gregbrown's review against another edition
4.0
Pretty good! I think Corey Robin's thesis about conservatism is right: an ideology to preserve hierarchy, even to the extent of reinventing existing institutions on renewed grounds.
There's a parallel way to phrase this, as Frank Witlhoit stated a few years later on the Crooked Timber blog:
There's a parallel way to phrase this, as Frank Witlhoit stated a few years later on the Crooked Timber blog:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
As far as the rest of the book goes, it's pretty good—though Robin's mention of cutting several chapters on war and violence for the first edition kinda makes me wish they'd stayed. The book's origins as what a fiction author would call a "fix-up" do kinda shine through, with the middle sections of the book made of essays originally published elsewhere.
marisbest2's review against another edition
4.0
There’s something about this book that utterly fails to be convincing in terms of describing real phenomenon. Listening to this book, you'd get the sense that the modern Conservative movement is propelled by ideology that just so happens to be patriarchal, racist and anti-worker. It takes ideology to be the first cause, implicit values (ie hierarchy, racism, ruling class etc) to be the derivative second cause and then throws up its hands about Trump (and to a lesser extent the populist parts of the Tea Party). But since the book came out, it's become pretty untenable to believe that the primary driver is ideology. Ideology may have created the modern conservative movement and GOP but it does not explain the sustained nature of popular and GOP support for Trump and Trumpism. Any such explanation much at least explore identity, teams and political incentives of the major players and the role of media.
In terms of history and ideology though, this book does a good job even if the author really really really hates Ayn Rand
In terms of history and ideology though, this book does a good job even if the author really really really hates Ayn Rand
edowdle's review against another edition
3.0
The first few chapters are absolutely fantastic - some of the best writing on conservatism I've read. The rest of the book was more forgettable.
tombomp's review against another edition
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.
cmpn's review against another edition
5.0
One of my all-time favs. This most recent edition draws the lineage of thought in ever starker relief. The new Trump bits are great, but nothing will ever match Robin’s savage evisceration of Ayn Rand. I purchased the audiobook, so I could listen to it each morning, and let the brutal owns wash over me like an enlivening allegro vivace.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
5.0
Note: This is a review of the second edition, overhauled after Trump's election.
Robin has a few simple theses in the first part of the book.
One is that conservativism is indeed "reactionary." Great conservative thinkers recognize the world is not static, and when major liberal or leftist shifts occur, they accept that this is because the old order at that time was decayed and flawed, presumably fatally. Rather than hold on to the ancien regime, Robin says conservative thinkers look to appropriate from the new order the tools of how it succeeded, and apply that to a new old world order.
The second main thesis is that, despite conservativism appearing to be very disjunct, it really is not. Robin said it is animated by two main forces:
A desire for hierarchialism and
Use of violence.
Notes on the second one first. Remember that not all violence is physical, that not all physical violence is by the government, and not all government violence is by the military.
The police in democratic countries are generally separate from the military. And police, police off-duty as private security, and pure private security, have engaged in plenty of conservative violence in America. Besides actual policing (often to uphold hierarchies), in the second and third forms, as paid security, or non-police paid security, union busting in various forms is a prime example. Plenty a libertarian in the US will decry state violence by the military, and a fair chunk of on-duty state violence by the police. But, whether hiring out policemen or having its own security guards, libertarians in general will give a pass to corporate violence.
Now, hierarchies. They comes in many forms besides old Europe's titled nobility. Hierarchies can be based on race — either straight up on skin color or pseudoscience like social Darwinism — land, money and capital and many other things. And conservativism is about using violence to uphold them.
Conservatives have had their philosophers of violence. Maybe Nietzsche wasn't anti-Semitic in the way his sister made him out to be, but in glorifying slavery and master-slave relationships, he was in other ways. Hobbes gets extensive mention. Rousseau, noble savagery and all, gets checked-marked more than once.
And, Theodore Roosevelt (a call with which I agree) is placed among conservative American politicians.
The reworked latter half of the book is of two parts.
One is a tour of modern economic theories, mainly Austrian school ideas and spinoffs. Robin uses this as a bridge from conservativism in general to modern political conservativism.
Within this, the chapter on Ayn Rand is worth a read all by itself.
Robin finishes by showing that Trump is NOT an aberration but rather right in the mainstream of conservativism in America, albeit more gauche and boorish than many conservatives. (Hey, Nietzsche was that way, too, somewhat.)
