Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments

by Nathan J. Robinson

"[Robinson's] clipped and rapid narration conveys the air of a terrifically excited professor eager to share his enthusiasm with his audience. Recommended for those on either side of the aisle seeking to engage on the big questions of our day with clarity and truth."— Booklist

This program is read by the author.

The editor of Current Affairs artfully and efficiently debunks a series of common right-wing arguments.

Are taxes theft? Is abortion murder? Does regulation destroy jobs? Is white privilege a lie? Conservative talking points are everywhere, and through well-funded media like Fox News, Breitbart, and YouTube’s "Prager University," the right has an impressive record of packaging its views for a general audience. Clearly, the left needs to do a better job of fighting back.

Luckily, Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson has developed a reputation as a meticulous slayer of irrational and bigoted arguments. He has tangled with the likes of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Charles Murray, exposing their flimsy logic and distorted facts with forensic thoroughness and savage wit. In Responding to the Right, Robinson blasts right-wing nonsense with devastating intellectual weaponry, revealing how everyone from Ann Coulter to the National Review uses fear and lies to manipulate the public. He gives a detailed explanation of how conservative arguments work and why we need to resist them, then goes through twenty-five separate talking points, showing precisely why each one fails.

This essential handbook is a stimulating source of issues to debate and a comprehensive challenge to dozens of dominant orthodoxies. It sets a new standard for leftist critique, and would be an invaluable addition to the arsenals of the millions of progressives fighting the political battles of our age.

A Macmillan Audio production from St. Martin’s Press.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Audiobook, History, Economics, Gender Studies

384 pages, Paperback

Published February 14, 2023

Reviews

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an excellent book for anyone who wants to be able to answer some of the fallacious arguments found on "Fox News" and other right wing media outlets. The author has 25 chapters on various subjects, including abortion, taxation, socialized medicine, welfare and immigration, to name some of the 25 subjects.
The author emphasizes that it is important to read the conservative arguments in order to understand them and then refute them He is very effective in doing this. He explains that conservative and right wing media spokesman are very good at cherry picking statistics and then making it seem as a few examples makes the whole seem true. For example: An undocumented immigrant commits a crime and therefore all undocumented immigrants are criminals.
I do have one quarrel with the author: In the chapter titled "The United States is a Force for Good in the World", he says, referring to dropping nuclear bombs on Japan: "The justifications for the bombings do not hold up under scrutiny."
He then cites Dwight Eisenhower and Douglass MacArthur, quoting them as saying dropping the bomb was not necessary. Both men had presidential aspirations and motive to criticize Truman. The Japanese cabinet voted to continue the war "until death" after the second bomb was dropped. However, the Emperor intervened and overrode the cabinet. There would have been 1 Million casualties (Japanese and US) in the invasion of Kyushu alone. It is true that Japan had put out a peace feeler to the Soviet Union, proposing a negotiated peace envisioning keeping the Emperor and no US/Allied troops on the Japanese home islands. The USSR never passed the peace offer on to the US, not to mention it was completely unrealistic, i.e., envisioning no Allied troops on home islands.
There is actually a book in which the author uses previously classified material to put to rest this fallacious revisionist theory: Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 by D.M. Giangreco
I have written a review, see https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The author only has a small portion of the book focusing on this revisionist theory, but I am concerned that right wing media commentators will use this to discredit the entire book. That would be a shame, since it is a very worthwhile book.
A personal note: I only vote for the party that protects my 2 Cystic Fibrosis grandchildren.. The Democratic party passed and signed into law The Affordable Care Act, with 3 provisions relevant to my CF grandchildren: 1. Preexisting condition clause. Cystic Fibrosis is a terminal, incurable genetic disease. Prior to this law insurance companies could refuse to insure anyone with a preexisting condition or charge them 2 or 3 times the usual rate. This is now forbidden.
2. Prohibition of expenditure caps, yearly or lifetime. Some insurance companies wrote policies with yearly caps of $100, 000 or $1 million lifetime. Also now forbidden. One of the many drugs that my grandchildren take is Trikafta, costs about $300,000 per year. That is on top of hospital stays, surgical procedures and many doctor visits.
3. Children can stay on a parent's policy until 26 years old.
The Republican party has attacked this law since inception and even shut down the government for 4 weeks trying to kill it. They have sold their soul to the forces of evil.
Some of the author's views are more liberal than mine, but I still recommend this book.
I rate this book 3.5 stars rounded up. Thanks to St Martin's Press for sending me this eARC through NetGalley

[Dee (Hiatus through mid-Sept.!) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars. Even though this book is fairly recent, it’s already out-dated as far as many of the talking-points go, and it entirely eliminated a very important one - gun violence. That said, I found the best part of it was in the beginning and end, with the advice over when & IF to have any such discussions at all. Perhaps this would be a better as a website or sub-stack type thing, so that it could stay current with our divisive political rancor.

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was excited when I was approved for this book. Hoping for plausible but easy responses to many of the claims made by the right, or should I say their beliefs. The author did go through many of these so called claims, explain how they seem to think, and he went through them point by point. It did help with my understanding, and while I appreciated his thorough responses and even agree with many of them, they were in my opinion, much too lengthy if one was trying to counter a person with the alternate belief. So mixed for me and I guess I was looking for something simpler, easier. Interesting read though and well worth reading if only to understand how these belief systems, political leanings have evolved.

ARC from edelweiss.

[Scott Rhee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m sure something similar has happened to you: You are sitting in the break room at work, when one of your co-workers—-someone with whom you normally get along but also happen to know that their political leanings are diametrically opposed to yours—-says something along the lines of “Universal health care will never work in this country” or “White privilege is a myth” or “Abortion is murder” or “The truth is: all lives matter” or (my personal fave) “God, I love my AR-15”.

You just want to eat your sandwich. You only have 15 minutes. What do you do?

In normal rational times, one would pretend not to hear it and not take the bait. Unfortunately, we are not living in normal rational times anymore. Nowadays, a break room argument can often turn ugly. In extreme cases, they can turn violent, and, before you know it, you have become a tragic story on the 6 o’clock news.

Nathan J. Robinson has the answer. Actually, he has 25 answers, to 25 arguments that conservatives love to make, ad nauseam, about subjects ranging from abortion to gun control to immigration to white privilege, in his book “Responding to the Right”.

Before he gets into his responses (which are incredibly rational, with evidentiary support), Robinson first offers a tutorial on how not to respond.

One of his most important pieces of advice is also, sometimes, the most difficult to follow: Never assume that the person you are arguing with is stupid.

This is actually quite integral in shaping an argument that won’t quickly devolve into anger and frustration. Because it is often way too easy for liberals to write off conservatives as stupid partly because, in many cases, conservatives have automatically written off liberals as idiots as well. (See anything written by Ann Coulter.) The truth is, many conservative arguments are simply more emotion-based rather than logic-based, and even extremely intelligent people (on the right and the left) can succumb to their emotions. The trick is to defuse the situation from the start by penetrating through the emotional part of the argument to the real issue underlying it.

In many cases, it’s not enough to just relay facts and statistics. In fact, in many cases, having data on your side may actually make things worse. Not that making factual statements is a bad thing, but one must be very careful when using facts and statistics with conservatives, because more often than not, they double down with their own facts and statistics, many of which they pull out of their own ass on the spot.

Here’s the important point to make: Have legitimate and trusted sources. And lots of them. Sources are the bane of a conservative’s existence. Seriously, read any book by Ann Coulter or listen to anything Rush Limbaugh says. They will often make up statistics out of whole cloth and/or quote sources that don’t exist. In Coulter’s case, she often likes to source herself. (Not making that up, actually.)

