What do you think?
Rate this book
Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century
A provocative, intimate look at the evolution of America’s political soul through the lives of six political figures—from Whittaker Chambers to Christopher Hitchens—who abandoned the left and joined the right.
In Exit Right , Daniel Oppenheimer tells the stories of six major political figures whose journeys away from the left reshaped the contours of American politics in the twentieth century. By going deep into the minds of six apostates—Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens—Oppenheimer offers an unusually intimate history of the American left, and the right’s reaction.
Oppenheimer is a brilliant new voice in political history who has woven together the past century’s most important movements into a single book that reveals the roots of American politics. Through the eyes of his six subjects, we see America grow, stumble, and forge ahead—from World War I up through the Great Depression and World War II, from the Red Scare up through the Civil Rights Movement, and from the birth of neoconservatism up through 9/11 and the dawn of the Iraq War.
At its core, Exit Right is a book that asks profound questions about why and how we come to believe politically at all—on the left or the right. Each of these six lives challenges us to ask where our own beliefs come from, and what it might take to change them. At a time of sky-high partisanship, Oppenheimer breaks down the boundaries that divide us and investigates the deeper origins of our politics. This is a book that will resonate with readers on the left and the right—as well as those stuck somewhere in the middle.
In Exit Right , Daniel Oppenheimer tells the stories of six major political figures whose journeys away from the left reshaped the contours of American politics in the twentieth century. By going deep into the minds of six apostates—Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens—Oppenheimer offers an unusually intimate history of the American left, and the right’s reaction.
Oppenheimer is a brilliant new voice in political history who has woven together the past century’s most important movements into a single book that reveals the roots of American politics. Through the eyes of his six subjects, we see America grow, stumble, and forge ahead—from World War I up through the Great Depression and World War II, from the Red Scare up through the Civil Rights Movement, and from the birth of neoconservatism up through 9/11 and the dawn of the Iraq War.
At its core, Exit Right is a book that asks profound questions about why and how we come to believe politically at all—on the left or the right. Each of these six lives challenges us to ask where our own beliefs come from, and what it might take to change them. At a time of sky-high partisanship, Oppenheimer breaks down the boundaries that divide us and investigates the deeper origins of our politics. This is a book that will resonate with readers on the left and the right—as well as those stuck somewhere in the middle.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published February 2, 2016
23 people are currently reading
582 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 24, 2016
A great election year book. An exploration of the journey of personal politics with a pleasantly academic and occasionally poetic voice. Oppenheimer does well in remaining objective and succeeds rather well in the dissection of a handful of lives and the winding paths that led to their political allegiances (with the exception of Hitchens who he seems to have an almost sentimental ax to grind, but here I could be overreaching).
However, there is a necessity for knowing the characters in this book before reading it. Their journey of change is documented, but the specifics of their post transition is never delved into. The background we are given on each person varies in its depth and usefulness, but the book feels on the edge of incomplete, like pieces of political biography, and with some wonderfully insightful observations and turns of phrase, but every section feels sudden in the way it drops it's subject and moves on to the other. Oppenheimer attempts to remove this glaring stop-start by tying the previous chapters subject to the new one in some way, but this succeeds only in underlining how sudden the shift is.
It stops at the pivot, not quite going far enough to draw parallels of changed views that would result in a fuller, but larger book. More quotes from primary sources, a less chronologically obsessed narrative and I can see something much more powerful than the one as is.
That is perhaps simply another case of me wanting a book to be something it is not, but as it stands the book feels more like an exercise in something that could have been brilliant, but in some sort of hurry, decided to cut corners in the name of page count or editorially oversight.
A fascinating, worthwhile read, just not a great one.
There is another note, a somber one I'm pinning down here because it is for me and that is, at the heart of my writing, who it is for.
This is a strange book in that when I started it I had no idea it would be the one I read while grandfather went from stroke to seizure, hospice to some deathful "h" sounding place that isn't hell. He was a man of the right as long as I was born. As far as politics ever mattered in the sunset of senility. He was, throughout my childhood, a man who earned the adage/cliché of being "just to the right of Genghis Khan".
There is no real connection here other than that of death and politics, which then, I suppose is something akin to 80% of life anyway, so maybe there is something to it. Either way, reading it while he lay swaddled in the warm kiss of morphine changed the way I engaged this book, twisted it slightly into something less free of judgments.
I never knew what he believed in youth, I never knew the depth of the man the way Oppenheimer does his five subjects here. And as he died at a ripe old age it makes it nigh impossible to find out through my own research. All primary sources are dead and he was never a public figure. There is something discouraging there: that a man can know five strangers better than I ever knew my grandfather.
But then I suppose love never needed a reason to be. That was always sort of the great thing about it.
