That's an insult to incels -- who are already hurting because they can't get laid. ;-)
I knew that I was gay when I realized that was the answer to my grandfather when he asked, "Why ain't you interested in goylz?" My proposition to an incel: "You don't need to stake your self-esteem on the approval of a woman. I'll get you off!"
As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, "Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (unfortunately, even a phony) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I wish the reviewer (and perhaps the book?) had mentioned Isaiah Berlin, and had elaborated on the ways that Berlin's notion of pluralism addresses the very real dilemmas (and discontents) of life in a liberal polity.
A minor (but significant) bone to pick: The author cites Yoram Hazony's contention "that the religion of the majority should be the religion of the country, with limited accommodations for religious minorities." For Hazony, religion is a proxy for ethnicity. That's understandable, given that Hazony is an ethnocratic Zionist, but it overlooks the ways that Jews have flourished in liberal democracies precisely BECAUSE such societies mandate equal protection REGARDLESS of ethnicity (and where religious and ethnic traditions are exercised outside the political sphere).
This is a(n equal and opposite) problem with "wokeness," much as it is with Hazony.
(EXAMPLE: I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and [as my parents raised me] I’m proud to be -- simply and uniquely -- myself. OTOH, I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.)
This isn't about "assimilation"; it's most genuinely who I am as an individual.
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-confidence, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained. I call that a protection racket -- operating in perverse symbiosis with MAGA, each feeding on the other to maintain a foul (and ultimately self-defeating) equilibrium of fear and mutual disdain.
This misguided approach also applies to race -- an approach that (unfortunately, however temporarily) was ascendant during the Summer of Floyd.
That's a far cry from the pluralistic neutrality of "live and let live."
PS: Especially in light of the above, I'm skeptical of the (book) author's focus on feminism. Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (even a phony) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I enjoyed your review but must admit I will probably not read the book. In retirement I am trying to enjoy quiet comfort. That said, I am a lifelong learner and certainly learned a lot here. Your explanation of a time of new right discipline intrigued me. In my dream of quiet comfort, I feel I'm like a great number of "real people", unlike politicians, pundits and activists, who are burdened by the extremes of both the left and the right. At this time, MAGA fascism has become the burden on the right but post-Trump how will we easily identify the "new Right"? At the same time, DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) is exerting so much pressure to be normalized and I consider it to be just factional, fractional and marginal selfishness. Practically speaking, Post-Trump reforms and real progress for every American can only be possible if we learn how to entertain the ideas but drown out the clamor of the extremes. How to get this to be normalized is a big trick.
Every time I read a book review here my list of "must read" books gets longer! This was no exception.
One comment struck me (and it has before) "Vice President JD Vance, recently has done the same when he noted that “heritage Americans” whose ancestry goes back to the Civil War have “a lot more claim” over the country."
So how exactly is it that descendants from all the African people trafficked here against their will and Native Americans who were the original people here don't have as great a claim as white men going back to only the Civil War? The three major branches of my own family were here as early as 1635, 1654 and 1843. Does that mean my ancestry gives me a bigger claim? It's all nonsense of course. My Scandinavian California relatives married into the Latino families that have been there since the 1700s. Every generation of my family becomes more divers as time goes by. The old stock blending with the new stock in ways none of our ancestors could have imagined.
AND WTF is a "claim" anyway? Some sort of privilege being denied white men in the present day because latter day immigrants are here now? Give me a break!
I'm of the same generation as Mr. Galston but have watched the developments of the conservative / right-wing / MAGA movements of the past decades from far outside those orbits. Although I'm familiar with most of the figures and ideas Galston highlights in Field's book, I'm more used to narratives that make Buckley / Reagan / Buchanan the storyline (and the "underbelly" tradition of the "intellectual dark web"). Galston's review seems to me in itself so interesting and analytically clear that I plan to get Fields' book and bring order to my understanding of the different stream of storyline she articulates.
Thanks to Mr. Galston for an very informative and engaging review, and to the UnPopulist for publishing it.
New Right males are incels with better clothes and broader vocabularies.
That's an insult to incels -- who are already hurting because they can't get laid. ;-)
I knew that I was gay when I realized that was the answer to my grandfather when he asked, "Why ain't you interested in goylz?" My proposition to an incel: "You don't need to stake your self-esteem on the approval of a woman. I'll get you off!"
As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, "Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (unfortunately, even a phony) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
Interesting and very worthwhile review!
I wish the reviewer (and perhaps the book?) had mentioned Isaiah Berlin, and had elaborated on the ways that Berlin's notion of pluralism addresses the very real dilemmas (and discontents) of life in a liberal polity.
A minor (but significant) bone to pick: The author cites Yoram Hazony's contention "that the religion of the majority should be the religion of the country, with limited accommodations for religious minorities." For Hazony, religion is a proxy for ethnicity. That's understandable, given that Hazony is an ethnocratic Zionist, but it overlooks the ways that Jews have flourished in liberal democracies precisely BECAUSE such societies mandate equal protection REGARDLESS of ethnicity (and where religious and ethnic traditions are exercised outside the political sphere).
This is a(n equal and opposite) problem with "wokeness," much as it is with Hazony.
(EXAMPLE: I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and [as my parents raised me] I’m proud to be -- simply and uniquely -- myself. OTOH, I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.)
This isn't about "assimilation"; it's most genuinely who I am as an individual.
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-confidence, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained. I call that a protection racket -- operating in perverse symbiosis with MAGA, each feeding on the other to maintain a foul (and ultimately self-defeating) equilibrium of fear and mutual disdain.
This misguided approach also applies to race -- an approach that (unfortunately, however temporarily) was ascendant during the Summer of Floyd.
That's a far cry from the pluralistic neutrality of "live and let live."
PS: Especially in light of the above, I'm skeptical of the (book) author's focus on feminism. Authoritarianism comes in many flavors (and genders). Hold an election between Tom Sawyer and Nurse Ratched, and (even a phony) Tom Sawyer will win every time. ;-)
I enjoyed your review but must admit I will probably not read the book. In retirement I am trying to enjoy quiet comfort. That said, I am a lifelong learner and certainly learned a lot here. Your explanation of a time of new right discipline intrigued me. In my dream of quiet comfort, I feel I'm like a great number of "real people", unlike politicians, pundits and activists, who are burdened by the extremes of both the left and the right. At this time, MAGA fascism has become the burden on the right but post-Trump how will we easily identify the "new Right"? At the same time, DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) is exerting so much pressure to be normalized and I consider it to be just factional, fractional and marginal selfishness. Practically speaking, Post-Trump reforms and real progress for every American can only be possible if we learn how to entertain the ideas but drown out the clamor of the extremes. How to get this to be normalized is a big trick.
Every time I read a book review here my list of "must read" books gets longer! This was no exception.
One comment struck me (and it has before) "Vice President JD Vance, recently has done the same when he noted that “heritage Americans” whose ancestry goes back to the Civil War have “a lot more claim” over the country."
So how exactly is it that descendants from all the African people trafficked here against their will and Native Americans who were the original people here don't have as great a claim as white men going back to only the Civil War? The three major branches of my own family were here as early as 1635, 1654 and 1843. Does that mean my ancestry gives me a bigger claim? It's all nonsense of course. My Scandinavian California relatives married into the Latino families that have been there since the 1700s. Every generation of my family becomes more divers as time goes by. The old stock blending with the new stock in ways none of our ancestors could have imagined.
AND WTF is a "claim" anyway? Some sort of privilege being denied white men in the present day because latter day immigrants are here now? Give me a break!
This was a good review. Thank you. I’m going to pick it up based on your recommendation.
I'm of the same generation as Mr. Galston but have watched the developments of the conservative / right-wing / MAGA movements of the past decades from far outside those orbits. Although I'm familiar with most of the figures and ideas Galston highlights in Field's book, I'm more used to narratives that make Buckley / Reagan / Buchanan the storyline (and the "underbelly" tradition of the "intellectual dark web"). Galston's review seems to me in itself so interesting and analytically clear that I plan to get Fields' book and bring order to my understanding of the different stream of storyline she articulates.
Thanks to Mr. Galston for an very informative and engaging review, and to the UnPopulist for publishing it.
I'm currently reading the book--well worth it for the comprehensiveness, and the contextualization of many figures in this movement.
Sounds well worth reading, good review especially the very end.