Discussion about this post

User's avatar
nadezhda's avatar

Your review is excruciatingly fair to Mounk, and by being so it highlights how he repeatedly finds himself in some barely defensible corners. As you note, he brings a liberal sensitivity to listening to people with illiberal sentiments. A praiseworthy practice. But in his conversations or in his processing those illiberal opinions, he tends to adopt their frame, or start with their definition of a problem. So from the git go he’s headed off in the wrong direction. His destination is wearily predictable - a somewhat mournful, well-intentioned wringing of hands. It’s the sort of wishy-washy liberalism that unintentionally gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s such a reliable pattern that, if he weren’t so evidently intensely sincere, I’d think it was simply disingenuous.

I haven’t read the book yet - I can barely force myself to read his stuff in The Atlantic or his new group venture. Your review actually makes me think the various research he pulls together and his discussion of other peoples’ thoughts on diversity and democracy are worth the price. As for the place he arrives at by the end, however, it’s precisely what I expected from the title.

Your discussion of what we need to be exploring when we think about democracy, social cohesion and the complex issues around trust are more capacious and relevant than the narrow binaries Mounk manages to trap himself in. Like any excellent book review, yours offers food for thought - in this case, on what a more muscular liberalism, that doesn’t apologize for itself, ought to look like.

Expand full comment
Vladan Lausevic's avatar

Shikha, regarding liberalism, migration, universalism and nationalism - I recommend you to follow and read Clara Sandelind https://boundedsolidarity.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/does-liberalism-need-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR3VL1pKpucvR0ZQxd75Xu4cqbiV76vfsk7uM5ui8kwF5sMq2YuvQieJpsU

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts