What do you think?
Rate this book
Lo spirito reazionario: Come il lato oscuro della politica americana ha infettato tutto il mondo
C’è una contraddizione fondamentale al cuore della politica americana, che perdura sin dalla fondazione degli Stati man mano che la democrazia progredisce e si consolida, ci sarà sempre una fazione reazionaria che si oppone al cambiamento e cerca di incrinarne le basi; man mano che gli ideali di libertà e uguaglianza si diffondono concretizzandosi in leggi e sentimenti più inclusivi, fenomeni come la xenofobia, la discriminazione e la divaricazione sociale vanno di pari passo. Negli ultimi anni questa discrepanza si è tradotta in un populismo di destra aggressivo fino alla ferocia, che utilizza le armi e le regole della democrazia per minarne le fondamenta dall’interno. Questo nuovo reazionarismo – che non si propone di abbattere le istituzioni democratiche ma di piegarle ai propri scopi – è un fenomeno che ha cessato da tempo di essere squisitamente americano e che si è esteso, con modalità talvolta differenti ma con la medesima base ideologica e pragmatica, all’Asia e all’Europa, fino a bussare alle nostre porte. Attingendo a un’ampia esperienza personale, e alternando con sapienza la teoria politica e l’analisi degli ultimi sviluppi in paesi che vanno da Israele all’India, dalla Cina all’Ungheria, Beauchamp spiega con dovizia di dettagli come determinate contraddizioni siano intrinseche al progetto stesso della democrazia, e come lo spirito reazionario, che in passato aveva cercato di respingere e negare quel progetto, ora ne adotti il linguaggio per sovvertirlo, dimostrandosi, in questo, ancora più insidioso.
287 pages, Paperback
First published July 16, 2024
45 people are currently reading
661 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
December 6, 2024
Il lato oscuro della democrazia.
In questo testo Zack Beauchamp legge la crisi della democrazia e della società attuali alla luce di un fattore insito nella democrazia stessa, definito spirito reazionario, il cui manifestarsi da luogo alle forme di autoritarismo competitivo che Stati Uniti, Israele, Ungheria e India stanno sperimentando.
Lo spirito reazionario, secondo la tesi di Beauchamp, si svilupperebbe come ”politica antidemocratica che emerge in un paese dotato di istituzioni democratiche, come elezioni e parlamento, in reazione al funzionamento di tali istituzioni” quando la gerarchia sociale o l’ordine sociale esistenti sono minacciati.
La democrazia, in accordo con quanto afferma Luciano Canfora, è qualcosa che nel corso del tempo ha assunto significati diversi; quella che si è affermata faticosamente dal XIX secolo con l’estensione della cittadinanza e del suffragio, è la forma che attinge al liberalismo: ”la democrazia, per i liberali, è l’unico sistema di governo che estende questa idea di autodeterminazione in ambito politico, dando alle persone, come collettivo, il diritto di scegliere come vogliono che la loro società sia governata.”
È nel secondo dopoguerra che si assiste alla proliferazione delle forme democratiche di governo degli stati, spinte, a mio avviso, anche dall’affermarsi del capitalismo a livello globale fino all’imperialismo che secondo Lenin ne rappresentava la fase suprema. Beauchamp riduce all’osso, nella sua tesi, le relazioni tra forme di governo, articolazione sociale e sviluppo capitalistico, rendendo prevalente la portata dello spirito reazionario; ugualmente la sua interpretazione è estremamente interessante e, allo stesso tempo, inquietante.
Esempio cardine del manifestarsi dello spirito reazionario è la segregazione razziale basata sulle cosiddette leggi Jim Crow promulgate dagli stati del Sud dopo l’abolizione dello schiavismo, che ripristinavano surrettiziamente le gerarchie razziali attraverso infrastrutture separate ma uguali a seguito di una sentenza della Corte Suprema del 1896: i principi liberali dell’uguaglianza messi in discussione dalla visione dello schiavismo come diritto espresso da una maggioranza e quindi democratico.
Con l’aumentare del numero di Stati retti da forme democratiche di governo la risposta delle forze reazionarie tende a non essere più l’instaurazione di regimi dittatoriali o fascisti tramite colpi di stato, ma l’erosione e lo svuotamento della democrazia dall’interno.
”Il risultato è stato che i movimenti politici reazionari di tutto il mondo, ma soprattutto quelli delle democrazie apparentemente consolidate, hanno avuto forti incentivi a sviluppare una giustificazione democratica per le loro azioni, ad americanizzare la loro politica nel modo teorizzato da Schmitt e sperimentato concretamente dal FN. Identificando i “nemici” interni che rappresentavano un cambiamento sociale indesiderato, hanno imparato a galvanizzare una parte dell’opinione pubblica contro quei nemici in nome della protezione della maggioranza omogenea: un manuale ironicamente universale per il successo antidemocratico.
L’appoggio popolare all’instaurazione di forme di ”democrazia autoritaria” è legato principalmente alla perdita di identità, alla paura, ai cambiamenti della composizione sociale, all’impoverimento connesso alla redistribuzione della ricchezza:
”Durante tutto il dopoguerra, ma soprattutto negli ultimi trent’anni, la logica profonda della democrazia ha alimentato potenti sfide alle disuguaglianze nella distribuzione di ricchezza, potere e posizione sociale. Con l’espandersi della democrazia in tutto il mondo, sono aumentate anche le sfide politiche sulla disuguaglianza. In un modo o nell’altro, questa competizione ha portato le tensioni sullo status e sull’identità alla ribalta del discorso politico, circostanze ideali perché lo spirito reazionario minacciasse le democrazie vecchie e nuove.
Questa è la realtà strutturale di fondo che ha aiutato la destra autoritaria a sfondare in un paese dopo l’altro. In queste condizioni, per innescare un incendio reazionario bastava una scintilla: uno shock esterno, una pressione vistosa delle forze di sinistra verso il cambiamento sociale, un’abile leadership sul lato reazionario o una combinazione di tutti e tre gli elementi (come negli Stati Uniti nell’era post-Obama). Gli anni Dieci del 2000 hanno visto una serie di eventi scatenanti di questo tipo in tutto il mondo: decenni di espansione democratica e risposte reazionarie in evoluzione che hanno portato a un’impennata simultanea del sostegno alle fazioni più reazionarie. […]
Questo è lo spirito reazionario in azione. La crisi dei rifugiati ha aumentato la posta in gioco per gli elettori culturalmente conservatori, costringendoli a scegliere tra i partiti centristi più accoglienti nei confronti dei migranti e gli estremisti potenzialmente antidemocratici che li hanno osteggiati. Molti di loro hanno scelto questi ultimi, privilegiando la conservazione della società tradizionale a maggioranza bianca rispetto alla protezione della democrazia. In tutta Europa, i partiti che hanno seguito il progetto di Le Pen hanno iniziato a raccogliere consensi elettorali. In Ungheria, in particolare, l’incremento di politiche anti-immigrazione ha permesso a un governo che si era già mosso in direzione autoritaria di portare avanti una nuova e potente linea di propaganda, sfruttando lo spirito reazionario per consolidare il proprio potere.
Eventi simili si sono verificati fuori dall’Europa. Israele, dopo la guerra fredda, ha attraversato lotte pluridecennali sulla propria identità etnico-religiosa e sull’occupazione delle terre palestinesi, creando le condizioni perché lo spirito reazionario si estendesse da un piccolo manipolo di estremisti a una porzione significativa della popolazione. In India, l’ascesa della destra reazionaria è iniziata con una crisi inscenata per far emergere il disagio della maggioranza indù nei confronti della visione indiana dell’eguaglianza.”
La disamina delle realtà politico-sociali di Israele, Ungheria, India, che svolge Beauchamp in capitoli dedicati, fa riflettere anche su ciò che è in corso anche nel nostro paese ed è molto preoccupante; la parte conclusiva del libro, pur pienamente condivisibile, mi sembra un modo per edulcorare la pillola e per spargere un filo di ottimismo.
Le tesi di Beauchamp meriterebbero un confronto più ampio e partecipato, anche sulle loro parti più deboli, piuttosto che un commento solitario.
In questo testo Zack Beauchamp legge la crisi della democrazia e della società attuali alla luce di un fattore insito nella democrazia stessa, definito spirito reazionario, il cui manifestarsi da luogo alle forme di autoritarismo competitivo che Stati Uniti, Israele, Ungheria e India stanno sperimentando.
Lo spirito reazionario, secondo la tesi di Beauchamp, si svilupperebbe come ”politica antidemocratica che emerge in un paese dotato di istituzioni democratiche, come elezioni e parlamento, in reazione al funzionamento di tali istituzioni” quando la gerarchia sociale o l’ordine sociale esistenti sono minacciati.
La democrazia, in accordo con quanto afferma Luciano Canfora, è qualcosa che nel corso del tempo ha assunto significati diversi; quella che si è affermata faticosamente dal XIX secolo con l’estensione della cittadinanza e del suffragio, è la forma che attinge al liberalismo: ”la democrazia, per i liberali, è l’unico sistema di governo che estende questa idea di autodeterminazione in ambito politico, dando alle persone, come collettivo, il diritto di scegliere come vogliono che la loro società sia governata.”
È nel secondo dopoguerra che si assiste alla proliferazione delle forme democratiche di governo degli stati, spinte, a mio avviso, anche dall’affermarsi del capitalismo a livello globale fino all’imperialismo che secondo Lenin ne rappresentava la fase suprema. Beauchamp riduce all’osso, nella sua tesi, le relazioni tra forme di governo, articolazione sociale e sviluppo capitalistico, rendendo prevalente la portata dello spirito reazionario; ugualmente la sua interpretazione è estremamente interessante e, allo stesso tempo, inquietante.
Esempio cardine del manifestarsi dello spirito reazionario è la segregazione razziale basata sulle cosiddette leggi Jim Crow promulgate dagli stati del Sud dopo l’abolizione dello schiavismo, che ripristinavano surrettiziamente le gerarchie razziali attraverso infrastrutture separate ma uguali a seguito di una sentenza della Corte Suprema del 1896: i principi liberali dell’uguaglianza messi in discussione dalla visione dello schiavismo come diritto espresso da una maggioranza e quindi democratico.
Con l’aumentare del numero di Stati retti da forme democratiche di governo la risposta delle forze reazionarie tende a non essere più l’instaurazione di regimi dittatoriali o fascisti tramite colpi di stato, ma l’erosione e lo svuotamento della democrazia dall’interno.
”Il risultato è stato che i movimenti politici reazionari di tutto il mondo, ma soprattutto quelli delle democrazie apparentemente consolidate, hanno avuto forti incentivi a sviluppare una giustificazione democratica per le loro azioni, ad americanizzare la loro politica nel modo teorizzato da Schmitt e sperimentato concretamente dal FN. Identificando i “nemici” interni che rappresentavano un cambiamento sociale indesiderato, hanno imparato a galvanizzare una parte dell’opinione pubblica contro quei nemici in nome della protezione della maggioranza omogenea: un manuale ironicamente universale per il successo antidemocratico.