Outside the book, Robin has shown that Trump is a "disjunctive president," which is normal at the end of one of America's political systems. My take on that is here: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-trump-is-not-fascist-hes-disjunctive.html
Robin has a few simple theses in the first part of the book.
One is that conservativism is indeed "reactionary." Great conservative thinkers recognize the world is not static, and when major liberal or leftist shifts occur, they accept that this is because the old order at that time was decayed and flawed, presumably fatally. Rather than hold on to the ancien regime, Robin says conservative thinkers look to appropriate from the new order the tools of how it succeeded, and apply that to a new old world order.
The second main thesis is that, despite conservativism appearing to be very disjunct, it really is not. Robin said it is animated by two main forces:
A desire for hierarchialism and
Use of violence.
Notes on the second one first. Remember that not all violence is physical, that not all physical violence is by the government, and not all government violence is by the military.
The police in democratic countries are generally separate from the military. And police, police off-duty as private security, and pure private security, have engaged in plenty of conservative violence in America. Besides actual policing (often to uphold hierarchies), in the second and third forms, as paid security, or non-police paid security, union busting in various forms is a prime example. Plenty a libertarian in the US will decry state violence by the military, and a fair chunk of on-duty state violence by the police. But, whether hiring out policemen or having its own security guards, libertarians in general will give a pass to corporate violence.
Now, hierarchies. They comes in many forms besides old Europe's titled nobility. Hierarchies can be based on race — either straight up on skin color or pseudoscience like social Darwinism — land, money and capital and many other things. And conservativism is about using violence to uphold them.
Conservatives have had their philosophers of violence. Maybe Nietzsche wasn't anti-Semitic in the way his sister made him out to be, but in glorifying slavery and master-slave relationships, he was in other ways. Hobbes gets extensive mention. Rousseau, noble savagery and all, gets checked-marked more than once.
And, Theodore Roosevelt (a call with which I agree) is placed among conservative American politicians.
The reworked latter half of the book is of two parts.
One is a tour of modern economic theories, mainly Austrian school ideas and spinoffs. Robin uses this as a bridge from conservativism in general to modern political conservativism.
Within this, the chapter on Ayn Rand is worth a read all by itself.
Robin finishes by showing that Trump is NOT an aberration but rather right in the mainstream of conservativism in America, albeit more gauche and boorish than many conservatives. (Hey, Nietzsche was that way, too, somewhat.)
Outside the book, Robin has shown that Trump is a "disjunctive president," which is normal at the end of one of America's political systems. My take on that is here: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-trump-is-not-fascist-hes-disjunctive.html
killedbyfluffy's review against another edition
3.0
I enjoyed this book well enough. As a series of essays, some chapters were definitely more interesting and stronger then others. There were several times I took snap shots of passages to send to a friend to discuss so it did lend itself to continued thought and debate. Towards the conclusion of the book, I felt that a lot of the generalizations that Robin's laid at the feet of conservative thought are valid for liberal thought too. I enjoyed the historical aspect of this book more than the psychological/philosophical it was attempting to portray.
tgestabrook's review against another edition
3.0
This book was interesting but unsatisfying. I admire Robin for attemptting to synthesize such a broad range of thinkers, but he sacrifices depth in order to do so. Whereas the first three chapters lay out a fascinating theoretical foundation for thinking about conservatism, the remaining sections feel rushed and meander back and forth through history in ways that can be confusing. The chapter on Nietzsche is especially guilty of this.
Overall, it is a worthwhile read, but more as a starting point than a final statement.
Overall, it is a worthwhile read, but more as a starting point than a final statement.
georgewhatup's review against another edition
5.0
Sometimes a book could be written better but what it's saying is so good you'll forgive the structure.
I'll be slowly digesting the points made in this book for a while, and there's a good chance it will impact how I view any Conservatives in the future.
I think it could've been more cohesively structured throughout - highlighting the connections between each article and the primary thesis - but it's still so fresh I gotta give it five stars.
I'll be slowly digesting the points made in this book for a while, and there's a good chance it will impact how I view any Conservatives in the future.
I think it could've been more cohesively structured throughout - highlighting the connections between each article and the primary thesis - but it's still so fresh I gotta give it five stars.
lukeedbend's review against another edition
4.0
Originally a 3.5, but the Ayn Rand essay made this an easy/solid 4.