One of the biggest examples is global climate change. Conservatives (actually, fewer and fewer, thankfully) will still insist that a majority of scientists still don’t have a consensus that it exists (the truth: virtually all reputable climatologists will agree that it is certainly real) or that it is being caused by deleterious effects of human overpopulation (again, a vast majority of scientists will agree on this point as well.) Many conservatives will cite studies or research that is either 10-15 years out-of-date and/or proven to be false. Or they will use as a source a scientist that has been discredited by a jury of his peers. It’s not that conservatives don’t like science, necessarily. It’s simply that many conservatives don’t want to take the time to learn it and are much happier quoting studies and data that are taken out of context, outdated, or just plain wrong.

Moral arguments, such as abortion, are a bit tougher to argue. Robinson acknowledges that the argument is often predicated on two sides—-those that believe that abortion is murder and those that don’t. Neither side has ever offered a successful way to convince the other side, mainly because it is an inherently emotional argument. In cases like this, Robinson argues, it’s often better to simply “agree to disagree”.

In a nutshell, Robinson simply makes the point that the best defense against a faulty argument is knowledge. Do your own research. Ask questions.

Sure, compassion is important, too. Robinson makes that point, as well. Part of the problem with the world we live in today is that people on both sides of the political spectrum have stopped trying to listen to each other because they just don’t care anymore. People are mean. They’re angry and frustrated and short-tempered, which is what makes some of those break-room confrontations so fraught with tension and danger. Sometimes, the best response is no response at all.

[Stetson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've written review embedded in a commentary on polemics here -> https://stetson.substack.com/p/the-po...

One has to wonder if Nathan J. Robinson is actually a right-wing psyop. Before reading this book, I was only dimly aware of him via Twitter. Of course, this was mostly overly earnest socialist tweeting, bizarre meltdowns, and quote tweeted vicious dunks on him.

Returning to the semi-serious psyop claim, let's just take look at one aspect of his bio. He's in his mid-30s (tries to dress like Tom Wolfe fyi) and has three advanced degrees (MA, JD, and PhD) from elite institutions, but as far I can tell he's doing little economically productive. He runs a tiny socialist magazine with a log fold smaller audience than other socialist magazines that are themselves struggling, if not failing. Robinson is indeed example A of the general uselessness of non-stem higher education (Bryan Caplan is smiling somewhere). But alright, let's stop picking on Nathan even if he seems to be begging for it. Let's examine Responding to the Right and generously evaluate what he's trying to do.

Responding to the Right is pitched as a surgical takedown of the Right's 25 most popular claims. Unfortunately, Robinson has no real methodology for choosing what these claims are so we end of with a sloppy, somewhat repetitive list. Plus, the listed claims themselves are barely formulated by Robinson into anything resembling actual arguments. They're mostly memeified, casual versions of what could otherwise be serious claims. Robinson reassures readers that he respects right-wing claims, but it seems that he hasn't demonstrated the care and attention necessary to actually formulate their claims properly.

Robinson's sloppy thinking extend to his subject itself. He takes a brief moment in his introduction to lump all right-wing thought together with a flimsy justification. This is a fatal issue. Many of his criticism is actually leveled at left-liberals and libertarian not even conservatives or other right-wingers. Most importantly, Robinson fails to actually provide a clear and persuasive account of what right-wing thought is relying mostly on the understandings that a sympathetic audience would bring to the book.

I understand that this is meant to be a book aimed at a popular audience, especially younger ones, but it is remarkable that Robinson isn't able to communicate persuasively. While he's building an argument up to deliver a purported coup-de-grace to a conservative meme, it will become evident to many close readers that he's flailing around aimlessly and futilely. Many of the subjects of his criticism, like Ben Shapiro for example, have a talent for distilling complex ideas and communicating effectively. This is something Robinson concedes but appears unable to emulate.

If a young reader is looking for an accessible and current defense of left-wing ideas, I'd recommend readers check out the writings of Freddie deBoer and Matt Yglesias on Substack.

*Disclaimer: received this as an ARC audiobook on NetGalley

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thanks to Netgalley and St. Martin's Press for gifting me an early copy of this book. Below is my honest review.

I requested an advanced copy of this book because I wanted some quick and easy references to respond to my family members when they start political arguments at every in person visit. And it delivered. It'll be the perfect resource in those moments where I know what I believe but need to put it in a way that they will understand and be willing to listen to.

Also, I learned a lot. :)

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some debates are matters of faith/opinion, but others hinge on facts and logic. It's important to separate these two big categories. Robinson does this. He also spends a lot of the book quoting Right authors and spokespeople, so it can't be said that he is misrepresenting their points, which he then tries to crush. I think it would be good if we had more of this sort of debate instead of shouting and lying talking heads.

[Ivonne Rovira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nathan J. Robinson, editor-in-chief of Current Affairs magazine, has penned the book you didn’t know you couldn’t live without. So many books lay out the rhetoric and machinations of the Right, but do not provide any resolution of what to do about it. Robinson meticulously examines the rhetoric of the Right’s academics and media darlings and then explains where the arguments go wrong.

That would be enough to earn five stars. However, the book also provides a jumping-off point for many, many other books that will further your knowledge on a variety of hot topics, ranging from culture-war nonsense to the minimum wage to union busting to climate change to even — I’m not kidding here — the resurgence of advocating for child labor and restricting voting to the propertied class. I only wish I could award Robinson more than five stars for one of the best books — not just political books, but all books — I’ve read in a long time.

In the interest of full disclosure, I received this book from NetGalley, St. Martin’s Press and St. Martin’s Griffin in exchange for an honest review.

[Sam · Rating 1 out of 5]

First, I will say that I’m am tired of the extremism of Right or Left in America today. This book creates more bias and separation and is not a light, conversational piece. It reads like a boring college lecture from one person’s perspective with insufficient research.

ARC was provided by St. Martin's Press via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Expected Pub Date: 14 Feb 2023

[Mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mostly good and very interesting. Some of it might be already outdated. Interesting to read all of the points and counter points to certain arguments. Definitely worth my time and I liked it enough to give it 4 stars and put it on my best reads pile.

[Janalyn, the blind reviewer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have said it before and I’m going to say it again anytime you start an argument with the with everyone who blank does blah blah blah your argument is flawed. If you say all white people have privilege that’s a flawed argument because not all white people have privilege. Secondly anytime someone saying all lives matter is racist to me that’s delusional thinking. even Barack Obama said saying Black Lives Matter is racist because when you insinuate that one group suffers vulnerability that another one does not you’re wrong. We are more alike than we are different and if people would just stop focusing our differences and come together with the things we have in common ultimately we would make more progress. And as far as cultural appropriation goes Taco Bell and dominoes we’re started by white men and I don’t see Italians in Spanish people trying to shut them down. They say imitation is the biggest form of flatter until when people say that people are culturally appropriating something we would have to go back eons to see what one thing belong to what culture. I mean an African-American owns Burger King I don’t think hamburgers from Africa… I’m just saying this is so stupid and frustrating there’s so many things in this book that I disagreed with and I had a lot of things I did agree with I didn’t like that he said Christians were delusional because again that’s clumping all Christians together and saying all of them are delusional God is love and just for the record they have gay churches or at the very least Christians who are gay because anyone who knows the Bible knows that God loves everyone but I digress I’m getting upset and this is pointless. I wish I would’ve never read this book more than that I wish there was no need for this book. I was given this book by Nat Gally and I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any errors as I am blind and I dictate my review but all opinions are definitely my own.

[Carey’s Reviews · Rating 1 out of 5]

1 Star! DNF. I was looking forward to this because I love to view politics from all sides, as I’m more an independent than democrat or republican and I don’t trust and dislike politicians on all sides equally. This book fell flat though. It read like someone’s notes they plan to add when they write a book. A lot of ramblings that just go on and on and really could/should be cut back or out altogether. I did like all the articles, polls and notes at the end of the book though I do question the evidence of those articles/polls/quotes/etc., because I believe most of the media nowadays is wrong or fake 99.9 percent of the time. I don’t feel like the authors “arguments” actually debunked or changed my mind on any political points I have that align more conservative.
*I received this at no charge & I voluntarily left this review.*

[Stephen Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched and well-written rebuttal to common conservative talking points. I really liked the author’s style. He communicated clearly, used very little sarcasm, and seemed to do a good job of attacking right-wing steel men, rather than straw men arguments.

My main takeaway is this: conservatism is almost impossible to defend consistently without the basis of biblical law. While I believe in most cases the facts point toward conservative policies yielding the best results, the modern right has little to stand on without the foundation of a truly Christian political model. Furthermore, the right’s obsession with “facts” gives the impression that we are cold-hearted, hate poor people, and want to keep all Mexicans out of the country. This is not true, but we are sometimes terrible at communicating actual solutions to social and political problems.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well written book. My mixed feelings about it are mostly not due to the book itself.

It is validating to have cogent detailed explanations provided to support the opinions I have. However, I don't believe those explanations are going to be of any use in trying to talk to a right wing person. They are NOT actually concise, they run for several pages per issue. They won't see any reason why your statistics are any better than theirs and won't stand still to listen to you tell them why theirs are wrong/misrepresented. They will care nothing for the hundreds of carefully footnoted studies and sources. They will be actively insulted by the idea that we should care how much better the things that bother us here are handled in other countries. In fact, reading the right-wing blowhards whose work is excerpted at the beginning of each chapter is actually depressing - how is it going to be possible to reach the people who really believe these things?

The idea that comes through over and over again and can probably be useful is to just ASK THEM QUESTIONS. Ask them how cherrypicked statistic X means the thing they say it means. Ask them more about the study they are citing. Ask they why they think action Y leads to result Z. Just keep relentlessly asking questions following the logic of their argument. Eventually you will come to the point that they are unable to answer, or else they will break off the conversation and bring you relief. It's surprising how many right-wing talking points, when questioned down to their heart, actually reflect either a very nasty and negative view of people, or else the opposite of the liberty that's touted. But we know that. And honestly I don't think I have the fortitude to actually respond to the right, even with these arguments in hand. As Robinson points out, the best way to change someone's mind is to actually build a personal relationship with them and understand where they are coming from and what their life is like, and trying to argue with someone on social media isn't going to do that. It's going to come down to personal relationships one on one over coffee, where maybe each one of us can reach one.

Thanks to Netgalley for letting me read a prerelease copy of this book.

[Bernd Schnabl · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unfortunately Nathan J. Robinsonis guilty of the same sins he is accusing the Right: Intellectual dishonesty and being selective with the truth in order to score a point. This is not how one should "Respond to the Right".

Right-wing smugness and righteousness is as despicable as left-wing smugness and rigtheouness.
I guess this is why I am a middle of the road type.... And yes, I see the irony in it. \_(ツ)_/

[Chris Leroux · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like most political books, the main issue here is tone. Robinson is obviously smart and educated, but he also appears incapable of actually respecting or tolerating opposing viewpoints. A lot of his arguments make a lot of sense, but it’s hard to take at them face value when his writing style is dismissive and occasionally insulting to anyone who may think differently. He actually acknowledges this in the final chapter: “Somewhat ironically, considering the low regard in which I hold conservative politics, one of the central messages of this book is: take conservative arguments seriously.” He makes it hard to do this.
Additionally, the best point in the entire book comes far too late in the actual last paragraph: “But if we’re taking about people in your life, if you want to persuade them, getting them to trust, respect, and like you enough to take you seriously is just as important as being right. Being patient, empathetic, and making people feel listened to can be more effective than just having the best point.” Robinson should take his own advice. (3.5 out of 5)

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent entry level work that can help left leaning individuals better equip themselves with counterpoints to the American right's nonsense. Chapters are informative with sources and none really overstay their welcome. I do wish some of his counterpoints were a bit more substantive and included more pressing issues. Not touching on gun control was absolute crazy work. 3.75/5 rounded up to four. I hate conservatives so much it's unreal.

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is exactly as described: interesting, but I often disagreed with the author. Cool.

What I really want to say is that some authors do a bang-up job of narrating their own audiobooks. Whether you like their content or not, James Comey, Sinead O’Connor, Preet Bharara, Matthew Perry, and even Prince Harry add a special something to their own words when they read them aloud. This guy? Not so much. Sorry to say that, because he’s a really smart guy.

[. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Книгата в началото започва с тезата как хем левите би трябвало да слушат десните, а не да ги игнорират. Хем с тезата, че левите игнорират десните, защото знаят, какво говорят, въпреки, че не знаят, защото не са ги слушали, а не ги слушат защото вече знаят.

Не могат и не искат да спорят с десните, защото не им знаят аргументите, а не им ги знаят, защото не ги слушат, а не ги слушат, защото им знаят аргументите и знаят, че за грешни и за това няма смисъл изобщо да ги слушат, еле да спорят с тях, защото левите са прави, а десните не са прави, и освен това десните са зли, жестоки и неморални.

Авторът се опитва да убеди читателите си, че въпреки, че вече знаем, че десните не са прави (макар, че не сме ги чели и слушаме) ние трябва да се слушаме десните, не защото те може и да се окажат прави и да се наложи да си признаем, че лявата ни представата е изградена на базата на пещерна логика, икономическа неграмотност, завист и детски приказки, и да трябва да си променим мнението.

Не. Трябва да слушаме десните, защото техните думи са много убедителни за америГаня (без разбира се това да означава, че те са верни) и ако не можем да ги цензурираме, както обикновено правим. Или ако не можем да цензурираме (поне за сега) всички десни, то поне да за да можем да използваме риторически похвати да излъжем америГаня и да представим думите на десните по такъв начин, че той да спре да ги слуша.

Т.е. априори левите идеи са верни, и сега трябва да направим така, че дясното описание на света да спре да звучи толкова вярно описващо света , за да не се нашите леви априори верни идеи, да изглеждат по добре в сравнение с десните.

.....

Авторът смята, че това всички хора да имат демократични права за гласуване за нещо добро и дава за пример как десни стари публикации критикували правото на глас на негрите.

Аз обаче съм напълно съгласен, нито жените нито негрите трябва да имат право да гласуват, защото НИКОЙ ЧОВЕК БЕЗ ЗНАЧЕНИЕ ПОЛ ИЛИ ЦВЯТ не трябва да има право да избира държавния глава. Властта се избира от Бог.

....

Авторът е класически пример за материалист, който смята, че той произвежда мислите си. Вероятно смята, че мозъкът му произвежда мисли и идеи. И че като възникне някъде въпрос той започва да мисли решения.

Звучи като да няма изобщо осъзнаване, че човешката воля се състои не в това да произвежда мисли, а в това да избира кои мисли да последва и да им даде воля и кои мисли да игнорира (стига да е свободен човек и да е способен да ги игорира - несвободните хора са загубили тази способност и са роби на мислите си).