However, there is a necessity for knowing the characters in this book before reading it. Their journey of change is documented, but the specifics of their post transition is never delved into. The background we are given on each person varies in its depth and usefulness, but the book feels on the edge of incomplete, like pieces of political biography, and with some wonderfully insightful observations and turns of phrase, but every section feels sudden in the way it drops it's subject and moves on to the other. Oppenheimer attempts to remove this glaring stop-start by tying the previous chapters subject to the new one in some way, but this succeeds only in underlining how sudden the shift is.
It stops at the pivot, not quite going far enough to draw parallels of changed views that would result in a fuller, but larger book. More quotes from primary sources, a less chronologically obsessed narrative and I can see something much more powerful than the one as is.
That is perhaps simply another case of me wanting a book to be something it is not, but as it stands the book feels more like an exercise in something that could have been brilliant, but in some sort of hurry, decided to cut corners in the name of page count or editorially oversight.
A fascinating, worthwhile read, just not a great one.
There is another note, a somber one I'm pinning down here because it is for me and that is, at the heart of my writing, who it is for.
This is a strange book in that when I started it I had no idea it would be the one I read while grandfather went from stroke to seizure, hospice to some deathful "h" sounding place that isn't hell. He was a man of the right as long as I was born. As far as politics ever mattered in the sunset of senility. He was, throughout my childhood, a man who earned the adage/cliché of being "just to the right of Genghis Khan".
There is no real connection here other than that of death and politics, which then, I suppose is something akin to 80% of life anyway, so maybe there is something to it. Either way, reading it while he lay swaddled in the warm kiss of morphine changed the way I engaged this book, twisted it slightly into something less free of judgments.
I never knew what he believed in youth, I never knew the depth of the man the way Oppenheimer does his five subjects here. And as he died at a ripe old age it makes it nigh impossible to find out through my own research. All primary sources are dead and he was never a public figure. There is something discouraging there: that a man can know five strangers better than I ever knew my grandfather.
But then I suppose love never needed a reason to be. That was always sort of the great thing about it.
April 23, 2016
I picked up this book largely due to the chapter on Christopher Hitchens, who has long been a writer I've admired (his support for the Iraq War notwithstanding). I was very interested in seeing a neutral perspective on Hitchens, since I already have read at length what Hitchens himself said about that decision.
Before we get to the Hitch, however, we move through history as we explore the political careers of several other Leftists who ultimately, well, left. On the first few chapters, I am more ambivalent; these stories are likely going to be of more interest to those who are familiar with the men in question. I myself had only the vaguest recollection of who Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham was (before going to look it up on Google).
Although it was likely not the author's original intention, what struck me as most interesting about the chapters on very early Leftists like Chambers and Burnham was the stark reminder of the history of the Left. It's so very easy in political history to assume that the arrangement that exists today is equivalent to what came before; the Left is liberal, the Right is conservative, end of story.
But we forget that the political Left went through a long history with competing ideologies and that the social liberalism that brought me to the Left once struggled for intellectual oxygen against communism. These days, the idea that "Lefties are all commies" is basically a dead horse trope, a political joke that's amusing irrelevant. So irrelevant, in fact, that it's easy to forget that it used to be true. But I digress.
The most interesting chapters were on Norman Podhoretz, Ronald Reagan, and the Hitch. Podhoretz isn't someone I was familiar with, but his story is so fascinating in its self-destruction that you can enjoy it entirely on its own merits. The ill-advised publication of the book that led to his public humiliation and ostracization doesn't need you to be political to relate to what is basically a very human story. Especially when you consider how many people tried to warn him about what he was doing.
I list Reagan and Hitchens as the other highlights of the book as these were the individuals who were most relevant to me personally, since Reagan continues to cast a long shadow over the political landscape even today and I've read most of Hitchens' books. It's also interesting to contrast Reagan with the other figures of this book, as he's the only one who isn't described as an academic or intellectual. His story is a different one and at the end of it, I wonder what would have happened had he never been shifted to the right (although such a shift seems inevitable, given his personality).
Finally, we come to Hitchens. It's unfortunate that Hitchens is one of the shorter chapters, because this was what I most wanted to read about. While author Daniel Oppenheimer generally takes a fairly neutral tone throughout the book, never allowing his own politics to color his prose, he describes Hitchens in particular as having fallen as a result of his rightward drift. Not because Left = Good and Right = Bad, but because the decision to double down on the Iraq War ultimately seemed to demolish Hitchens' own vitality when the war effort began to unravel. Oppenheimer describes Hitchens' best work as having come before the Hitch left the Left, which I would agree with.