L’appoggio popolare all’instaurazione di forme di ”democrazia autoritaria” è legato principalmente alla perdita di identità, alla paura, ai cambiamenti della composizione sociale, all’impoverimento connesso alla redistribuzione della ricchezza:
”Durante tutto il dopoguerra, ma soprattutto negli ultimi trent’anni, la logica profonda della democrazia ha alimentato potenti sfide alle disuguaglianze nella distribuzione di ricchezza, potere e posizione sociale. Con l’espandersi della democrazia in tutto il mondo, sono aumentate anche le sfide politiche sulla disuguaglianza. In un modo o nell’altro, questa competizione ha portato le tensioni sullo status e sull’identità alla ribalta del discorso politico, circostanze ideali perché lo spirito reazionario minacciasse le democrazie vecchie e nuove.
Questa è la realtà strutturale di fondo che ha aiutato la destra autoritaria a sfondare in un paese dopo l’altro. In queste condizioni, per innescare un incendio reazionario bastava una scintilla: uno shock esterno, una pressione vistosa delle forze di sinistra verso il cambiamento sociale, un’abile leadership sul lato reazionario o una combinazione di tutti e tre gli elementi (come negli Stati Uniti nell’era post-Obama). Gli anni Dieci del 2000 hanno visto una serie di eventi scatenanti di questo tipo in tutto il mondo: decenni di espansione democratica e risposte reazionarie in evoluzione che hanno portato a un’impennata simultanea del sostegno alle fazioni più reazionarie. […]
Questo è lo spirito reazionario in azione. La crisi dei rifugiati ha aumentato la posta in gioco per gli elettori culturalmente conservatori, costringendoli a scegliere tra i partiti centristi più accoglienti nei confronti dei migranti e gli estremisti potenzialmente antidemocratici che li hanno osteggiati. Molti di loro hanno scelto questi ultimi, privilegiando la conservazione della società tradizionale a maggioranza bianca rispetto alla protezione della democrazia. In tutta Europa, i partiti che hanno seguito il progetto di Le Pen hanno iniziato a raccogliere consensi elettorali. In Ungheria, in particolare, l’incremento di politiche anti-immigrazione ha permesso a un governo che si era già mosso in direzione autoritaria di portare avanti una nuova e potente linea di propaganda, sfruttando lo spirito reazionario per consolidare il proprio potere.
Eventi simili si sono verificati fuori dall’Europa. Israele, dopo la guerra fredda, ha attraversato lotte pluridecennali sulla propria identità etnico-religiosa e sull’occupazione delle terre palestinesi, creando le condizioni perché lo spirito reazionario si estendesse da un piccolo manipolo di estremisti a una porzione significativa della popolazione. In India, l’ascesa della destra reazionaria è iniziata con una crisi inscenata per far emergere il disagio della maggioranza indù nei confronti della visione indiana dell’eguaglianza.”
La disamina delle realtà politico-sociali di Israele, Ungheria, India, che svolge Beauchamp in capitoli dedicati, fa riflettere anche su ciò che è in corso anche nel nostro paese ed è molto preoccupante; la parte conclusiva del libro, pur pienamente condivisibile, mi sembra un modo per edulcorare la pillola e per spargere un filo di ottimismo.
Le tesi di Beauchamp meriterebbero un confronto più ampio e partecipato, anche sulle loro parti più deboli, piuttosto che un commento solitario.
March 12, 2024
Spoilers: it's slavery.
The Reactionary Mind looks at the authoritarian turn taking place in otherwise well-established democracies worldwide, and looks for answers, why it is happening and what can be done to stop it. It stakes an impressively focused claim, namely that reactionary politics arise out of cultural fears, such as xenophobia and racism, and specifically the insecurity of any democratic project when such (small l) illiberal ideas are government-sanctioned. Outside of looking at America, it surveys Hungary, Israel, and India, three states generally considered democratic success stories considering their recent vintage, and the details on how each have now moved or are moving away from that. It ends on a hopeful while not optimistic note, looking at nations like Brazil and Canada that seem to have resist some of these impulses, and discussing objectively-studied steps for people to take with an emphasis on the real peril.
The Hungary section is the best. It is the example of a state with the most total transformation, and also the one where there is the most examples of the author's premise around the interrelation between ideas in the U.S. and ideas in the state itself.
I appreciated the author's fact-based approach. One of the specific refrains here is that it is not the economy, (stupid), and he is able to identify the research done in the U.S. and elsewhere that connects the reactionary sentiments to fears about cultural issues, rather than monetary ones. I feel doubt, but it is more questions I would raise about specifics in the research as opposed to the author's claims. And I appreciate anyone willing to make claims with empirical evidence that can be subject to such questioning, as opposed to the usual truthiness of political commentary. And the book has a conversational style to its citation method, which I do not like, but manages to pass my citation test in that whenever I went 'really?' he was at least describing where the information came from.
The India and Israel sections were weaker. The Israel story is being written headline by headline but I think it interesting the author's claim the Hamas attacks seem to have inoculated against the authoritarian grasp going on rather than advancing it, at least at the time of writing. I feel like the India chapter amounted to the author shouting 'why isn't anyone worried about what's happening to India?' which is pretty much what I imagine I sound like at brunch sometimes, so no foul.
There are two things that put this in the pass column for me. The first is the lack of historical or philosophical inquiry. Yes, there are rational reasons to treat the U.S. as creation of democracy in that it is in the modern political sense, but the Founders themselves were not so blinkered and with intent made choices based on history (or their particular understanding of history). I, too, enjoy ragging on tyranny-apologist John C. Calhoun; while generally in favor of removing Confederate [yes, I know don't @ me] names from public things, I fully support keeping Calhoun Place in the Loop. It is an alleyway, which feels appropriate, or like the Alexander Hamilton Stephens Grease Pit. But the inevitable discussion feels ethnocentric in itself to discuss reactionary theory and only reference Carl Schmitt and not Pseudo-Xenophon, or to address European colonialism and its racist projects in three paragraphs focused more on the perception of nascent Americans. The book comes off as if the U.S. invented racism. And American Exceptionalism, so we are absolutely #1 in racism. But the thesis here is more a subject to investigate rather than an an object with which to investigate.
The second glaring omission is religion. Religious belief is core to each of the case studies. I assume that the author would focus on their autocratic qualities and treat the religious dimension as part of the culture-based fear. But this is the particular 'hack' that the author is concerned about, the specific workaround for anti-democratic views in a democratic way, spelled out explicitly by Orban, who positions a Christian democracy as the evolution or patch to liberal democracy. It is as explicit in Israel and India, at least a detailed in this book in their respective movement-forming philosophers.
It is possible to shrug it off as hypocrisy, but particularly as regards immigration in the U.S. and Europe, and, again, pretty blatantly in Israel and India, as the notion of race and religion having sufficient overlap as to be the same for the purposes of a reactionary mindset (or at least to require more research to answer the question). And on plenty of other topics, religion or religious practice becomes the explanation. And I do not know what is scarier, that the author did not consider this, or that he did, but understood it to be a sort of third rail, effectively ceding the argument that religiosity, or a non-zero number of types of religiosity, is alien to free and fair governance. But I do think that it giving reactionary thought a broad "culture" is potentially as distracting as looking at the economics. I feel like if there is one thing that the last decade politically has taught us, it is that it is worth taking people at their word. Again, though, I write this as a sort of topic that I find missing, not one that I have an answer on. I think that perhaps my own version of the nature of the problem avoids it, but that is more a blog than a review topic.
Anyway, while I generally liked the actionable and serious tone of the conclusion, I will say that the notes on the idea of focusing philanthropy on specialist activists sounds like the windup for a sales pitch. But I also think that the conclusion is why I feel slightly more favorable towards the book in a sense that I share the author's concerns in a broad sense and so think that reasonable discussion of those concerns is a good thing. It has a fundamentally conservative ending, harking back to an earlier point about strong rightward factions being good for democratic governance, in that the key is something like civic pride and footnoted patriotism. That's close enough for me.
My thanks to the author, Zack Beauchamp, for writing the book and to the publisher, PublicAffairs, for making the ARC available to me.
The Reactionary Mind looks at the authoritarian turn taking place in otherwise well-established democracies worldwide, and looks for answers, why it is happening and what can be done to stop it. It stakes an impressively focused claim, namely that reactionary politics arise out of cultural fears, such as xenophobia and racism, and specifically the insecurity of any democratic project when such (small l) illiberal ideas are government-sanctioned. Outside of looking at America, it surveys Hungary, Israel, and India, three states generally considered democratic success stories considering their recent vintage, and the details on how each have now moved or are moving away from that. It ends on a hopeful while not optimistic note, looking at nations like Brazil and Canada that seem to have resist some of these impulses, and discussing objectively-studied steps for people to take with an emphasis on the real peril.
The Hungary section is the best. It is the example of a state with the most total transformation, and also the one where there is the most examples of the author's premise around the interrelation between ideas in the U.S. and ideas in the state itself.
I appreciated the author's fact-based approach. One of the specific refrains here is that it is not the economy, (stupid), and he is able to identify the research done in the U.S. and elsewhere that connects the reactionary sentiments to fears about cultural issues, rather than monetary ones. I feel doubt, but it is more questions I would raise about specifics in the research as opposed to the author's claims. And I appreciate anyone willing to make claims with empirical evidence that can be subject to such questioning, as opposed to the usual truthiness of political commentary. And the book has a conversational style to its citation method, which I do not like, but manages to pass my citation test in that whenever I went 'really?' he was at least describing where the information came from.
The India and Israel sections were weaker. The Israel story is being written headline by headline but I think it interesting the author's claim the Hamas attacks seem to have inoculated against the authoritarian grasp going on rather than advancing it, at least at the time of writing. I feel like the India chapter amounted to the author shouting 'why isn't anyone worried about what's happening to India?' which is pretty much what I imagine I sound like at brunch sometimes, so no foul.
There are two things that put this in the pass column for me. The first is the lack of historical or philosophical inquiry. Yes, there are rational reasons to treat the U.S. as creation of democracy in that it is in the modern political sense, but the Founders themselves were not so blinkered and with intent made choices based on history (or their particular understanding of history). I, too, enjoy ragging on tyranny-apologist John C. Calhoun; while generally in favor of removing Confederate [yes, I know don't @ me] names from public things, I fully support keeping Calhoun Place in the Loop. It is an alleyway, which feels appropriate, or like the Alexander Hamilton Stephens Grease Pit. But the inevitable discussion feels ethnocentric in itself to discuss reactionary theory and only reference Carl Schmitt and not Pseudo-Xenophon, or to address European colonialism and its racist projects in three paragraphs focused more on the perception of nascent Americans. The book comes off as if the U.S. invented racism. And American Exceptionalism, so we are absolutely #1 in racism. But the thesis here is more a subject to investigate rather than an an object with which to investigate.
The second glaring omission is religion. Religious belief is core to each of the case studies. I assume that the author would focus on their autocratic qualities and treat the religious dimension as part of the culture-based fear. But this is the particular 'hack' that the author is concerned about, the specific workaround for anti-democratic views in a democratic way, spelled out explicitly by Orban, who positions a Christian democracy as the evolution or patch to liberal democracy. It is as explicit in Israel and India, at least a detailed in this book in their respective movement-forming philosophers.
It is possible to shrug it off as hypocrisy, but particularly as regards immigration in the U.S. and Europe, and, again, pretty blatantly in Israel and India, as the notion of race and religion having sufficient overlap as to be the same for the purposes of a reactionary mindset (or at least to require more research to answer the question). And on plenty of other topics, religion or religious practice becomes the explanation. And I do not know what is scarier, that the author did not consider this, or that he did, but understood it to be a sort of third rail, effectively ceding the argument that religiosity, or a non-zero number of types of religiosity, is alien to free and fair governance. But I do think that it giving reactionary thought a broad "culture" is potentially as distracting as looking at the economics. I feel like if there is one thing that the last decade politically has taught us, it is that it is worth taking people at their word. Again, though, I write this as a sort of topic that I find missing, not one that I have an answer on. I think that perhaps my own version of the nature of the problem avoids it, but that is more a blog than a review topic.
Anyway, while I generally liked the actionable and serious tone of the conclusion, I will say that the notes on the idea of focusing philanthropy on specialist activists sounds like the windup for a sales pitch. But I also think that the conclusion is why I feel slightly more favorable towards the book in a sense that I share the author's concerns in a broad sense and so think that reasonable discussion of those concerns is a good thing. It has a fundamentally conservative ending, harking back to an earlier point about strong rightward factions being good for democratic governance, in that the key is something like civic pride and footnoted patriotism. That's close enough for me.
My thanks to the author, Zack Beauchamp, for writing the book and to the publisher, PublicAffairs, for making the ARC available to me.
March 17, 2025
An interesting and well written read, it just made me very sad. Recommended if you want a history and analysis of reactionary politics in American, Indian, and Hungarian politics.
July 22, 2024
This is a very good book that nicely balances argumentative rigor with accessibility for a wide audience. I've been following ZB's balanced, well-informed political commentary for a few years, and it was nice to see this book summarize a lot of his ideas.
ZB argues that we are currently seeing a global wave of reaction against democracy. In almost every democratic nation, there are large political movements of people who fear political/demographic/cultural change of some kind and are distorting or even seeking to overthrow democracy itself in order to reverse or stop those changes. Given that in the scope of world history, mass global democratization is a relatively new dynamic, we should not be surprised that there has been reaction of some kind. Reactionary politicians like Trump, Modi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, etc all promise the maintenance of certain hierarchies and traditions while working to weaken democracy's rules and norms.
But this isn't a return to early 20th century forms of authoritarianism, ZB skillfully argues. Democracy as a good thing is so widely endorsed (or hegemonic) in the modern world that its enemies cannot say they are straight up against it as fascists and communists used to do. Instead, they must claim that they are acting in the name of a true democracy or the "real people' against an evil conspiracy or out-group. They must also chip away at democracy from within rather than toppling it in one dramatic gesture, and they have to continue the forms of democracy (parties, elections, etc) without its content. The exemplar of this "competitive authoritarian" kind of system is Orban's Hungary today. Orban has used cultural/ethnic resentments and appeals to tradition, religion, etc to build a reactionary political movement. Once he attained power, he changed laws, bought up or intimidated media companies, and deployed state agencies like the tax services to harass, marginalize, and intimidate political opponents to the point where opposition parties could not function. So Hungary still has political competition, but it's extremely restrained and systematically tilted in favor of Fidesz.
ZB uses the thought of the fascist philosopher Carl SChmitt to illustrate how this form of reactionary democracy works. Schmitt argued that liberalism and democracy had inherent contradictions, the most glaring of which is that while liberalism claims human rights and equality for all, no democratic state can possibly treat all people as equal citizens (because of national borders and other inherent limitations). So Schmitt concluded that all politics, including democracies, hinge on a friend/enemy binary, a clear in-group and out-group, and there is nothing wrong or anti-democratic about the in-group dominating or expelling the out. This mentality led Schmitt to become a defender of fascism, which he believed was a semi-democratic expression of a Rousseauian general will. Today's reactionary politicians adopt a similar mentality, seeking to create a form of authoritarianism that looks like democracy in the sense that it's backed up by the desires of the "real" people.
(Culture, not economics) ZB also makes a convincing case that culture/identity issues are driving reactionary politics rather than class. Many leftist scholars and some right-wingers (Deneen, for example) contend that Trumpism and other forms of reaction are basically revolts against neoliberal economics, de-industrialization, free trade, etc. There are of course elements to this, but a vast quantity of data shows that concerns about immigration and cultural change, hatred of elites, and things like racial and gender resentment far more powerfully predict support for someone like Trump than class does. ZB is also looking at non-Western cases like Israel, India, and Brazil, where the reactionary movement comes largely from middle-class people who fear a loss of status as other groups rise, or resentment at the erosion of the culture, rather than from the poor. Bolsonaro, for example, harnessed middle-class white resentment at socio-economic change, whereas Lula and Dilma received support from poor people of color in Brazil.
There's more to chew on in this book, but overall I'd say it is an excellent addition to the growing literature on democracy's global crisis. It's also quite accessible for readers who are not academics.
ZB argues that we are currently seeing a global wave of reaction against democracy. In almost every democratic nation, there are large political movements of people who fear political/demographic/cultural change of some kind and are distorting or even seeking to overthrow democracy itself in order to reverse or stop those changes. Given that in the scope of world history, mass global democratization is a relatively new dynamic, we should not be surprised that there has been reaction of some kind. Reactionary politicians like Trump, Modi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, etc all promise the maintenance of certain hierarchies and traditions while working to weaken democracy's rules and norms.