...33

Добре появи се нещо, което очаквах, за сега само споменато, - авторът признава, че Фарма компаниите може да се самоубедят, че е добре хората да са хуукнати (сложени на въдицата) т.е. хората да пристрастени към опипиди. Това добро начало за започване на разговор - каква е разликата между свободата (свободния избор) и това да си закачен за опиоиди, идеология и пр.

...
Хахаха
Тази книга на толкова много моменти е написана все едно коментира и критикува левите.

Например ся автора изцепи как десните аргументи (той ги нарича консервативни, но за мен Консерваивен е обида, аз не съм консервативен, аз искам много малко от сегашния строй да бъде запазен) били фокусирани върху идеи и истории...


Хахаха

Все едно цялата лява пропагада не се базира на лъжи и на идеи.

Смешно е как в предишната глава твърдеше как консервативните не искали идеи и да мислят, а искали да се следват законите.

А сега изкарва как идеите били базирани върху идеи и истории, а не върху факти..

...
Борците за социална справедливост не използват насилие е думи. Хммм... Като основно мирните протести на Антова и BLM предполагам?

...
Патологични те лъжци, какъвто изгледа е авторът са ужасни за слушане тъй като безсрамността с която говорят е просто шокираща.

Същия човек, който твърди, че десните визии са базирани не на факти и реални случаи, а на приказки, сега дава пример с защита на тезата, че правата на собственост не са абсолютни с ПРИМЕРЪТ ако някой миюярдер има ваксина за смъртоносна болест, която не иска да даде на никой и така милиони ще измрат... (Както е ясно това е страхотно често срещан случай)

А преди малко лъжеше, как джев безос имал 6 гилиона долара, които не му трябват.

Само дето това е лъжа. Вероятно той има някаколко хиляди тук и там из сметки, но основното "богатство" на тия милионери тип Бил Гейтс и Джеф Безос не са в кеш, а в собственост на компаниите им. Т.е. в акции, и това реално не са истински пари тъй като, ако почнат да ги продават цената ще почне да се променя.

Те имат СОБСТВЕБОСТ която е изчислена на тази цена В МОМЕНТА. Нямат гилиони долари.

Икономически неграмотен журналитик.

Дотук си водих бележки, натам спрях щото няма смисъл

ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ:

Авторът атакува либертарианци и републиканци. Не атакува монархисти и подобни реалисти. А либертарианците (освен, ако не са монархисти - горе долу - тип Хоппе) и най-вече РЕПУБЛИКАНЦИТЕ - са си за бой попринцип.

Той атакува гореизброените с вътрешната им логика - твъграйки от аксиомата, че демокрацията е абсолютното добро, и ако нещо не е деморатично то е лошо..

Републиканците също правят това, само дето идеите им изобщо не са съвместими с демокрацията. ТОй показва това ПРАВИЛНО и ги дебънква.

Само дето демокрацията е несъвместима със свободата и с реалността изобщо.

Демокрацията е една от малкото политически теории, които не работят дори на теория.

Ето това са 25-те аргумента.

Ще ги разгледам едно по едно:

1. Правителството е проблемът, а не решението
Тук е прав, а другарите либертарианци и анархисти за съжаление не са прави. Поне не и монархистите и тези които са антидемократи.

Всъщност и християните би трявбвало да им е ясно, че проблемът не е държавата, проблемът не са дори хората. Проблемътр са невидимите неща, които контролират техните воли и тела - идеи, идеологии, религии - които са базирани на лъжи и илюзии. Това е проблема. Лъжите са проблема.

2. Минималните заплати и контролът върху наемите са икономически катастрофални
Скучна тема, ако социалистите искаха да я решат, можеше да я фиксират процентово и да изчезне от предизборният им репертуар веднъж за винаги. Не ми пука, хората трябва да се стремят да се издигнат тъй че да не работят за минимална. Друг е въпроса, че в България много работят са средна заплата, ама ги осигуряват на минимална, за да плащат по-малко данъци, което демонстрира, че щом като някой ти плаща повече, като може да ти плаща минимална, явно изобщо властта не е в ръцете на гадния капиталист.

Та при тези хора увеличаването на минималната реално им намалява реалната заплата, защото сега повече от истинската им заплата ще отива за данъците от повиешната минимална, тъй че много работници верроятно са и недоволни.

Аз съм наблюдавал работник в магазин, който не можеше да изкара достатъчно пари дори за да си покрие минималната заплата, пък какво остава да има печалба за собственика. Тая тема кат цяло е толкова тъжна и скучна, че не ми се говори изобщо.

Със сигурност високи минимални запалати правят некадърни деца и тийейджъри, които искат да рабоятт, но са некадърни да им е по-трудно да ги вземат на работа, тъй като те могат да си я заслужат.

И със сигурност увеличава автоматизирането, което може би е добре, защото, ако една работа може успешно да бъде автоматизирана - напр. касиер в супермаркет, то тази работа няйа вероятно е супер скучна и гадна и по-добре да я няма в този вид. Като цяло все ми е тая за тази тема, не ми пука, не бих спорил с някой.

Напрактика минимлната работна заплата е ЗАБРАНА на РАБОТНИК да работи ЗА ПОД някаква цена - т.е. е забрана за работника да работи.

3. Данъчното облагане е „кражба и/или робство“.
Данъците взети на ръка СА кражба.
И са излижни.
Държавите особено СРАЩ, могат просто да си взимат "данъци", както и без това те правят, чрез печатане на прави и ИНФЛАЦИЯ.

Данъците са напълни излижни. Държавата, която контролира валутата може без да краде данъци, просто да прави инфлация, което е скрит данък. Лошото е че така бедните страдат повече, защото не ползват антиинфлационни финансови инструменти.


4. Капитализмът възнаграждава иновациите и дава на хората това, което заслужават
Не. И Не. Кат цяло коропоратизма е зло, и трябва да бъде регулиран особено за неща, като реклама, маркетинг и пропаганда. Но регулаиите трябва но не да са от бюрократи от дълбоката държава, а от някой носещ ЯВНА и ДЪЛГОТРАЙНА отговорност - Царят


5. Съединените щати са сила за добро в света
Не. СРАЩ са империя на злото, винаги са били, още от самото си зараждане. Самото съществуване на СРАЩ, както пише Хоппе е съществуване ПРОТИВ МОНАРХИИТЕ, и в подкрепа на РЕПУБЛИКИТЕ и демокрациите, именно и за това СРАЩ постоянно изнасят демокрация.

Тук автора правилно диагностицира, но лечението му - още повече демокрация - е отрова.


6. Няма такова нещо като бяла привилегия
Не ми пука. Не е приложимо в България. Черните са зле и в гета, защото са с лоща култура, т.е. липса на култура, в комбинация с малко по-малко Ай Кю, и в комбинация със стимули от правителството - гарантиращо провал - субсидиране на самотни майки - т.е. субсидиране на деца без бащи, лоши държавни училища, вместо чартърни Училища (но това по СОуел е проблем причинен от учителските профсъюзи - и нормално те се борят не за учениците, а за учителите), реклами на наркотици, секс и пр. Кат цяло лечението тук също е радикал християн.

7. Левите са събудени (woke) тоталитаристи, опитвайки се да унищожат свободата на словото в името на „социалната справедливост“
Да. Всичко е така. Лошото е че не са правилният ��ип тоталитаристи.

8. Социализираната медицина ще убие баба ви
Причината цените на мед. помощ в СРАЩ да са толкова високи за нормален човек без застраховка е това, че държавата е надула цените, защото е разсипник - чрез програмите медикеър и медикейд. Ако тези "безплатни държавно споносирани разсипнически" програми ги нямаше цените щяха да са (и са били в миналото) много по-ниски, а качеството на мед услугите в СРАЩ е най-доброто в света.

9. Скандинавската социалдемокрация не проработи в Съединените щати
Да защото това са острови в които живеят 7 човека с еднакво ДНК и култура, а СРАЩ е цял контитнет от 50 държави и 100 вида цигани.


10. Социалната държава ще ни отведе по „Пътя към крепостничеството“
Да. Но по лош начин. (Ако случайно някой монархист реши че крепосничеството е похвала. Има се предвид като нещо лошо.)

11. Нацистите са били социалисти
Да. А е трябвало да са монархисти.

12. Феминизмът вреди както на мъжете, така и на жените
Да. Феминистките не трябва да имат право да гласуват. И кат цяло никой не би трябвало да има право да гласува. Дъжаният глава се избира от Бог и носи отговорността за валастта до живот с живота си (отговорността я носи чрез оставка, като оставката царя я подава с помоща на гилотината)

13. Повишаването на цените при бедствия, детският труд и потните цеховеса добри
Да (стига да е информирано - ако знаеш, че токът ти след някаква криза ще е много по-скъп и съответно знаеш да изключиш лампите) защото отразява недостигът им.
Да, Децата трябва да работят от максимално ранна възраст.
Нямам мнение.

14. Ние не се нуждаем от зелена нова сделка
Не. Защото глобалното затопляне е нещо хубаво, дано да е истина, искам да се стопли по-бързо. Полвината земя е замръзнала постиня.

Ако крайбрежието щеше да се наводни всеки момент, ако Бил Гейтс не спре затоплянето като накара Ганя да яде буби, цените на имотите по морето щяха да са жълти стотински, а те не са.

15. Университетите са фабрики за радикална индоктринация
Да, лошото е че са фабирка за ГРЕШНАТА радикална индоктринация. Ако университетите бяха както са сега, но религията беше радикално християнство, а не педалски извращения, щеше да е точно така както трябва да бъде.

16. Има война с ченгетата, когато трябва да сме по-твърди срещу престъпността
Полицаите не са прави. Негрите които се съпротивляват при арест също.


17. Профсъюзите нараняват работниците
Зависи. Провсъюзите може да нараняват клиентите, особено, ако клиентите са деца - ученици, както е при учителските профсъюзи.

18. Транссексуалните хора са заблуди и са заплаха
Да. Дефакто са обладани. А гей хората не същесствуват, а са просто хора пристрастени към хомо-нимфоманска зависимост. За радост се лекува. Виж Алън Кар.
Тия неща не са идентичност, виж предишната книга - Strange new world

19. Абортът е убийство
Да. Не само, че абортът е убийство, мастурбацията и сексът с презерватив (или в стил Онан) Е убийство. Единственият легитимен начин за свършване е или секс след брак с жена ти и дай Боже завършващ със здрава бременност и здраво дете след 9 месеца, или мокър сън/ цикъл. Всички други варианти са в някаква степен убийство, и си има наказания за това. При мъжете махмурлука от мастурбация (особено от порно) много се усеща - обесеисвност, сънливност, липса на мотивация, сдуханост, разконцентрираност, ставаш путка, нямаш тестортерон, не ти се говори и пр.

Това е защото биете чикии на Порно, хабите си допамина, качвате си пролактина и си сваляте и вдигате тестостерона нагоре/надолу в нестабилни стойности.

Да не говорим, е ако гледате прекалено много порно и лъскате не е изключено да станете и хомосексуалист. Или поне бисексуалист, така започва тази зависимост. От порно.

Половите клетки са живи, вие ги убивате - това е убойство. Дали е убийство точно на човек... поне на 1/2 човек е, което не е 1, но не е и 0.

Само казва,.

Не аборта е убийство - умишленото свършване без бременност Е УБИЙСТВО <3


20. Има война срещу християнството
Да, но врагът не са хора, а силите на лъжата, които контролират тези хора.

21. Ние трябва да уважаваме Конституцията и бащите-основатели
Не. Конституцията на СРАЩ е сбъркана в самата си основа.

22. Хората трябва да се „издърпват нагоре със своите ботуши“ и да не се нуждаят от „подръчни материали“
Американски глупости. В основата на обществото и света стои семейството и родата ти. Без семейство и средата създадена от него (дай Боже - Богоугодна среда) ти нищо няма да постъигнеш. Всичко което си постигнал е защото си се родил в добро семейство, което ти е създало (дори без да го осъзнават) богоугодна среда, култура, възпитание, морал и етика.
Всеки ден като се молиш е добре да благодариш за това.

Няма самосъздаден се човек!

23. Имиграцията е вредна
Зависи. Имиграцията на нехристияни, гласуващи за нехристияни Е ВРЕДНА.

24. Неравенството е добре
Неравенството е неизбежно. Болката не е добре, но е част от живота. Смърта не е добре, но е част от живтоа. По-важно е не неравенството в доходите, а богатството. Не е важно вуте, колко по-богат е от мен, важно е аз да съм богат.

25. Демокрацията е надценена
Демокраията не е надценена, демокрацията е вредна, за човека и за неговата свобода. Единственото по-лошо от сегашния режим на медийна демокрация, е режим на фалшива демокрация - като Китай, Северна Кореа, НРБ и пр. Всички зли режими са лъжели че са демокрация - сегашния и вски преди него.

Искам режим в който да сме реалисти, а не деца. Да не се лъжем, че сме граждани, защото не сме. АКо си никой, от теб никога нищо няма да зависи. По-добре да си го знаеш и да се съобразяваш, и дори да работиш за да го промениш. Ако те лъжат, че от теб зависи, а от теб (овсен ако нямаш сериозна медия) нищо не зависи това е лъжа. Всеки режим базиран на лъжа е зъл.

Властта трябва да се носи от държавен глава, който да е ясен кой е, къде живее и да е до живот, и да е с живот. (И да е ясен и наследника му и той да е независим от него, ако първия ритне гилотината, наследника си продължава всее едно нищо не е станало!)

Нама нищо по-лошо от ВЛАСТ без ОТГОВОРНОСТ.

В републиките безотговорността е споделена между всички.

За повече информация четете книгата на Хоппе - Демокрацията богът който се провали - има я на бг в epub в либген.


Последно:
За автора: Автора няма жена има ПрИяТеЛкА... няма деца и никога не е работил реална работа през живота си. Да пишеш не е работа. Почти нищо каквото каже за живота няма значение.

За книгата:
Би било полезно книгата да се пренапише от някой като Ник Фуентес, Хоппе и пр.

Има легитимни критики към десните, както и към левите, но автора тръгва от аксиомата, че демокрацията е добро, а тя не е. Т.е. каквото и да каже, то натам е грешно.

Всъщност автора просто хваща което е модерно днес, и казва, че това е доброто, и което отдалечава това от това днес е лошо.

Иначе в книгата той прави точно това, което обвинява, че десните правят. Те често дори го правят, защото за шилове.

Реално тръгнах да слушам кнгиата защото очаквах да критикува повече Соуел, но той не прави това, може би ако беше чел Knowledge and desisions и защот не Hoppe - Democracy the god that failed - би разпрал повече за какво иде реч.

Иначе да десните които той критикува са си за критка. Те не са десни, те са крайно леви либерали, които не осъзнават, че идеите които защитават, са несъвместими с демокрацията, не произлизат от демокрацията и изобщо те правят същото каквото той прави, само дето не с което е било модерно сега, а което е било модерно преди 20 години.

Консервативен е обидна дума.

Аз не съм консервативен. От днешния свят има малко неща, които трябва да бъдат запазени, при изграждането на радикал-християнската теократична монархия - Царство България <3

Добре, че няма да съм Цар аз.

Властта е ужасно нещо, ако се говори реално за това какво е тя.

Властта Е ОТГОВОРНОСТ.

На власт трябва да е цар, който ИСКА ИЛИ НЕ ИСКА ЩЕЕЕ носи отговорност - до живот, със живота си.

разбира се царят изобщо няма нужда дори да е цар на цялата българска теротория, Защо не едно царство Пловдивс, едно княжество Варна, Едно княжество София и пр.

Монархическа децентрализация.

Ако някои от тези градове-царства имат ядрено оръжие - както сега СРАЩ и Расия имат - то межу тях ще има директен мир - без да изключваме прокси войни като Осрайна например.

толкос..

Не си губете времето, моето ревю е по-забавно от книгата.

Благодаря за вниманието.

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally thought this would just be a fun, sassy read but it turned out to be genuinely thoughtful

[Joe James · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's okay. Robinson could use an editor. His socialist arguments are not great if you're a normie liberal like me, and his inability to focus on the issues people will care about takes away from this book. To name one section, I typically see the Green New Deal as a progressive policy position that's basically "everything we care about is climate change." (Not saying you can't make the argument that it is, but I think you can do this with any big issue). I was not really persuaded from this position because he just kind of didn't engage with that perspective, which I would say is common among moderate liberals. More frustrating, he could have argued about the urgency and science of climate change and why we need big investments and changes in our economy and how a GND is the only way to get there. That would have been a great argument that could have educated rightists and lefties of all stripes would have agreed upon. But instead he refights the weird inter-left fights without actually adding much substance. This might sound nitpicky about one section, but it's riddled throughout the book.

If you're a lefty or liberal who disagrees with NJR, you'll notice he doesn't really change his frustrating style: it's simultaneously seeped with detail, occasionally has a golden nugget, but it's length is often due to lacking editing, not containing substance. It's a weird, rambling, yet evasive mess at times (Please note, I'm aware my review here is rambly and should be better edited too, but I'm not charging you $15 on Amazon to read it!).

He sneaks into his writing premises that even lefties may not agree on, while selectively quoting some economist who isn't a socialist in one point and ignore what that same economist will say on a similar point *in the same chapter*. For instance, he cites Noah Smith on minimum wage research to make an empirical case for raising the minimum wage, but then gasps out a weird "some people are saying" argument about rent control, that I imagine Noah Smith would object to. Oddly enough, NJR cites that minimum wage by itself can't pay rent in most cities. This is true, but the real question for most lefties is whether housing regulations (NJR is pretty anti building new housing unless it's the government doing it) restricting supply has just as much to do with this as anything. Housing is barely talked about in this book.

What makes this frustrating is that highlighting the differences in left-values bolster the opposition of the right wing arguments. But because it's absent, The reader is left thinking to be against the right, one must be NJR's style of leftist.

For instance: his chapter on inequality is just really bad and presume that everyone wants to live in a democratic *society* and not a *country with a democratic government* (I really don't like community meetings, and the revealed preference of the general public of them not showing up implies I'm not the only one). If I don't want to live in a country of full democratic equality in all facets of life (there are standards of a good place to live beyond just democratic equality *in all things*) I'm not persuaded by his argument, which is kind of a big deal.

Read this book if you want an inside look at the scatter shot pathologies of the guy who talks big about unionizing workforces, but fired his workers for organizing, and who literally got started on this internet pundit thing by arguing in the YouTube comment section.

[Jeremy Murray · Rating 2 out of 5]

Released in 2023, Nathan J. Robinson's "Responding to the Right" is remarkable mostly for the poor timing. Had this come out pre-pandemic Robinson's arguments wouldn't seem so hackneyed.

As it stands though, we are in the era of Trump v2, and we see an emerging global opposition to the ideology known as 'wokeness' (to detractors), and DEI or CRT (to proponents). Flaws in Robinson's arguments around immigration, trans identity, universities and other hot-button topics are increasingly obvious.

Robinson's stated intent is to engage with conservatives, and conservative arguments, and he pats himself on the back repeatedly for his willingness to do this. He presents, in Part 1, an 'overview' of conservative thought, which he characterizes as dishonest, manipulative and fallacious.

And herein lies the problem with the book. Robinson is not practicing what he preaches. I'm not sure who he sees as his audience, but given the number of times he spells out basic rhetorical techniques, I am assuming he has written this for the lay-person unfamiliar with classic political arguments, basic logic and rhetoric.

At one point, he notes how, rather than 'strawmanning' conservatives, he has chosen to 'steelman'. But he does not, in fact, steel man any conservative arguments, whether because he is oblivious to them, or because he has not in fact read any quality conservative arguments.

I appreciate Robinson for variety of things, not the least being his detailed footnotes and his 'recommended reading' lists at the end of each chapter. I used to read his magazine, "Current Affairs", before tiring of the orthodox leftism.

And I appreciate the format of this book - after his overview in Part 1, Robinson has 25 chapters that introduce conservative ideas with quotations and a summation of the conservative stance, a summation I found to be consistently fair throughout.

But he then rebuts these arguments in a startlingly facile manner, literally ignoring some of the best points that he had just summarized. He cherry picks his conservative sources, ensuring that the least substantial (Dinesh D'Souza, Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, etc) get the most air time.

The few heavyweight academic 'conservative' sources he engages with are barely conservative at all - he cites John McWhorter and Francis Fukuyama as conservatives (never, for McWhorter, no longer, Fukuyama) and Christina Hoff Sommers as a libertarian, for some reason. Most likely, he cannot conceive of a feminist - Hoff Sommers' chosen self-description - who does not conform to leftist orthodoxy in its entirety.

I mention these three as the 'legit' sources simply because I've reviewed books by them all here on Goodreads. There are a few more, but Robinson's problem is that he rejects conservative thought as wrong, prima facie, while tolerating far weaker arguments from the left. He is more than willing to cite Derrick Bell positively, for example, a lefty race-baiting faux academic who made a career peddling noxious stereotypes of blacks and whites both.

There is more value in McWhorter's critiques of Bell - a few pages in his classic "Losing the Race" -than in the entirety of Robinson's book. To speculate, I fear this is that Robinson simply doesn't know what qualifies as a quality source.

Nearly all of his recommended readings fit neatly into tribal woke/leftist talking points. None that I recognized were heterodox or conservative. To be honest, I doubt Robinson has even read his conservative sources - simply reading one of McWhorter's books on race would have disabused Robinson of the notion that McWhorter is conservative, and would have provided Robinson with challenging arguments to debate, rather than the straw dogs Robinson prefers to chew on.

In fact, Robinson is not even well-read on the left. Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Read condemn the identity politics Robinson lauds repeatedly, from a Marxist perspective, arguing that wokeness is simply neoliberal morality. Surely, a self-professed socialist such as Robinson is familiar with these guys and their arguments? And is therefore ignoring them because they are too challenging to refute?

Or is Robinson really oblivious to any thought outside of orthodox woke dogma? He clearly needs to read Susan Neiman's "Left is not Woke", another vastly superior text, again from the left, and released in the same year as "Responding to the Right".

Honestly, I think I could defeat Robinson right now, no prep required, in debating a dozen of these points. When Robinson sticks to classic progressive arguments - taxes are necessary, government is more good than bad, global warming is a major concern, unions are positive - I am largely in agreement. His straw manning style still grates, but at least he's not an INCORRECT snobby elitist.

He IS an incorrect snobby elitist when it comes to the more modern leftist issues, ones that do not have the rich historical and academic supports of classic liberal/conservative debate topics. His take on trans issues is a low point, but valuable nonetheless, insofar as they reveal that Robinson's project is tribal.

Robinson is not engaging with ideas here - to him, these issues - all of them - are settled, the right are wrong, at best, immoral more likely, and the left are correct - again, on everything.

There is no point at which he agrees with a heterodox take. Occasional comments suggesting the woke can be 'annoying' amount to nothing. This is tribalism - my side is right, the other both wrong and dangerous, the project victory, not compromise.

I keep reading lefty books addressing wokeness, looking for something good, but this genre appears to be straight trash. Robinson's is better than many, and I believe him sincere in his efforts, at least, more than I can say for, say, Ibram X. Kendi, Ellis Cose or Patricia Roberts-Miller.

But when he makes arguments like 'having spent time in a sociology PHD program, however, I can confirm that even ostensibly Marxist sociologists are rarely activists' (p. 204) he reveals just how shallow his arguments are. Note the dearth of evidence. "I can confirm" is based on his opinion, no facts presented, a tendency he excoriates in others. Note the arrogance (who cares you 'spent time' in a program)?

Most importantly, note how incredibly wrong he is, as revealed by the myriad activist sociologists who weighed in joyously after Hamas murdered a thousand Jews on October 7th, shortly after Robinson's book release.

I maintain that this is a solid structure for a book, and may in fact steal it for my own writing. But I will avoid having chapters entitled 'The Terror of Having to Think' so as not to appear the condescending, cravat-wearing, judgemental privilege-baby that Robinson comes across as.

As if people he disagrees with are 'terrified of thought'. Seems like, I dunno, a straw man, perhaps?

Overall, there is not much of value here for those familiar with classic left-right arguments, regardless of the readers political orientation. Robinson's writing is simple and accessible, and this is a highly readable book - I don't often finish 300 pages in two days when I reject the premises.

This isn't so much a painful read, the way Roberts-Miller was, as a pointless one.

I have reviewed a half-dozen better books on these issues here on Goodreads alone. Read one of them instead of this.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best way to point out the flaws with much of conservative reasoning is with an example, one that is cited frequently on the right. It goes something like this: Imagine that you’re walking down the street and a mugger approaches you demanding all of your money. On threat of violence, you hand over the $50 you’re carrying, and the mugger quickly runs away with your cash.

Now, imagine a second scenario. This time, the mugger votes for a political representative who proceeds to concoct a redistribution scheme that, through the taxation of your hard-earned income, redistributes that same $50 from your wallet to the mugger’s.

Now, ask yourself, what’s the difference between these two scenarios? If it turns out that there is no difference, then the only legitimate conclusion we can make is that taxation is theft.

This is the type of argument that conservatives find persuasive. And at first glance, it is persuasive. It’s only when you start to think about it more deeply that the absurdity of the argument reveals itself. And this is why Nathan Robinson chose to write this book; not to attack the motivations or intelligence of those on the right, or to show you how to “destroy” right-wingers in an argument, but to show you why conservative arguments and ideas themselves so often fail—or otherwise result in morally repugnant conclusions.

It’s worth quickly revisiting the mugger example, because the “taxation is theft” argument says a lot about conservative arguments in general. Like many similar arguments, the main issue is that the analogy is very weak. In the first scenario, the mugger is stealing your cash and running away with it. This is a zero-sum affair—you lose fifty bucks and the mugger gains fifty bucks. This is clearly illegal and unjustified on any grounds.

Taxation, on the other hand, seems quite different. While you may have to pay a percentage of your income to the government in taxes, the situation is unequivocally not zero-sum; you actually receive several benefits for your tax dollars—including the maintenance of the currency itself, along with the upkeep of the sewer systems, roads, bridges, and laws, among much else—that allow you to earn an income in the first place.

These two scenarios, then, while appearing at first to be equivalent, start to look a lot different as you begin to think harder about them. Here’s how Robinson put it:

“The ‘highway robber’ analogue for the taxman only works if the highway robber, after taking your wallet, gave you an old-age insurance plan and saved your house from a fire, and also gave to the poor, and also you could vote him out if you didn’t like it, and also he only robbed you if you had money to spare and checked what your income was and only took an amount you could clearly live without.”

The same pattern emerges with other conservative arguments covered in the book, arguments like, “the government is the problem, not the solution,” “the market pays people what they’re ‘worth,’” or “giving people universal health care will turn America into Nazi Germany.” Even if these arguments initially seem to make sense, or even appeal to common sense, the deeper you penetrate into their assumptions the harder it becomes to believe in them. And this is the service Robinson is providing. There’s always a side of things conservatives leave out.

If you believe, for example, that the Scandinavian welfare state can’t work in America because “America has a larger population and is ethnically diverse,” Robinson will remind you that population size and heterogeneity have almost nothing to do with the successful provision of, for example, expanded paid parental leave and publicly funded childcare. Why would America be “collectivist” enough to love Medicare and Social Security, but not collectivist enough to enjoy better benefits for families, as Robinson rhetorically asks.

Of course, as Robinson concedes in the book, conservative arguments are not always wrong, and this is where the left often errs. Sometimes, progressive policies do have unintended consequences, sometimes they don’t actually work, and sometimes they actually harm the people they supposedly help. The conservative aversion to risk, and its advocacy of the status quo, cannot always be a bad thing. And it’s not.

But the problem with much of conservative thinking lies in the idea that any progressive policy that seeks to improve the world is deemed an immediate failure simply on the grounds that it will produce change. But change can be good, bad, or neutral for different groups at different times, and therefore policy proposals require a more sophisticated evaluation than you typically see in our reactionary political discourse.

But that’s another reason to read this book. You may not agree with everything Robinson writes (nor should you; agreeing with everything someone you admire writes or says is the first sign of cognitive capture and an inability to think for yourself), but he will get you to think deeper about many of these issues. So even if you’re a hardline right-winger, you can benefit greatly from the thoughtful reasoning in this book, if only to become better acquainted with the other side of the argument. As John Stuart Mill wrote:

"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion."

For those on the left, it may very well be the case that conservative arguments are largely based on speculative fiction, oversimplification, slippery slopes, weak analogies, arguments from anecdotes, and irrational fear-mongering. But if you don’t know what those arguments are in their strongest form, then you have no ground for preferring the alternative liberal position beyond a desire to be identified with that particular tribe.

My own feeling is that, after reading the book, conservative arguments, at least the ones Robinson addresses, appear persuasive on the surface, but when you actually stop to think about them, and compare them to reality, the arguments break down, or lead to conclusions that prioritize the property rights of the ultra-wealthy over everyone else, and even over human lives. It is a more-or-less morally repugnant system, if I’m going to be honest.

You, of course, are free to disagree, but to do so persuasively will require that you understand and refute Robinson’s well-articulated and researched positions—and not resort to sound bites that appear conclusive but entirely lack substance. That’s why thoughtful people on both the left and right will benefit greatly from this book.

[Vince · Rating 5 out of 5]

Building relationships is the most important aspect of the exchange of ideas, especially in a country like the United States. Nathan J. Robinson's tone never forgets to highlight the importance of that development. Throughout this text, we're invited to understand the conservative positions (from a leftist point of view) and address those positions with evidence and understanding. It's not a perfect text (as this is an impossible task) but you can read it with appreciation that Robinson takes debate very seriously.

For Leftists, his prose is simple and elegant. Even with full admission and transparency that the Right presents literate and logical perspectives--but his book addresses, in his view, the exact reasons why these positions are wrong. And his arguments are sound.

His reading recommendations are going on my list.

[Janelle C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow!!! This book is a whopper. The talking points fit perfect for the times. I can utilize most all of these rebuttals and information to help me in my local elected official position.
The book is LONG. That would be my only criticism. But, I also enjoyed the history lessons and explanations given. Right-wing talking heads seem to have the corner on many different people all saying the same thing, slightly differently. So, I understand that it was important to provide much much detail. If you are not prepared for that, it is easy to become confused and if that happens they will just talk you in circles.

I appreciate the work that went into writing this encyclopedia of talking points. I will refer to this manual often!

[Damian · Rating 2 out of 5]

“The scare stories are pure ideology rather than the product of honest empirical assessment.”

This is his conclusion about anti-minimum wage and rent control laws.

To think that the counter arguments are pure ideology is absolutely wrong. It is tough to make an empirical claim on either of these points, as he points out, but to then go from this to his conclusion doesn’t follow. The scare stories are partly ideology, nut purely.

His idea that the boss driving a different car implies that workers could be paid more is a typical short-sighted view about wages and returns to work that many socialists have.

This therefore strikes me as reason not to read anything else in the book unless you want superficial but slightly wrong responses.

[Cynthia · Rating 2 out of 5]

(Prob really 1.5 stars!) Whew......that was a slog to get thru! I was looking forward to something of an easier, maybe more practical/usable read.... This was pretty flat/monotone in presentation.....& it seemed rather a 'barbed', often 'caustic' offering.....most of the time? At the end though, he did write a bit nicer on 'the limits of argument', which I found a positive way to end. The main text/body of the book takes up the 1st 60% of the book, the last 40% is 'Notes'.....extensive notes! So it's a really documented book.
I received a e-ARC from publisher St.Martin's Press via NetGalley, offering to read it & post my own fair/honest review.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m not a socialist. Some of his solutions mentioned in passing for the issues discussed inside the book I strongly disagree with.

That said this is an amazing book.

He does a great job articulating how many of the right’s current talking points are overly simplistic and designed to short circuit further analysis. His writing style is engaging, entertaining and succinct.

As he states within the book this book is about clarifying our thinking and for discussion with open minded folks across the political spectrum. It’s not about deprogramming MAGA die hards or 24/7 FOX news devotees. It’s not for people that aren’t willing to take the right’s concerns seriously either.

[Charles Francis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you NetGalley and St. Martin’s Griffin for sending this book for review consideration. All opinions are my own.

For my liberal and far left-leaning friends, this could be considered a kryptonite briefing book against your conservative nemesis. For my conservative and right-leaning friends, you will consider it all horse manure not worth the paper or electronic nano bites it was written on. And for my independents and those with no allegiance to left, right, or in-between friends, well this will be an interesting read to say the least.

Nathan J. Robinson is the founder and editor of Current Affairs magazine, which he started in 2015, that can be categorized as a progressive publication which discusses social, political and cultural topics of the day. Mr. Robinson is a self-avowed socialist and not ashamed of it. He’s developed a reputation for taking on far-right conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Breitbart, and many more. This is Robinson’s treatise on why he believes the conservative agenda is dead wrong, the harm it is doing and will continue to do to America if not confronted directly. The arguments against his conservative adversaries are systematic, methodical, and supported by facts. As John Adams stated, “Facts are Stubborn Things.”

Robinson attacks head-on conservative talking points on taxes, abortion, immigration, race, gender, government regulations, white privilege, the judicial system, and much more. He covers twenty-five points, presenting the conservative position and his rebuttal. HIs responses are are clear-eyed, factual and have examples to support. Robinson points out how even some conservatives don’t buy or understand all that they are selling. He uses radio show host Joe Rogan, which he is no supporter of, as an example. Rogan in his interviews with far right conservatives, through hard hitting questions, can show the chinks in their thinking and in many cases the downright absurdity of their positions. Rogan does this by getting them to either admit they don’t have all the facts to support the views they are espousing or at the very least come across as ill-prepared and uninformed. Robinson does the same, he systematically picks apart the arguments and his rebuttals will get you to think.

Before my left leaning friends begin to get too smug, you don’t get a hallway pass. Robinson argues that liberals are ill prepared to take on the conservative agenda for lack of preparedness and or simple fatigue. Liberals are out talked and out maneuvered, not strategic, provide weak and ineffective counter arguments that fall flat and they are often caught off guard, Their game is defense versus the right’s nonstop offense. In sum, liberals don’t bring the same passion to the table as the right does.

Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, Libertarians, are all covered in this frank and hard hitting rebuttal of conservative ideas. Whether you agree or not with the twenty-five points and Mr. Robinson’s response is not the goal of the book. The goal is to present a counter-argument to what he sees as dangerous far-right conservative thinking and actions that he believes tears apart the fabric of America.

I received both the audiobook and e-book versions and listened to the audiobook. Robinson did a very good job narrating his own work. His counter arguments were articulated in a reasoned and understandable manner, well modulated, passionate and serious, with humor laced throughout.

This is a good read no matter which side of the isle you are on.

[J Earl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Responding to the Right, by Nathan J Robinson, is an attempt to collect and organize responses to some of the more common conservative "arguments."

I listened to the audio version but also checked an ebook copy to check on citations. The audiobook was engaging and Robinson, who also narrated, expressed his arguments well.

Many of the conservative "arguments" are not so much arguments (though they do love to argue, or rather, yell repeatedly their little catchphrases) as they are soundbites they learned from their handlers. So when responding to the few who might actually engage in dialogue there often isn't time to lay out every nuance of a rebuttal. That doesn't mean we don't need to know more than just what we're going to say. By gaining a detailed and broad understanding, we can select the parts that speak more directly to that person's actual concern. For instance, not every person opposed to choice when it comes to abortion has the same reason. Countering someone who has, from their perspective, a religious argument with science about what forms when is not going to help much, it isn't where their opposition is focused. So more detailed knowledge is necessary in order to actually debate the same issue with someone. If the detail here bothers you, then you are really just looking for your own catchphrases to yell back at theirs.

By the way, if nuanced ideas confuse you, don't bother reading this. Don't confuse the societal concept of white privilege with some idea that every white person is privileged. There is a difference. Every white person is the beneficiary of white privilege even if their life is not one of privilege. Same idea with Black Lives Matter. It does not mean ONLY Black lives matter, it emphasizes, because Black lives have historically been discounted as disposable, that they do matter. This isn't rocket science, unless you agree with the idea of Black lives being disposable.

Also, if anyone tosses out some asinine comment about this just being opinion and with insufficient research, ignore the bigot, they didn't read the book. If anything, it is almost over researched if the notes and acknowledgements are any indication.

I would recommend this to readers who want to engage those on the right who are open to actual dialogue. You will come away with enough information to then respond to that person's actual concern. If you just want to be given a few short phrases to say in response to their phrases without considering whether or not it fits, well, this might seem like too much detail or too much like having to learn something for you.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.