Susan Paxton
asked:
I see the right wing trolls have dumped in on this book, which is interesting. Anyone else suspect right wing hysteria means the book has hit a nerve?
To answer questions about
Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America,
please sign up.
Larry Witte
The fact that so many libertarian trolls have skewered the book has motivated me to read it.
Heather
MacLean essentially predicts this at very end of the book, where she outlines the Kochs' campaign to harass, defame and discredit Jane Mayer following her investigative reporting on their movement. "Upping the transaction costs for the other side," they call it. Just one more piece of proof they cannot withstand well reasoned criticism by anyone who disagrees with their anti-democratic ideas.
Steven
I've read the book and the critiques, and the critiques are pretty lame --
mostly identifying a quote that might have been too tightly condensed (it wasn't) and a few people claiming the footnotes don't always support the argument she's making... Lots of them dig up "evidence" that they claim refutes her claims, but the examples do nothing of the kind... here is a typical specimen from Reason (AKA Koch Brothers Monthly): https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/25/pu...
That piece uses quotes from Buchanan to demonstrate that he wasn't a racist... but MacLean made it clear throughout her book that Buchanan was talking out of both sides of his mouth on racism -- and she documents it. That, in fact, is a key point of the book: that they used all this talk of "liberty" as a Trojan Horse to get their ideas into the mainstream.
In that same critique, the writer opens what he thinks is his most devastating take-down with "Perhaps most significantly, while some Virginians did indeed use the state's voucher-like tuition grants..." to show that some Virginians used vouchers to pay for segregated schools... but MacLean also made it clear that most Virginians wanted to follow the law, so there is no contradiction there. Her target is Buchanan, not all Virginians... So when this yahoo points out that some Virginians used vouchers to pay for segregated schools, he's not proving her wrong in any way. In fact, he's providing more detail into how the Byrd/Buchanan direct approach fell apart -- which is why the Kochs created the Cato Institute to create fake research, and why they also started funding Reason to promote one thing: privatization...
The one legitimate critique I saw came from a liberal author how felt she was giving Buchanan too much "credit"... basically focusing on one story line at the expense of others... well, that may be true, but Jesus... don't all books do that? This one is pretty exhaustive.
mostly identifying a quote that might have been too tightly condensed (it wasn't) and a few people claiming the footnotes don't always support the argument she's making... Lots of them dig up "evidence" that they claim refutes her claims, but the examples do nothing of the kind... here is a typical specimen from Reason (AKA Koch Brothers Monthly): https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/25/pu...
That piece uses quotes from Buchanan to demonstrate that he wasn't a racist... but MacLean made it clear throughout her book that Buchanan was talking out of both sides of his mouth on racism -- and she documents it. That, in fact, is a key point of the book: that they used all this talk of "liberty" as a Trojan Horse to get their ideas into the mainstream.
In that same critique, the writer opens what he thinks is his most devastating take-down with "Perhaps most significantly, while some Virginians did indeed use the state's voucher-like tuition grants..." to show that some Virginians used vouchers to pay for segregated schools... but MacLean also made it clear that most Virginians wanted to follow the law, so there is no contradiction there. Her target is Buchanan, not all Virginians... So when this yahoo points out that some Virginians used vouchers to pay for segregated schools, he's not proving her wrong in any way. In fact, he's providing more detail into how the Byrd/Buchanan direct approach fell apart -- which is why the Kochs created the Cato Institute to create fake research, and why they also started funding Reason to promote one thing: privatization...
The one legitimate critique I saw came from a liberal author how felt she was giving Buchanan too much "credit"... basically focusing on one story line at the expense of others... well, that may be true, but Jesus... don't all books do that? This one is pretty exhaustive.
Susan Paxton
Jerrod, every single claim she makes is solidly endnoted.
Daniel
Well, if we can't trust science-denying libertarians to set us straight, who can we trust?
Robert
Everything in this booked is solidly footnoted and documented. I've seen no one refute the facts that she presents.
Alexis
I just reviewed this book, and have read some of the criticism. I'm a liberal, but I don't think the book quite jelled.
I can't evaluate the specific claims that some of the libertarians have made, although some have the smell of special pleading (I never simply accept it when a white man vouches for a white man's lack of racism: often, it means they just never came out and said it.)
I can't evaluate the specific claims that some of the libertarians have made, although some have the smell of special pleading (I never simply accept it when a white man vouches for a white man's lack of racism: often, it means they just never came out and said it.)
Jerrod
There have been scholars on the left who have brought the book's veracity (and overall scholarship) into question, as well. See Farrell and Teles review at Vox for an example. Has it hit a nerve? Yes. Is it because the book provides solid evidence of its claims? It doesn't seem so.
Sandy
Yes. Essential reading. Ignore the trolls. You need to know there is a conspiracy to destroy democracy.
James Devereaux
You are welcome to look at my review, it was not kind. However, since I consider myself libertarian you might find it suspect. Instead, I point you to this review on a liberal law blog by a liberal law professor discussing the issues with this book. https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/10/c...
Jamie Stephens
I mean if what you mean by troll is "legitimate right, centrist and left-wing" critics. Then yes you are correct. This is a very well-written conspiracy theory. It's just not a conspiracy theory because of course, the left would never believe in conspiracies at all!
Alex
I suggest you look at the arguments of both sides instead of gloating because the other side got mad. There are legitimate reasons to be upset too, you know? If this is just extremely bad, then of course the libertarian right will be angry. Everyone in his right mind would be.
I haven't read this thing. I think I read the summary once, then forgot about it
I haven't read this thing. I think I read the summary once, then forgot about it
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more