It should go without saying that this book is for those with more than a passing interest in political history and thought. But for readers of that persuasion, it's a fine read. It's particularly refreshing in its balance and even tone, neither sanctifying nor demonizing of Left or Right. That's something that's increasingly rare in modern political thought (unfortunately, and yes, I hold myself as having failed this standard). If you're interested in the topic, even a little, this book gets a solid recommendation.
Finally, I'd like to note that although it's only described in the foreward and postscript, Oppenheimer's thoughts on the nature of political allegiance and ideology were especially important to me. More and more, I've fretted about how people on "my side" can hold what I feel to be profoundly stupid ideas; most anti-vaxxers are on the Left rather than the Right, for instance. How can people who hold compatible ideas to my own be so misguided about other things, I would ask myself?
Oppenheimer reminded me that Left is a broad category and that many competing ideologies fall under its umbrella. He describes the Left and the Right as suits that don't entirely fit right; maybe they bunch in the shoulders or have sleeves that are a little too short. But we pick the one that fits the best and ignore the little ways it doesn't fit. Oppenheimer offers his book up as a challenge "to wrestle with the ways in which his or her own political suit might strain at the shoulders a bit more than is comfortable to admit." And while it's incredibly unlikely that I'll be leaving the Left any time soon (if ever), this book helped sharpen my perspective.
Before we get to the Hitch, however, we move through history as we explore the political careers of several other Leftists who ultimately, well, left. On the first few chapters, I am more ambivalent; these stories are likely going to be of more interest to those who are familiar with the men in question. I myself had only the vaguest recollection of who Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham was (before going to look it up on Google).
Although it was likely not the author's original intention, what struck me as most interesting about the chapters on very early Leftists like Chambers and Burnham was the stark reminder of the history of the Left. It's so very easy in political history to assume that the arrangement that exists today is equivalent to what came before; the Left is liberal, the Right is conservative, end of story.
But we forget that the political Left went through a long history with competing ideologies and that the social liberalism that brought me to the Left once struggled for intellectual oxygen against communism. These days, the idea that "Lefties are all commies" is basically a dead horse trope, a political joke that's amusing irrelevant. So irrelevant, in fact, that it's easy to forget that it used to be true. But I digress.
The most interesting chapters were on Norman Podhoretz, Ronald Reagan, and the Hitch. Podhoretz isn't someone I was familiar with, but his story is so fascinating in its self-destruction that you can enjoy it entirely on its own merits. The ill-advised publication of the book that led to his public humiliation and ostracization doesn't need you to be political to relate to what is basically a very human story. Especially when you consider how many people tried to warn him about what he was doing.
I list Reagan and Hitchens as the other highlights of the book as these were the individuals who were most relevant to me personally, since Reagan continues to cast a long shadow over the political landscape even today and I've read most of Hitchens' books. It's also interesting to contrast Reagan with the other figures of this book, as he's the only one who isn't described as an academic or intellectual. His story is a different one and at the end of it, I wonder what would have happened had he never been shifted to the right (although such a shift seems inevitable, given his personality).
Finally, we come to Hitchens. It's unfortunate that Hitchens is one of the shorter chapters, because this was what I most wanted to read about. While author Daniel Oppenheimer generally takes a fairly neutral tone throughout the book, never allowing his own politics to color his prose, he describes Hitchens in particular as having fallen as a result of his rightward drift. Not because Left = Good and Right = Bad, but because the decision to double down on the Iraq War ultimately seemed to demolish Hitchens' own vitality when the war effort began to unravel. Oppenheimer describes Hitchens' best work as having come before the Hitch left the Left, which I would agree with.
It should go without saying that this book is for those with more than a passing interest in political history and thought. But for readers of that persuasion, it's a fine read. It's particularly refreshing in its balance and even tone, neither sanctifying nor demonizing of Left or Right. That's something that's increasingly rare in modern political thought (unfortunately, and yes, I hold myself as having failed this standard). If you're interested in the topic, even a little, this book gets a solid recommendation.
Finally, I'd like to note that although it's only described in the foreward and postscript, Oppenheimer's thoughts on the nature of political allegiance and ideology were especially important to me. More and more, I've fretted about how people on "my side" can hold what I feel to be profoundly stupid ideas; most anti-vaxxers are on the Left rather than the Right, for instance. How can people who hold compatible ideas to my own be so misguided about other things, I would ask myself?
Oppenheimer reminded me that Left is a broad category and that many competing ideologies fall under its umbrella. He describes the Left and the Right as suits that don't entirely fit right; maybe they bunch in the shoulders or have sleeves that are a little too short. But we pick the one that fits the best and ignore the little ways it doesn't fit. Oppenheimer offers his book up as a challenge "to wrestle with the ways in which his or her own political suit might strain at the shoulders a bit more than is comfortable to admit." And while it's incredibly unlikely that I'll be leaving the Left any time soon (if ever), this book helped sharpen my perspective.