But this isn't a return to early 20th century forms of authoritarianism, ZB skillfully argues. Democracy as a good thing is so widely endorsed (or hegemonic) in the modern world that its enemies cannot say they are straight up against it as fascists and communists used to do. Instead, they must claim that they are acting in the name of a true democracy or the "real people' against an evil conspiracy or out-group. They must also chip away at democracy from within rather than toppling it in one dramatic gesture, and they have to continue the forms of democracy (parties, elections, etc) without its content. The exemplar of this "competitive authoritarian" kind of system is Orban's Hungary today. Orban has used cultural/ethnic resentments and appeals to tradition, religion, etc to build a reactionary political movement. Once he attained power, he changed laws, bought up or intimidated media companies, and deployed state agencies like the tax services to harass, marginalize, and intimidate political opponents to the point where opposition parties could not function. So Hungary still has political competition, but it's extremely restrained and systematically tilted in favor of Fidesz.
ZB uses the thought of the fascist philosopher Carl SChmitt to illustrate how this form of reactionary democracy works. Schmitt argued that liberalism and democracy had inherent contradictions, the most glaring of which is that while liberalism claims human rights and equality for all, no democratic state can possibly treat all people as equal citizens (because of national borders and other inherent limitations). So Schmitt concluded that all politics, including democracies, hinge on a friend/enemy binary, a clear in-group and out-group, and there is nothing wrong or anti-democratic about the in-group dominating or expelling the out. This mentality led Schmitt to become a defender of fascism, which he believed was a semi-democratic expression of a Rousseauian general will. Today's reactionary politicians adopt a similar mentality, seeking to create a form of authoritarianism that looks like democracy in the sense that it's backed up by the desires of the "real" people.
(Culture, not economics) ZB also makes a convincing case that culture/identity issues are driving reactionary politics rather than class. Many leftist scholars and some right-wingers (Deneen, for example) contend that Trumpism and other forms of reaction are basically revolts against neoliberal economics, de-industrialization, free trade, etc. There are of course elements to this, but a vast quantity of data shows that concerns about immigration and cultural change, hatred of elites, and things like racial and gender resentment far more powerfully predict support for someone like Trump than class does. ZB is also looking at non-Western cases like Israel, India, and Brazil, where the reactionary movement comes largely from middle-class people who fear a loss of status as other groups rise, or resentment at the erosion of the culture, rather than from the poor. Bolsonaro, for example, harnessed middle-class white resentment at socio-economic change, whereas Lula and Dilma received support from poor people of color in Brazil.
There's more to chew on in this book, but overall I'd say it is an excellent addition to the growing literature on democracy's global crisis. It's also quite accessible for readers who are not academics.
October 15, 2024
“The best way to defend a democracy … is to say you’re defending a democracy.”
There is an undeniable tension between liberal idealism and democratic reality. But is this tension avoidable? Taking a look at the past, it’s safe to say that it’s inevitable. Throughout the history of democracy, with each major step towards the equality and embrace of others, the reactionary spirit emerges in an attempt to reinstate the status quo. What’s the reactionary spirit? It’s the existential threat to freedom and fairness.
Pros
Jaw-dropping facts
Do you know about George Soros and how he was picked as Orbán’s scapegoat? Can you guess how many days it took for the rewritten Hungarian constitution to be approved by parliament? Are you caught up on China’s self-inflicted economic outlook? Beauchamp provides the answers to these questions along with many other interesting facts throughout The Reactionary Spirit.
Insightful
The reactionary spirit is an unavoidable consequence of democracy. When a democratic government moves towards equal rights, the conservative response will emerge to undermine that progress. Depending on your preparedness, the strength of that response will vary. The best you can do is contain the reactionary spirit. But when you’re not “vaccinated” against it, the infection will be severe. We’ve witnessed the severity of the conservative response in a variety of countries with Beauchamp focusing on the USA, Hungary, Israel, and India.
Optimistic ending
Before you succumb to depressive thoughts, Beauchamp ends on an optimistic note. He highlights the most successful ways to contain the reactionary spirit so it poses less of an existential threat to democracy.
Cons
Democracy levels
At the start of the book, Beauchamp says democracy’s “core principle is that no person is inherently better than any other; for that reason, we all deserve an equal say in determining how we’re governed.” But the implementation of democracy varies and there are many types of democracies. A few are highlighted in the book and each has a different definition. Just in America, we started as a minimalist democracy and have been slowly moving towards a more liberal democracy. I wish that this distinction had been addressed earlier in the book.
Balance between idealism and realism
There were a few moments in the book where Beauchamp’s view was clearly idealistic versus practical. One of the more obvious examples is his view of America’s alliance with India. While I appreciate his perspective, he seems to ignore some tough realities.
Overall…
The Reactionary Spirit provided a fascinating view into the evolution of and threats to democracy. Beauchamp adds his personal perspective to the story which I tended to agree with. But it could be off putting for some readers.
There is an undeniable tension between liberal idealism and democratic reality. But is this tension avoidable? Taking a look at the past, it’s safe to say that it’s inevitable. Throughout the history of democracy, with each major step towards the equality and embrace of others, the reactionary spirit emerges in an attempt to reinstate the status quo. What’s the reactionary spirit? It’s the existential threat to freedom and fairness.
Pros
Jaw-dropping facts
Do you know about George Soros and how he was picked as Orbán’s scapegoat? Can you guess how many days it took for the rewritten Hungarian constitution to be approved by parliament? Are you caught up on China’s self-inflicted economic outlook? Beauchamp provides the answers to these questions along with many other interesting facts throughout The Reactionary Spirit.
Insightful
The reactionary spirit is an unavoidable consequence of democracy. When a democratic government moves towards equal rights, the conservative response will emerge to undermine that progress. Depending on your preparedness, the strength of that response will vary. The best you can do is contain the reactionary spirit. But when you’re not “vaccinated” against it, the infection will be severe. We’ve witnessed the severity of the conservative response in a variety of countries with Beauchamp focusing on the USA, Hungary, Israel, and India.
Optimistic ending
Before you succumb to depressive thoughts, Beauchamp ends on an optimistic note. He highlights the most successful ways to contain the reactionary spirit so it poses less of an existential threat to democracy.
Cons
Democracy levels
At the start of the book, Beauchamp says democracy’s “core principle is that no person is inherently better than any other; for that reason, we all deserve an equal say in determining how we’re governed.” But the implementation of democracy varies and there are many types of democracies. A few are highlighted in the book and each has a different definition. Just in America, we started as a minimalist democracy and have been slowly moving towards a more liberal democracy. I wish that this distinction had been addressed earlier in the book.
Balance between idealism and realism
There were a few moments in the book where Beauchamp’s view was clearly idealistic versus practical. One of the more obvious examples is his view of America’s alliance with India. While I appreciate his perspective, he seems to ignore some tough realities.
Overall…
The Reactionary Spirit provided a fascinating view into the evolution of and threats to democracy. Beauchamp adds his personal perspective to the story which I tended to agree with. But it could be off putting for some readers.
November 2, 2024
With a journalist’s talent for a careful attention to detail while still writing in a succinct, readily readable almost conversational prose Beauchamp successfully accomplished his goals in The Reactionary Spirit. He placed the reactionary mode of leadership and the modern day practitioners in its historical context and provided clear explanations of its theoretical base. When he used terminology for the latter, he was careful to define and explain it thoroughly.
He then demonstrated how Orban, Modi, and Netanyahu have effectively implemented their agendas for the most part and how Trump would strive to should he be elected. Finally, his recommendations for how to combat these forces aimed at undermining democracy were based on past successes in that regard which he also explained quite thoroughly.
Timely quotations from a variety of sources helped underscore points the author was making. These were clearly acknowledged in the narrative and there is a 3 page Selected Bibliography at the end of the book for readers who might wish to follow up on some of this. I do wish, however, that more specific references to the sources had been made in the text itself and at the end.
Despite its many strengths this is not an easy book to read in one respect: Beauchamp is so successful at describing how these leaders can undermine democracy that it is distressing. It is so informative, however, that I still recommend it highly.
Another possible effort to undermine democracy not noted in TRS might be underway in Mexico. Per this very recent NYT article former President López Obrador and the Mexican legislature passed laws ‘reforming’ a judicial system that they claim is rife with corruption. While these goals are laudable, opponents complain that putting the judiciary more directly under the oversight of the legislature and subject to elections will undermine its independence. The country’s current President Sheinbaum has yet to disclose what she will do about this legislation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/wo...
He then demonstrated how Orban, Modi, and Netanyahu have effectively implemented their agendas for the most part and how Trump would strive to should he be elected. Finally, his recommendations for how to combat these forces aimed at undermining democracy were based on past successes in that regard which he also explained quite thoroughly.
Timely quotations from a variety of sources helped underscore points the author was making. These were clearly acknowledged in the narrative and there is a 3 page Selected Bibliography at the end of the book for readers who might wish to follow up on some of this. I do wish, however, that more specific references to the sources had been made in the text itself and at the end.
Despite its many strengths this is not an easy book to read in one respect: Beauchamp is so successful at describing how these leaders can undermine democracy that it is distressing. It is so informative, however, that I still recommend it highly.
Another possible effort to undermine democracy not noted in TRS might be underway in Mexico. Per this very recent NYT article former President López Obrador and the Mexican legislature passed laws ‘reforming’ a judicial system that they claim is rife with corruption. While these goals are laudable, opponents complain that putting the judiciary more directly under the oversight of the legislature and subject to elections will undermine its independence. The country’s current President Sheinbaum has yet to disclose what she will do about this legislation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/wo...
Read
March 11, 2025Estremamente scorrevole e piacevole da leggere. I casi studio dell'Ungheria e dell'India super interessanti, mentre nella sezione su Israele il punto di vista dell'autore tradisce una certa simpatia per lo stato e un'antipatia più che altro indirizzata solo verso Netanyahu. In ogni caso, i punti principali del saggio emergono chiaramente. Lo spirito reazionario è alla sua massima forza quando i gruppi minoritari e oppressi ottengono condizioni migliori di vita e le moderne pseudo-democrazie, separando i concetti di democrazia e liberalismo, erodono i diritti poco a poco, con provvedimenti sottili e spesso impercettibili (modifiche alle circoscrizioni elettorali, leggi liberticide spezzettate in altre leggi che non hanno nulla a che vedere con esse) che rendono superfluo lo smantellamento del voto, poiché creano condizioni tali da rendere impossibile la vittoria dei partiti di opposizione. A ciò, ovviamente, si aggiunge il bavaglio alla stampa.
La sezione finale, che si concentra sul come battere lo spirito reazionario, è un mix di intuizioni interessanti (concentrare i discorsi politici sulla difesa della democrazia e collegarli a situazioni concrete che toccano da vicino i cittadini, come il ribaltamento della sentenza Roe v. Wade sul diritto all'aborto) e passaggi banalotti. E poi mi sembra controproducente affermare sia importante evitare la retorica amici-nemici e aprire le porte anche ad ex reazionari nella lotta a difesa della democrazia per poi rivolgersi direttamente solo a chi già condivide le premesse del saggio. Non penso che un lettore reazionario incuriosito sarebbe felice di ritrovarsi sotto gli occhi un manuale per convertire quelli come lui, suona paternalistico
La sezione finale, che si concentra sul come battere lo spirito reazionario, è un mix di intuizioni interessanti (concentrare i discorsi politici sulla difesa della democrazia e collegarli a situazioni concrete che toccano da vicino i cittadini, come il ribaltamento della sentenza Roe v. Wade sul diritto all'aborto) e passaggi banalotti. E poi mi sembra controproducente affermare sia importante evitare la retorica amici-nemici e aprire le porte anche ad ex reazionari nella lotta a difesa della democrazia per poi rivolgersi direttamente solo a chi già condivide le premesse del saggio. Non penso che un lettore reazionario incuriosito sarebbe felice di ritrovarsi sotto gli occhi un manuale per convertire quelli come lui, suona paternalistico
July 16, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept The World, by Zack Beauchamp.
In addition to looking at the anti-democratic authoritarian movement in the United States, the author also looks at Hungary, Israel and India. I’m not convinced that Israel qualifies as a case of a country backsliding away from democracy, since it has been an apartheid state ever since its creation and thus its classification as a real democracy is in serious question (of course, the same needs to be said about the US for the vast majority of its history).
The strongest parts of the book were the chapters on Hungary and Israel. There was some good information in the book, but there have been other books that have done better jobs covering these topics.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 15, 2024.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept The World, by Zack Beauchamp.
In addition to looking at the anti-democratic authoritarian movement in the United States, the author also looks at Hungary, Israel and India. I’m not convinced that Israel qualifies as a case of a country backsliding away from democracy, since it has been an apartheid state ever since its creation and thus its classification as a real democracy is in serious question (of course, the same needs to be said about the US for the vast majority of its history).
The strongest parts of the book were the chapters on Hungary and Israel. There was some good information in the book, but there have been other books that have done better jobs covering these topics.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 15, 2024.
January 1, 2025
there was definitely some interesting and well-researched stuff in this, but it didn't dig in nearly as much as i had wanted. he had one simple argument, and he kept it at that; i wanted a little bit deeper analysis. i also finished reading this after reading a book which discussed "anything but class analysts" and this book felt exactly like that ... beauchamp basically said it's identity and ideology, Not Class, that builds a reactionary, but those two things feel very wrapped up in class so.... some points just fell a little more shallow than i wanted. still some good and interesting bits tho!
May 5, 2025
A nice project, but a bit too journalistic for my tastes--a lot of 'this happened, and then this happened' and not very much analysis of anything (though that might be a good thing; please do not read the conclusion to this book, for the sake of all that is holy). I'm not especially comfortable with the idea that reaction is an American export, though the weaker version of the argument (that America is not exceptional, and reactionary currents flow around the world) is good, and worth pursuing, I think. Beauchamp is great on podcasts, so I'd seek him out there, and I hope he keeps writing on this material. But if you want to read something right now, there are better options.
November 20, 2024
A really excellent exploration of what Beauchamp calls the reactionary spirit, or impulse, in American politics and society--while he argues this spirit can exist on both right and left, understandably given the last few decades his focus is on the right. The label/construct of reactionary politics is a really useful one for understanding the authoritarian/fascist turn, particularly of the tea party/Trump years.
August 28, 2025
Excellent synopsis of what I would call the underlying currents of the democracy debate. What is it, who is included, what happens when definitions change. Also one of the strenghts of this book is in how it looks at the "democracy debate" is US history, our problem may be that for much of US history sizable parts of our country have been under authoritarian capture via slavery and segregation and full democracy is not a norm or habit. Left me with a lot to think about.
January 28, 2025
Must read in the perilous times of Trump
Whatever your party affiliation, and whoever you have voted for, read this book to understand the rise of reactionary authoritarian politics in the world and what it means for your way of life in America and the durability of American global leadership in anything.
Whatever your party affiliation, and whoever you have voted for, read this book to understand the rise of reactionary authoritarian politics in the world and what it means for your way of life in America and the durability of American global leadership in anything.
September 21, 2024
A solid breakdown of the recent right wing populist movements we’ve seen take power from Brazil to Israel to India. It provides some historical context and potential paths forward. The idea of Modi being a bigger threat to global democracy than Xi is an interesting one I hadn’t considered before.
January 9, 2025
Well researched analysis of the US’ past authoritarian tendencies along with modern day trends around democratic back sliding. The framework of reactionary-ism seems useful for action-oriented discussions moving forward.
October 27, 2024
Essential reading for those seeking a deeper understanding of the forces at work here and in the world.
January 8, 2025
The last chapter has solutions. It’s not all despair.
Read
March 2, 2025very eye-opening about the resilience of democracy & a relevant text for today's political sphere
no review because i read this for school
no review because i read this for school
October 31, 2024
How America feeds autocracy at home and abroad. Great reporting, well written, essential reading.
July 15, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept The World, by Zack Beauchamp.
In addition to looking at the anti-democratic authoritarian movement in the United States, the author also looks at Hungary, Israel and India. I’m not convinced that Israel qualifies as a case of a country backsliding away from democracy, since it has been an apartheid state ever since its creation and thus its classification as a real democracy is in serious question (of course, the same needs to be said about the US for the vast majority of its history).
The strongest parts of the book were the chapters on Hungary and Israel. There was some good information in the book, but there have been other books that have done better jobs covering these topics.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 15, 2024.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished The Reactionary Spirit: How America’s Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept The World, by Zack Beauchamp.
In addition to looking at the anti-democratic authoritarian movement in the United States, the author also looks at Hungary, Israel and India. I’m not convinced that Israel qualifies as a case of a country backsliding away from democracy, since it has been an apartheid state ever since its creation and thus its classification as a real democracy is in serious question (of course, the same needs to be said about the US for the vast majority of its history).
The strongest parts of the book were the chapters on Hungary and Israel. There was some good information in the book, but there have been other books that have done better jobs covering these topics.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 15, 2024.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews