I’m an older white guy who used to be more progressive and now I’m frustrated with various aspects of what I take to be current progressive orthodoxy.
But I haven’t pivoted all the way to the Bari Weiss camp. I like your review, which seems to me to have plenty of examples of progressive missteps, but I think you’ve done a good job of putting them in essential perspective and context. I don’t know that I would agree with you on everything, but on the basis of your review, I feel that if I do disagree with you, I had better be prepared to work on a strong argument rather than just assume you are wrong. And I also need to be prepared for the idea that you might actually be correct and I might not be. Thanks for doing the hard work!
Can I use the on-going university encampments as an example of the mass movements you say Bowles dismisses? The ‘divest from Israel’ protest at the University of Toronto. Once the protesters had dug themselves in, they sent the administration their ‘demands’: 1) they must be supplied with toilets (lol), and 2) they don’t want to ‘talk’ until the school agrees to do everything they ask, without condition.
In interviews with the students, it comes up repeatedly that they’re just not built for debate anymore: when someone who disagrees with them comes near the camp, they say they feel ‘scared’ or ‘unsafe’.
You wrote how Bowles’ rejection of these movements is ‘deeply anti-democratic’. There are about 100 protesters camping overnight. By contrast, U of T has 97,000 active students, and even more alumni. It apparently never occurred to the protesters to demand a campus-wide poll — all the students, not just them — and accept the results of that as binding. That would be democratic.
Maybe the campus would vote wildly in favor of divestment. Who knows? The protesters don’t know, and clearly they don’t care. In their minds, there’s no debate; it’s time for ‘action’.
This attitude is a near-constant in contemporary progressive mass movements, at least the ones I’ve seen firsthand, in my city.
If Bowles is anti-democratic, so are the protesters: and I don’t think they can be reformed. The admin is there to do their bidding and empty their toilets. The rest of the students don’t get a vote. Alumni? They’re old.
How is it possible to do politics according to this model? It would grant anyone who sets up a tent the right to issue diktats (or vetoes), no matter what the other students want. The admin can't grant the protesters’ demands, even if they’re wholly right, because the precedent is untenable. Democracy is a process, not a contest of feelings.
Progressive protesters of all kinds seem to believe that, if something upsets them (even if it’s a lie), they have a right to issue ‘demands’ and have them met ‘unconditionally’. If I’m upset, the debate’s over, and you’ll do what I say, or I’ll obstruct you (and if you remove me, I’ll accuse you of violence, which also means I get my way). You must admit... pretty common attitude.
It implies that votes are weighed by intensity of feeling, and not just, you know, counted.
Good review of Bowles. I see a connection between this one and the Oyler one: in both cases, the books in question seem to contain initial ideas of the author that are left un-researched but are purported to be insights or truths. The book then becomes a product of solipsism. This is perhaps the dominant genre of essay collections nowadays, facilitated by merging the essay with memoiristic qualities.
I think The Free Press is sometimes interesting but frequently tiresome but do feel its central premise is mostly baloney and that it ultimately mirrors the same criticisms it levels at mainstream media outlets.
what i'd want from a talented stylist -- whether it's you or Bowles (who can be, unlike most dreary NYT reporters, an actually good writer), is some element of delight and surprise and emotion, not Claude-level predictability.
i could have told you yesterday exactly the tone of Nellie's careful "annoyed but not so much so that the average liberal couldn't put this on his / her bookshelf" just as I could have guessed your own scathing but careful response ("of course the BLM leadership was bananas").
i get what you're saying, but i think some things truly merit scorn. i did my best to make what i think is a hackish and boring book into an object lesson about a broader trend--that's the only way i know of to make a book like this interesting. i continue to think the point about the conspiracism of this perspective is right, and hopefully a little interesting!
I’m an older white guy who used to be more progressive and now I’m frustrated with various aspects of what I take to be current progressive orthodoxy.