February 28, 2016
Mostly psychobabble BS with no discussion of the merits of left and right ideologies. Also each chapter ends right after the switch from right to left and provides no information on what each character did after changing allegiances. The chapter on James Burnham is particularly boring.
August 28, 2019
This was really an excellent book. More of a character study, of six politicians who started out liberals and then became conservatives. Oppenheimer's writing is really excellent, I believe he is an english professor? It is a nice narrative that takes the readers from the beginning of the 20th century up to the war with Iraq. He mentions a lot of the important political themes throughout the century. He connects the characters well. I'm surprised this book isn't more highly rated.
February 28, 2017
I struggled between a 3 and a 4 on this rating. The book presents fascinating history of 6 figures (I almost wrote intellectuals, though no one would _ever_ label Ronald Reagan that way) who had varying degrees of commitment to the left and who eventually migrated to more conservative perspectives. Oppenheimer does a good job detailing the tension (largely intellectual and emotional, though sometimes economic) that led each of these individuals to convert.
The book covers individuals active between the 1920s and the 2000s and so the political landscape changes significantly throughout this time. The left of the 1920s that Whitaker Chambers finds himself immersed in is very different from the left of the 1960s and 70s that David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens find themselves in. In some ways, these them of how the left has changed is an interesting backdrop to the history. Many conservatives seem to think that the left of the 1920s is similar to that of today, hardly true. . .
In nearly each of the cases, the six individuals get frustrated by the rigid ideological thinking that the left had come to assume and its hypocrisy on certain issues. They all migrate to various degrees rightward (though in Hitchens's case the author rightfully points out that his migration was really only on a single issue--The Iraq War).
What is unsatisfying in this book is that the stories end right at the point of conversion. There really is very little discussion (except a brief point) in the concluding chapter of what happens to each of these individuals after their conversion. Although they all leave the left, what happened in many cases is that their thinking and writing becomes as rigid or even more rigid than the left that they had criticized. Have you read David Horowitz lately? Just jump onto Frontpagemagazine.com and you'll see that he has devolved into a monolithic character, guided really only by a hatred of the left. Norman Podhoretz lost all of his creativity a long time ago and has even become a Trump apologist these days.
The focus solely on six leftists who became more conservative really should have been part of a broader story that political movements ossify, become rigid, and lose the creativity that originally spurred them on. As the right has been ascendant in American politics since the Reagan era, it is easy to see that there are few original voices in that movement now. Oppenheimer briefly alludes to this at the end, though it would have been useful for him to tell the fuller arc of political change for people like Horowitz and Podhoretz.
I enjoyed the book because through these stories it encourages the reader to deeply analyze his or her own political beliefs. It's so easy to be put into a box that is already prepacked with a set of ready-made assumptions and beliefs. To their credit, each of these individuals tried to create a new political identity, though in many cases their new boxes were even more narrow and shallow than the ones they left.
The book covers individuals active between the 1920s and the 2000s and so the political landscape changes significantly throughout this time. The left of the 1920s that Whitaker Chambers finds himself immersed in is very different from the left of the 1960s and 70s that David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens find themselves in. In some ways, these them of how the left has changed is an interesting backdrop to the history. Many conservatives seem to think that the left of the 1920s is similar to that of today, hardly true. . .
In nearly each of the cases, the six individuals get frustrated by the rigid ideological thinking that the left had come to assume and its hypocrisy on certain issues. They all migrate to various degrees rightward (though in Hitchens's case the author rightfully points out that his migration was really only on a single issue--The Iraq War).
What is unsatisfying in this book is that the stories end right at the point of conversion. There really is very little discussion (except a brief point) in the concluding chapter of what happens to each of these individuals after their conversion. Although they all leave the left, what happened in many cases is that their thinking and writing becomes as rigid or even more rigid than the left that they had criticized. Have you read David Horowitz lately? Just jump onto Frontpagemagazine.com and you'll see that he has devolved into a monolithic character, guided really only by a hatred of the left. Norman Podhoretz lost all of his creativity a long time ago and has even become a Trump apologist these days.
The focus solely on six leftists who became more conservative really should have been part of a broader story that political movements ossify, become rigid, and lose the creativity that originally spurred them on. As the right has been ascendant in American politics since the Reagan era, it is easy to see that there are few original voices in that movement now. Oppenheimer briefly alludes to this at the end, though it would have been useful for him to tell the fuller arc of political change for people like Horowitz and Podhoretz.
I enjoyed the book because through these stories it encourages the reader to deeply analyze his or her own political beliefs. It's so easy to be put into a box that is already prepacked with a set of ready-made assumptions and beliefs. To their credit, each of these individuals tried to create a new political identity, though in many cases their new boxes were even more narrow and shallow than the ones they left.
Read
June 8, 2016Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary who himself had flirted with radicalism in the early 1960s, once explained that communism’s danger—and its appeal to intellectuals—lay in the fact that the creed insisted that it was the ultimate fulfillment of the democratic ethos. To this day, liberals and their other non-revolutionary siblings on the left might disagree with communists over the extent to which the state should engineer “fairness,” yet they still share with them a vision of what constitutes fairness and an image of a properly re-engineered people. For all ideologies of the left are tied to the Enlightenment, with its emphasis upon predetermined progress via reason and the accumulation of quantifiable knowledge.
This is the important—and I’m pretty sure, inadvertent—message tendered by Daniel Oppenheimer in Exit Right. The book consists of six brilliantly penned vignettes, each one digging into the causes behind an eminent individual’s departure from the left. The starring roles are filled by Whittaker Chambers, Communist “underground” member turned Christian; James Burnham, Workers Party comrade turned National Review contributor; Ronald Reagan, labor union president turned Republican icon; Norman Podhoretz, New Left fellow traveler turned Commentary editor; David Horowitz, Black Panthers proponent turned right-wing firebrand; and Christopher Hitchens, underdog ally turned Iraq War cheerleader.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
This is the important—and I’m pretty sure, inadvertent—message tendered by Daniel Oppenheimer in Exit Right. The book consists of six brilliantly penned vignettes, each one digging into the causes behind an eminent individual’s departure from the left. The starring roles are filled by Whittaker Chambers, Communist “underground” member turned Christian; James Burnham, Workers Party comrade turned National Review contributor; Ronald Reagan, labor union president turned Republican icon; Norman Podhoretz, New Left fellow traveler turned Commentary editor; David Horowitz, Black Panthers proponent turned right-wing firebrand; and Christopher Hitchens, underdog ally turned Iraq War cheerleader.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
March 22, 2021
Daniel Oppenheimer presents enjoyable biographical sketches of six important Americans who moved Left-to-Right. Five were influential intellectuals; one a future president (Ronald Reagan). Full intellectual changes are traumatic and even destructive to professional and personal arrangements. Why do people change their thinking?
I liked that Oppenheimer is detached and fair (only on Christopher Hitchens did he let slip his own conclusion the 2003 Iraqi invasion was disastrous). For all six men, Oppenheimer details their lives up to their intellectual conversions, then abruptly stops. This manages the book's length and stays true to his goal of focusing on their departures from the Left. Oppenheimer also doesn't overdo the analysis as the stories mostly tell themselves. I doubt any six men's intellectual moves can be authoritative, especially as their motives are never fully known. Oppenheimer doesn't present a conversion recipe.
I knew something of the most recent two (Reagan and Hitchens) and little of the first four (Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz), although I long knew many conservatives of a certain age found Chambers's "Witness" very influential. Leftists of the same era often despised Chambers for outing the spy Alger Hiss. This work taught me about the six important figures and their influence on the Right in the past century.
This book is not a critique of their views, whether when on the Left or Right. Some GoodReads reviewers wanted Oppenheimer to take down or discuss the Six's future views when on the Right. This book is as the title suggests, how six key figures exited the Left.
I liked that Oppenheimer is detached and fair (only on Christopher Hitchens did he let slip his own conclusion the 2003 Iraqi invasion was disastrous). For all six men, Oppenheimer details their lives up to their intellectual conversions, then abruptly stops. This manages the book's length and stays true to his goal of focusing on their departures from the Left. Oppenheimer also doesn't overdo the analysis as the stories mostly tell themselves. I doubt any six men's intellectual moves can be authoritative, especially as their motives are never fully known. Oppenheimer doesn't present a conversion recipe.
I knew something of the most recent two (Reagan and Hitchens) and little of the first four (Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz), although I long knew many conservatives of a certain age found Chambers's "Witness" very influential. Leftists of the same era often despised Chambers for outing the spy Alger Hiss. This work taught me about the six important figures and their influence on the Right in the past century.
This book is not a critique of their views, whether when on the Left or Right. Some GoodReads reviewers wanted Oppenheimer to take down or discuss the Six's future views when on the Right. This book is as the title suggests, how six key figures exited the Left.
Read
January 10, 2021This terrific book profiles a small group of men who moved from being firebrands on the left of the political spectrum to being firebrands on the right. Oppenheimer is a wonderfully judicious and balanced narrator; no matter how much you've read about some of these figures, you'll see new aspects of them here. My full review: https://www.stevedonoghue.com/review-...
