
Nice job Corey!
Fetishizing violence, war, purity, and victimhood go all the way back baby!
Most enjoyed the hilarious chapter on Ayn Rand and the discussion early in the book of how
the Right often appropriates the language of the Left, for their own ends, E.G Phyllis Schalfly in arguing against the ERA claims She is pro women’s rights, and that the ERA strips women “of their right to be supported by their husbands… and for their children to be supported”
or how anti-LGBT laws are now religious freedom laws etc.
I mean basically its just cause the left talks in the positive language of giving people stuff, and the it sounds ugly to just say your denying people things so you gotta coat it in positive language but still.
Nice job Corey!
tombomp's review
3.0
Interesting, but falls down in that it's a collection of disconnected essays with only a somewhat loose theme connecting them - contrary to what the book's description would lead you to believe. The book is most interesting as a brief survey of conservative thought historically. When it talks about the past decade it doesn't really connect the ideas about conservative thought that he's developed with modern movements. The introduction is really a pretty good summary of the whole book and probably the best part. I did enjoy the book as a whole but I wish it delivered more of what the title and description suggest.