But I haven’t pivoted all the way to the Bari Weiss camp. I like your review, which seems to me to have plenty of examples of progressive missteps, but I think you’ve done a good job of putting them in essential perspective and context. I don’t know that I would agree with you on everything, but on the basis of your review, I feel that if I do disagree with you, I had better be prepared to work on a strong argument rather than just assume you are wrong. And I also need to be prepared for the idea that you might actually be correct and I might not be. Thanks for doing the hard work!
Thank you so much! This is such a kind and thoughtful comment. You're exactly the kind of person I write for. Thank you for your open-mindedness!
This review made my month. Just a stunningly good piece of writing.
Can I use the on-going university encampments as an example of the mass movements you say Bowles dismisses? The ‘divest from Israel’ protest at the University of Toronto. Once the protesters had dug themselves in, they sent the administration their ‘demands’: 1) they must be supplied with toilets (lol), and 2) they don’t want to ‘talk’ until the school agrees to do everything they ask, without condition.
In interviews with the students, it comes up repeatedly that they’re just not built for debate anymore: when someone who disagrees with them comes near the camp, they say they feel ‘scared’ or ‘unsafe’.
You wrote how Bowles’ rejection of these movements is ‘deeply anti-democratic’. There are about 100 protesters camping overnight. By contrast, U of T has 97,000 active students, and even more alumni. It apparently never occurred to the protesters to demand a campus-wide poll — all the students, not just them — and accept the results of that as binding. That would be democratic.
Maybe the campus would vote wildly in favor of divestment. Who knows? The protesters don’t know, and clearly they don’t care. In their minds, there’s no debate; it’s time for ‘action’.
This attitude is a near-constant in contemporary progressive mass movements, at least the ones I’ve seen firsthand, in my city.
If Bowles is anti-democratic, so are the protesters: and I don’t think they can be reformed. The admin is there to do their bidding and empty their toilets. The rest of the students don’t get a vote. Alumni? They’re old.
How is it possible to do politics according to this model? It would grant anyone who sets up a tent the right to issue diktats (or vetoes), no matter what the other students want. The admin can't grant the protesters’ demands, even if they’re wholly right, because the precedent is untenable. Democracy is a process, not a contest of feelings.
Progressive protesters of all kinds seem to believe that, if something upsets them (even if it’s a lie), they have a right to issue ‘demands’ and have them met ‘unconditionally’. If I’m upset, the debate’s over, and you’ll do what I say, or I’ll obstruct you (and if you remove me, I’ll accuse you of violence, which also means I get my way). You must admit... pretty common attitude.
It implies that votes are weighed by intensity of feeling, and not just, you know, counted.
Fantastic review! That last paragraph just nailed it.
Good review of Bowles. I see a connection between this one and the Oyler one: in both cases, the books in question seem to contain initial ideas of the author that are left un-researched but are purported to be insights or truths. The book then becomes a product of solipsism. This is perhaps the dominant genre of essay collections nowadays, facilitated by merging the essay with memoiristic qualities.
this was great!
I think The Free Press is sometimes interesting but frequently tiresome but do feel its central premise is mostly baloney and that it ultimately mirrors the same criticisms it levels at mainstream media outlets.
the review, in its oh-so-predictable scorn, is ironically the same genre / tone you're complaining about.
the difference is that i'm actually right
i don't know, i'm not sure it matters.
what i'd want from a talented stylist -- whether it's you or Bowles (who can be, unlike most dreary NYT reporters, an actually good writer), is some element of delight and surprise and emotion, not Claude-level predictability.
i could have told you yesterday exactly the tone of Nellie's careful "annoyed but not so much so that the average liberal couldn't put this on his / her bookshelf" just as I could have guessed your own scathing but careful response ("of course the BLM leadership was bananas").
surprise us, becca!
i get what you're saying, but i think some things truly merit scorn. i did my best to make what i think is a hackish and boring book into an object lesson about a broader trend--that's the only way i know of to make a book like this interesting. i continue to think the point about the conspiracism of this perspective is right, and hopefully a little interesting!