March 12, 2017
Props to Oppenheimer for writing an exquisitely nuanced, thoroughly absorbing book about six men whose politics I couldn't possibly disagree with more. I enjoyed this so much more than I thought I would.
February 25, 2016
I found this book uninteresting and frankly a bore.
July 12, 2018
It was an awful book that tried to present itself as fair and balanced. It was far from it and took the communist threat/conspiracy very literal well into the 1980s when it was shown to be false.
February 8, 2018
It would probably help to know that I'm 69 years old. That is, old enough to be familiar with the last four of the six men profiled, and in fact one of whom gets my occasional contributions. I'm also one who used to be idealistic -- though isn't that to be expected of the young -- as these six were, and now consider myself conservative/libertarian. I've always been a Zionist.
Studying Marx in college back in the '60s, I kept thinking this sounds good on paper but can't possibly work in the real world. Only a kid and no genius, certainly never able to understand dialectical materialism, it still seemed so obvious that communism was a philosophy that might have been laudable for its aims but contrary to human nature. It wasn't the gulags, which I didn't yet know about, nor Stalin's paranoid purges. No, the philosophy simply seemed to be built on a faulty foundation (to each according to his needs? not to his production?), and could never succeed.
Somehow I never marched, sang, or protested once in that tumultuous decade. Was certainly no Freedom Rider. The closest I came to civil disobedience was in 1967, when I considered going to Canada on getting my draft notice. But I couldn't have such disloyalty to the country that had defeated the Nazis and welcomed my parents. As it happened, going into the Army was a stroke of fortune, but that's another story.
What brought me to the book was not the movement of these six individuals from Left to Right, but the reassurance that minds of adults could change. How rare that seems nowadays. We seem to be who we are, to hell with good arguments we're given against our positions. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both followers and haters, and no amount of debate will change anyone's mind about them. Devout believers in a religion will not lessen their faith, no matter how reasoned the arguments.
That's why I wanted to read "Exit Right." To see that logic, facts and persuasive argument can prevail over "beliefs," be they political or religious, that have been held for years.
I didn't turn to the back cover to learn about the author until reading the last chapter, and was surprised to see how young Mr Oppenheimer is. He writes like a wise old soul who had been there in the trenches along with Podhoretz and Horowitz, maybe even with Chambers.
Two of the six individuals in "Exit Right," Podhoretz and Horowitz, are still alive. I'm hoping they'll come here to Amazon with feedback on their profiles, telling us how close the author got to the truth about them.
This is a good book for most of us who grew up during WWII or the decades afterwards and who maybe struggled with some of the same ideological issues. It might be a great book for Leftists wanting to understand how some of their leading lights "left" them.
Studying Marx in college back in the '60s, I kept thinking this sounds good on paper but can't possibly work in the real world. Only a kid and no genius, certainly never able to understand dialectical materialism, it still seemed so obvious that communism was a philosophy that might have been laudable for its aims but contrary to human nature. It wasn't the gulags, which I didn't yet know about, nor Stalin's paranoid purges. No, the philosophy simply seemed to be built on a faulty foundation (to each according to his needs? not to his production?), and could never succeed.
Somehow I never marched, sang, or protested once in that tumultuous decade. Was certainly no Freedom Rider. The closest I came to civil disobedience was in 1967, when I considered going to Canada on getting my draft notice. But I couldn't have such disloyalty to the country that had defeated the Nazis and welcomed my parents. As it happened, going into the Army was a stroke of fortune, but that's another story.
What brought me to the book was not the movement of these six individuals from Left to Right, but the reassurance that minds of adults could change. How rare that seems nowadays. We seem to be who we are, to hell with good arguments we're given against our positions. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both followers and haters, and no amount of debate will change anyone's mind about them. Devout believers in a religion will not lessen their faith, no matter how reasoned the arguments.
That's why I wanted to read "Exit Right." To see that logic, facts and persuasive argument can prevail over "beliefs," be they political or religious, that have been held for years.
I didn't turn to the back cover to learn about the author until reading the last chapter, and was surprised to see how young Mr Oppenheimer is. He writes like a wise old soul who had been there in the trenches along with Podhoretz and Horowitz, maybe even with Chambers.
Two of the six individuals in "Exit Right," Podhoretz and Horowitz, are still alive. I'm hoping they'll come here to Amazon with feedback on their profiles, telling us how close the author got to the truth about them.
This is a good book for most of us who grew up during WWII or the decades afterwards and who maybe struggled with some of the same ideological issues. It might be a great book for Leftists wanting to understand how some of their leading lights "left" them.
July 4, 2017
Regardless of your political views, this book opens new insights into definitions of liberals, conservatives, Marxists , leftists and other ideologies over the last 100 years.
This book lets the reader reflect on their own political journey. The labels that define left and right have shifted over time and the conversions are important.
This book details 6 liberals who abandoned the leftist ideals. Each individual searched for their own political identity and abandoned many of their lofty ideals. Oppenheimer is an excellent historian with a keen eye for detail. Each story is unique and provides an interesting perspective of economics, social pressures and politics. The book spans from the 1920s to the 2000s and addresses each political climate. The author ends each story after the individual shifts away from the left. For example, Ronald Reagan's story is focused on his time mostly before he became a politician.
This book lets the reader reflect on their own political journey. The labels that define left and right have shifted over time and the conversions are important.
This book details 6 liberals who abandoned the leftist ideals. Each individual searched for their own political identity and abandoned many of their lofty ideals. Oppenheimer is an excellent historian with a keen eye for detail. Each story is unique and provides an interesting perspective of economics, social pressures and politics. The book spans from the 1920s to the 2000s and addresses each political climate. The author ends each story after the individual shifts away from the left. For example, Ronald Reagan's story is focused on his time mostly before he became a politician.
September 13, 2017
This book was a fascinating study of how people change across time, and how six particular individuals moved from the (often communist or radical) left to the right (with varying degrees of success). Some of the men are far more interesting or likable than others, with Whittaker Chambers probably being my favorite. Most of the men, brethren apostates of sorts, overlap in their timelines and interact across time and space. Their stories of metamorphism are interesting in how much ease or lack of, finesses the transition. Chambers stands as probably the most full of conviction at the end of his transition. Horowitz and Hitchens appear the most conflicted. A phenomenal meditation on human change and the making of classical American politics.
August 4, 2019
Although not a book on political philosophy (by design), Exit Right is far from uninformative on the psychology of the reactionary politics and the rise of neoconservatism in America. It is true, as pointed out by some of the other reviews, that the depth --and to some degree-- the style of discussion of the six characters varies uncomfortably, and sometimes leaves one with a feeling of incompleteness or superficiality of the account. But despite this heterogeneity, Oppenheimer succeeds in highlighting a few important points of convergence among these characters who varied significantly in their own depth of conviction and analytical abilities. It is to understand these points that I recommend this book for a light political read.
December 25, 2020
This book got two stars only because it described the terrorist tactics the commies used back in the days of Lenin Stalin Marx et al and what they said to do to take down a country; and these tactics are exactly what the libtards are using to destroy the USA.
Other than that useful lagniappe, this book is a humongous nothingburger.
Reading it felt like I was a grad student in history that some prof made me grade the senior theses of his second rate students at a third tier college.
*IF* you are a hard core history buff you might enjoy this meaningless drivel obfuscated by pretentious language , which was sometimes misused.
This would be a good book to skip as reading it is a total waste of time.
Other than that useful lagniappe, this book is a humongous nothingburger.
Reading it felt like I was a grad student in history that some prof made me grade the senior theses of his second rate students at a third tier college.
*IF* you are a hard core history buff you might enjoy this meaningless drivel obfuscated by pretentious language , which was sometimes misused.
This would be a good book to skip as reading it is a total waste of time.
December 2, 2021
Oppenheimer's book features a few short sketches of American authors who began their lives on the left and ended on the right. While most of these short pieces read like articles from magazines, introducing interesting brief biographies about these men and some of their political ideas what is missing is an overall analysis that connects all of these brief outlines together. That would have made for a more interesting and in-depth book.
March 7, 2019
I feel as though this book would be better if we saw the contrast in the characters after they changed sides. At times there was a blurring of lines. A more comprehensive biography of each character would have served the author more. Otherwise really detailed and interesting concept.
December 13, 2019
The stories behind the political journeys of several flawed but thoughtful first-class minds, and Ronald Reagan.
January 9, 2023
***1/2 -- Oppenheimer has clearly done much meticulous and enthusiastic research, and he can tell a fine story, with a smart but friendly voice that's as forbearing as it is sharply observant. Most of the time, what seems to be the book's raison d'etre -- the demonstration and inspiration of a difficult generosity toward the complexity of other's experiences, even when those experiences might appear to us to badly mislead or warp them -- comes through well. There are just a few too many moments where it feels as if Oppenheimer momentarily subscribes to the "Rally for Sanity" type of thinking that seems reasonable at first blush but proves quickly to be built on the naive belief in a perfectly neutral or objective viewpoint, the feeble conceit that both sides of any ideological or political debate must be equally flawed and equally sincere/well-meaning and must thus be given equal credence so the mythical Golden Mean will show itself. These lapses sap a bit of power occasionally from an effort that's otherwise usefully informative and provocative, and a pleasure to read.
August 6, 2016
The subtitle is misleading, it should have been "The stories of leftist who eventually left the left"the whole "And Reshaped the American Century" wasn't touched on at all, unless the author meant how they Leftist reshaped the American Century while still on the Left.
The book gives well written biographies of individuals who were on the Left and shares about the factors which led them to reconsider and exit Right, and then abruptly stops and moves on to the next person. The book only really covers their thinking and lives while on the Left. It did give a fascinating look at some of the inter workings of American communism during the 20th century.
I couldn't confidently say what Oppenheimers political position is, though I'd guess he is a little more left of center, judging from comments here and there, especially during his treatment of Reagen and Hitchens.
The book gives well written biographies of individuals who were on the Left and shares about the factors which led them to reconsider and exit Right, and then abruptly stops and moves on to the next person. The book only really covers their thinking and lives while on the Left. It did give a fascinating look at some of the inter workings of American communism during the 20th century.
I couldn't confidently say what Oppenheimers political position is, though I'd guess he is a little more left of center, judging from comments here and there, especially during his treatment of Reagen and Hitchens.
March 1, 2025
This book has some echoes of "The God that Failed" which I had read a year or two before as it contains biographies of six public figures, the most notable being Ronald Reagan and Christopher Hitchens. The book thus provides interesting insights into these persons, the other four of whom I hadn't previously encountered and how they changed political tack from the left, in some cases far left to the right as they saw world events in a different light. However, as interesting as these biographies were, by writing them as six biographies, Oppenheimer missed the opportunity to draw comparisons and parallels between the lives of these six persons and perhaps cite others, Susan Sontag perhaps, whose own lives had made a similar turn.
April 2, 2016
I very much enjoyed reading the “Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century” (Simon & Schuster, 2016), which details the movement of six very different individuals from the political left to the political right. The book’s subjects are Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens, each of whose apostasy is explicated in a chapter....Read more at http://www.rstreet.org/2016/02/03/lef...
June 4, 2016
I read John P. Diggen's "Up from Communism" years ago and Diggen's stuck with me every since. Curious Oppenheimer never mentions Diggen's here because I think his book really a companion book and the two should be read together. Oppenheimer's chapters on James Burnham, Norman Pohoretz, and David Horowtiz the best parts. Chambers and Reagan have good biographies, and somehow I just felt shorted with the chapter on Hitchen's. Oppenheimer tangled his opinions on the second Iraq War with Hitchen's story. That tale needs the distance of time to evaluate.
July 20, 2025
A good read. Essentially a tour of the twentieth century American left through the eyes of its disillusioned intellectuals (plus Ronald Reagan) - lots of interesting stuff about the recursive dynamic between the personal and the political and the sort of unexpected punctuated equilibrium of ideological evolution
April 20, 2017
The look into what The Left looked like for the individual people who lived within its many incarnations is invaluable and captivating and is very relevant to my interests, I just wish he hadn't chosen almost exclusively academics to explore this theme with.
November 17, 2016
I only listened to the audiobook of this because books that I thought I would like better weren't available. But it turned out to be a very interesting book about how people form their opinions and change them. After I finished the book, I went back and listened to the introduction again.
March 27, 2017
Oppenheimer has written a wonderfully engaging intellectual history of the American Left in the 20th century - through a series of biographical essays on the consequential figures who turned to the Right. As a biographer, Oppenheimer makes trenchant observations of his subjects. He also writes elegantly with a balance of distance, irony, understanding, and compassion. His final notes on Christopher Hitchens are particularly moving. Some essays (Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Norman Podhoretz, Hitchens) provide more engaging material than others (Reagan, David Horowitz), but the book should be interesting and engaging for political observers.
April 18, 2017
Really enjoyed this exploration of some famous men who moved from left to right in the 20th century. Oppenheimer approaches this change more from a sociological and psychological than a political or philosophical perspective. He seeks to piece together why the individual took this often perilous journey, one that involves betrayal and some level, and how they attempted to describe and rationalize it. He places this movement with the intellectual, cultural, political and historical context of the time and place but also in the relationships and influence of that particular person.
The chapter on Christopher Hitchens does give the ending a different flavor, however, as Hitchens never really moved to the Right as such but alienated himself from the left and the right with his embrace of the Iraq war combined with a vicious attack on faith and religion. This section has a very different feel and tone than the other which is rather discordant by the end.
The chapter on Christopher Hitchens does give the ending a different flavor, however, as Hitchens never really moved to the Right as such but alienated himself from the left and the right with his embrace of the Iraq war combined with a vicious attack on faith and religion. This section has a very different feel and tone than the other which is rather discordant by the end.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews