What do you think?
Rate this book
The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left
A former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Kim R. Holmes surveys the state of liberalism in America today and finds that it is becoming its opposite--illiberalism--abandoning the precepts of open-mindedness and respect for individual rights, liberties, and the rule of law upon which the country was founded, and becoming instead an intolerant, rigidly dogmatic ideology that abhors dissent and stifles free speech. Tracing the new illiberalism historically to the radical Enlightenment, a movement that rejected the classic liberal ideas of the moderate Enlightenment that were prominent in the American Founding, Holmes argues that today's liberalism has forsaken its American roots, incorporating instead the authoritarian, anti-clerical, and anti-capitalist prejudices of the radical and largely European Left. The result is a closing of the American liberal mind. Where once freedom of speech and expression were sacrosanct, today liberalism employs speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, and shaming rituals to stifle freedom of thought, expression, and action. It is no longer appropriate to call it liberalism at all, but illiberalism--a set of ideas in politics, government, and popular culture that increasingly reflects authoritarian and even anti-democratic values, and which is devising new strategies of exclusiveness to eliminate certain ideas and people from the political process. Although illiberalism has always been a temptation for American liberals, lurking in the radical fringes of the Left, it is today the dominant ideology of progressive liberal circles. This makes it a new danger not only to the once venerable tradition of liberalism, but to the American nation itself, which needs a viable liberal tradition that pursues social and economic equality while respecting individual liberties.
378 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 12, 2016
28 people are currently reading
309 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 13, 2018
I had the honour and pleasure of briefly meeting the author back in April 1996, during the last day of my internship at the Heritage Foundation (Kim was Heritage's Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the time). At the time, I knew that Dr. Holmes was a highly accomplished individual with a firm commitment to the Heritage principles of free markets, limited government, and strong national defense.
But it wasn't until I read this latest book of his, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," that I got detailed insight into--and therefore full appreciation of--Kim Holmes's astute intellect and superbly scholarly mind and writing style.
Dr. Holmes gives a brilliantly detailed history of how the original meaning and concept of "liberalism," i.e. the "classical liberal" beliefs of our nation's Founding Fathers (inspired in turn by John Locke and Montesquieu to name but a few) in free markets, free minds, and limited government, have over time been hijacked, co-opted, and skewed by entities thar most Americans would associate with the word "liberal" nowadays, from the progressives of the late 19th through mid-20th centuries, to the New Left of the 1960s and 70s, and now the neo-Orwellian, ultra-dogmatic and virulent "postmodern" leftists (race-baiters, gender-baiters, etc.) who have so thoroughly infested the ranks of academia, the so-called "mainstream" media, and the entertainment industry.
A must-read for anybody concerned about the future of America's intellectual (and political & economic) freedoms.
RANDOM STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS (and noteworthy passages):
--"Thus, what we call a 'liberal' today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state." So many people fail to grasp this.
--"If they are not really liberals, then what are they? As this volume will explore in more depth, they are postmodern leftists. A postmodernist is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is. When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism."
--"The ideological similarities between the far right and far left are not merely that their methods can be totalitarian. Nor is it merely that Nazism and communism are differently colored ideological peas in the same 'socialist' pod, with Nazism being a kind of 'socialism.' Rather, it is that both movements spring intellectually from a tendency in the radical Enlightenment to want to create the perfect society at the expense of individual rights. For the white supremacist, that society should be a race-pure order. For the communist or anarchist, it is a utopia of perfect equality. Either way, the state must be endowed with unlimited powers to create this new order, and the rights of the individual must be radically sacrificed for the 'greater good.'"
--"Whether a white supremacist or communist, the one thing they share is a hatred of individual liberty and the rule of law. Standing up to both is necessary to protect the rights of majorities and minorities alike." Indeed.
--"We must understand what liberalism was in order to grasp how far it has declined as a viable American idea. Unfortunately for the liberties of Americans tomorrow, the change has been as dramatic as Darth Vader’s devolution to the Dark Side in Star Wars." Hey, nice cinematic analogy!
--"One is personal security, whereby the monopoly of violence enjoyed by the state is monitored and regulated by law." And how about the individual right to self-defence (bear arms)?
--p. 6: "Finally, there is the principle of economic freedom. Normally associated with the great founding theorists of modern capitalism—Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo—the idea that people were entitled to their property always has been a key liberal idea. It is important in this respect to realize that Smith and other early theorists were not considered economists per se, but rather moral philosophers. They were trying to discover the laws of economy that suited the interests of everyone, **regardless of class or personal fortune**." [emphasis added] Contrast this with the class warfare of the present-day Left.
--p. 9: "Radical liberals (otherwise known as libertarians)" Doesn't fit what most people would consider to be synonymous with "radical liberals," which again goes to show just how far the original meaning or the term has been skewed!
--p. 13: "However, this did not give them the right to take other people’s property or to infringe on the political rights of others. Liberty was not license." Eh, try telling that the modern-day leftist gun grabbers in political and "mainstream" media circles!
--p. 60: "They [radical abolitionists, that is]often railed against capitalism as much as any communist would. Some, like radical abolitionist Stephen Foster, whom every American schoolchild knows solely as the composer of sentimental American folk tunes, were as radical as any New Left critic of the family." Wow, you really do learn something new everyday!
--p. 159: "There has been an ever-increasing labyrinth of regulatory crimes that, in the hands of malicious prosecutors and administrators, can ruin a person’s life faster than you can say Honduran lobsters." Haha, funny, but paradoxically sadly true.
But it wasn't until I read this latest book of his, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," that I got detailed insight into--and therefore full appreciation of--Kim Holmes's astute intellect and superbly scholarly mind and writing style.
Dr. Holmes gives a brilliantly detailed history of how the original meaning and concept of "liberalism," i.e. the "classical liberal" beliefs of our nation's Founding Fathers (inspired in turn by John Locke and Montesquieu to name but a few) in free markets, free minds, and limited government, have over time been hijacked, co-opted, and skewed by entities thar most Americans would associate with the word "liberal" nowadays, from the progressives of the late 19th through mid-20th centuries, to the New Left of the 1960s and 70s, and now the neo-Orwellian, ultra-dogmatic and virulent "postmodern" leftists (race-baiters, gender-baiters, etc.) who have so thoroughly infested the ranks of academia, the so-called "mainstream" media, and the entertainment industry.
A must-read for anybody concerned about the future of America's intellectual (and political & economic) freedoms.
RANDOM STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS (and noteworthy passages):
--"Thus, what we call a 'liberal' today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state." So many people fail to grasp this.
--"If they are not really liberals, then what are they? As this volume will explore in more depth, they are postmodern leftists. A postmodernist is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is. When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism."
--"The ideological similarities between the far right and far left are not merely that their methods can be totalitarian. Nor is it merely that Nazism and communism are differently colored ideological peas in the same 'socialist' pod, with Nazism being a kind of 'socialism.' Rather, it is that both movements spring intellectually from a tendency in the radical Enlightenment to want to create the perfect society at the expense of individual rights. For the white supremacist, that society should be a race-pure order. For the communist or anarchist, it is a utopia of perfect equality. Either way, the state must be endowed with unlimited powers to create this new order, and the rights of the individual must be radically sacrificed for the 'greater good.'"
--"Whether a white supremacist or communist, the one thing they share is a hatred of individual liberty and the rule of law. Standing up to both is necessary to protect the rights of majorities and minorities alike." Indeed.
--"We must understand what liberalism was in order to grasp how far it has declined as a viable American idea. Unfortunately for the liberties of Americans tomorrow, the change has been as dramatic as Darth Vader’s devolution to the Dark Side in Star Wars." Hey, nice cinematic analogy!
--"One is personal security, whereby the monopoly of violence enjoyed by the state is monitored and regulated by law." And how about the individual right to self-defence (bear arms)?
--p. 6: "Finally, there is the principle of economic freedom. Normally associated with the great founding theorists of modern capitalism—Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo—the idea that people were entitled to their property always has been a key liberal idea. It is important in this respect to realize that Smith and other early theorists were not considered economists per se, but rather moral philosophers. They were trying to discover the laws of economy that suited the interests of everyone, **regardless of class or personal fortune**." [emphasis added] Contrast this with the class warfare of the present-day Left.
--p. 9: "Radical liberals (otherwise known as libertarians)" Doesn't fit what most people would consider to be synonymous with "radical liberals," which again goes to show just how far the original meaning or the term has been skewed!
--p. 13: "However, this did not give them the right to take other people’s property or to infringe on the political rights of others. Liberty was not license." Eh, try telling that the modern-day leftist gun grabbers in political and "mainstream" media circles!
--p. 60: "They [radical abolitionists, that is]often railed against capitalism as much as any communist would. Some, like radical abolitionist Stephen Foster, whom every American schoolchild knows solely as the composer of sentimental American folk tunes, were as radical as any New Left critic of the family." Wow, you really do learn something new everyday!
--p. 159: "There has been an ever-increasing labyrinth of regulatory crimes that, in the hands of malicious prosecutors and administrators, can ruin a person’s life faster than you can say Honduran lobsters." Haha, funny, but paradoxically sadly true.
March 13, 2018
A brilliant examination of the erosion of intellectual freedom and common sense in the U.S.
I had the honour and pleasure of briefly meeting the author back in April 1996, during the last day of my internship at the Heritage Foundation (Kim was Heritage's Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the time). At the time, I knew that Dr. Holmes was a highly accomplished individual with a firm commitment to the Heritage principles of free markets, limited government, and strong national defense.
But it wasn't until I read this latest book of his, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," that I got detailed insight into--and therefore full appreciation of--Kim Holmes's astute intellect and superbly scholarly mind and writing style.
Dr. Holmes gives a brilliantly detailed history of how the original meaning and concept of "liberalism," i.e. the "classical liberal" beliefs of our nation's Founding Fathers (inspired in turn by John Locke and Montesquieu to name but a few) in free markets, free minds, and limited government, have over time been hijacked, co-opted, and skewed by entities thar most Americans would associate with the word "liberal" nowadays, from the progressives of the late 19th through mid-20th centuries, to the New Left of the 1960s and 70s, and now the neo-Orwellian, ultra-dogmatic and virulent "postmodern" leftists (race-baiters, gender-baiters, etc.) who have so thoroughly infested the ranks of academia, the so-called "mainstream" media, and the entertainment industry.
A must-read for anybody concerned about the future of America's intellectual (and political & economic) freedoms.
RANDOM STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS (and noteworthy passages):
--"Thus, what we call a 'liberal' today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state." So many people fail to grasp this.
--"If they are not really liberals, then what are they? As this volume will explore in more depth, they are postmodern leftists. A postmodernist is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is. When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism."
--"The ideological similarities between the far right and far left are not merely that their methods can be totalitarian. Nor is it merely that Nazism and communism are differently colored ideological peas in the same 'socialist' pod, with Nazism being a kind of 'socialism.' Rather, it is that both movements spring intellectually from a tendency in the radical Enlightenment to want to create the perfect society at the expense of individual rights. For the white supremacist, that society should be a race-pure order. For the communist or anarchist, it is a utopia of perfect equality. Either way, the state must be endowed with unlimited powers to create this new order, and the rights of the individual must be radically sacrificed for the 'greater good.'"
--"Whether a white supremacist or communist, the one thing they share is a hatred of individual liberty and the rule of law. Standing up to both is necessary to protect the rights of majorities and minorities alike." Indeed.
--p. 9: "Radical liberals (otherwise known as libertarians)" Doesn't fit what most people would consider to be synonymous with "radical liberals," which again goes to show just how far the original meaning or the term has been skewed!
--p. 13: "However, this did not give them the right to take other people’s property or to infringe on the political rights of others. Liberty was not license." Eh, try telling that the modern-day leftist gun grabbers in political and "mainstream" media circles!
--p. 60: "They [radical abolitionists, that is]often railed against capitalism as much as any communist would. Some, like radical abolitionist Stephen Foster, whom every American schoolchild knows solely as the composer of sentimental American folk tunes, were as radical as any New Left critic of the family." Wow, you really do learn something new everyday!
--p. 159: "There has been an ever-increasing labyrinth of regulatory crimes that, in the hands of malicious prosecutors and administrators, can ruin a person’s life faster than you can say Honduran lobsters." Haha, funny, but paradoxically sadly true.
I had the honour and pleasure of briefly meeting the author back in April 1996, during the last day of my internship at the Heritage Foundation (Kim was Heritage's Vice President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the time). At the time, I knew that Dr. Holmes was a highly accomplished individual with a firm commitment to the Heritage principles of free markets, limited government, and strong national defense.
But it wasn't until I read this latest book of his, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," that I got detailed insight into--and therefore full appreciation of--Kim Holmes's astute intellect and superbly scholarly mind and writing style.
Dr. Holmes gives a brilliantly detailed history of how the original meaning and concept of "liberalism," i.e. the "classical liberal" beliefs of our nation's Founding Fathers (inspired in turn by John Locke and Montesquieu to name but a few) in free markets, free minds, and limited government, have over time been hijacked, co-opted, and skewed by entities thar most Americans would associate with the word "liberal" nowadays, from the progressives of the late 19th through mid-20th centuries, to the New Left of the 1960s and 70s, and now the neo-Orwellian, ultra-dogmatic and virulent "postmodern" leftists (race-baiters, gender-baiters, etc.) who have so thoroughly infested the ranks of academia, the so-called "mainstream" media, and the entertainment industry.
A must-read for anybody concerned about the future of America's intellectual (and political & economic) freedoms.
RANDOM STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS (and noteworthy passages):
--"Thus, what we call a 'liberal' today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state." So many people fail to grasp this.
--"If they are not really liberals, then what are they? As this volume will explore in more depth, they are postmodern leftists. A postmodernist is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is. When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism."
--"The ideological similarities between the far right and far left are not merely that their methods can be totalitarian. Nor is it merely that Nazism and communism are differently colored ideological peas in the same 'socialist' pod, with Nazism being a kind of 'socialism.' Rather, it is that both movements spring intellectually from a tendency in the radical Enlightenment to want to create the perfect society at the expense of individual rights. For the white supremacist, that society should be a race-pure order. For the communist or anarchist, it is a utopia of perfect equality. Either way, the state must be endowed with unlimited powers to create this new order, and the rights of the individual must be radically sacrificed for the 'greater good.'"
--"Whether a white supremacist or communist, the one thing they share is a hatred of individual liberty and the rule of law. Standing up to both is necessary to protect the rights of majorities and minorities alike." Indeed.
--p. 9: "Radical liberals (otherwise known as libertarians)" Doesn't fit what most people would consider to be synonymous with "radical liberals," which again goes to show just how far the original meaning or the term has been skewed!
--p. 13: "However, this did not give them the right to take other people’s property or to infringe on the political rights of others. Liberty was not license." Eh, try telling that the modern-day leftist gun grabbers in political and "mainstream" media circles!
--p. 60: "They [radical abolitionists, that is]often railed against capitalism as much as any communist would. Some, like radical abolitionist Stephen Foster, whom every American schoolchild knows solely as the composer of sentimental American folk tunes, were as radical as any New Left critic of the family." Wow, you really do learn something new everyday!
--p. 159: "There has been an ever-increasing labyrinth of regulatory crimes that, in the hands of malicious prosecutors and administrators, can ruin a person’s life faster than you can say Honduran lobsters." Haha, funny, but paradoxically sadly true.
August 11, 2016
Some parts were interesting from a historical standpoint. Anytime it veered from non fiction to opinion, I was suspect, and disagreed.
October 30, 2021
.
The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left
By Kim R. Holmes, pub. in 2016, about 300 pages.
Overview:
A former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Kim R. Holmes surveys the state of liberalism in America today and finds that it is becoming its opposite—illiberalism—abandoning the precepts of open-mindedness and respect for individual rights, liberties, and the rule of law upon which the country was founded, and becoming instead an intolerant, rigidly dogmatic ideology that abhors dissent and stifles free speech...
Where once freedom of speech and expression were sacrosanct, today liberalism [as practiced by the Left, the Progressives, the Democrats] employs speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, and shaming rituals to stifle freedom of thought, expression, and action. It is no longer appropriate to call it liberalism at all, but illiberalism—a set of ideas in politics, government, and popular culture that increasingly reflects authoritarian and even anti-democratic values, and which is devising new strategies of exclusiveness to eliminate certain ideas and people from the political process.
illiberalism ... is today the dominant ideology of progressive liberal circles. This makes it a new danger not only to the once venerable tradition of liberalism, but to the American nation itself, which needs a viable liberal tradition that pursues social and economic equality while respecting individual liberties.
The book is in 9 chapters plus an intro & conclusion.
The intro explains how liberals today are no longer open-minded, tolerant and fair. "Illiberalism is not only the defining feature of what we call progressive liberalism today; it is, in fact, the predominant worldview of Barack Obama’s Democratic Party.
The focus of this discussion ... will be on how deeply this progressive illiberalism infects many aspects of our society today—so much so that our very identity as the nation that championed liberty in the 20th century is threatened, and we may not keep that title for long in the 21st."
Chapter 1 is the decline of liberalism.
This is a lengthy and somewhat tedious section on the history of liberals and progressives and how the meaning has changed significantly through the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
2. Rise of the Postmodern Left
Details the history of the destructive ideas the Lib-Dems are now using in their assault against Western culture and morality: critical race theory, whites are born racists, being perpetually offended, a difference of opinions is now hate speech and microaggressions, only Black Lives Matter, radical multiculturalism ... [basically, all the nutty beliefs and practices the Lib-Dems employ to get their way as they attempt to control everyone, alter society and justify ruining anyone who opposes them].
3. the Postmodern Left is not Liberalism
As with the previous chapters, the author provides a great deal of historical context for the beliefs of today's illiberals. The Lib-Dems have built upon the ideas of these past philosophers, scholars and radicals as they pursue their own version of social justice, an egalitarian worldview, forced compliance and disregard for Liberty.
4. today's illiberal style
Begins with the intolerance perpetrated by the progressive Dems. "The purveyors of liberal intolerance are not bit players. They are political leaders, public officials, teachers, intellectuals, corporate tycoons, famous celebrities" ... and of of course the mainstream media (MSM).
As an example of intolerance on the Right, the author says the Trump comment about rapist illegals from Mexico caused a spike in conservative popularity. His conclusion is erroneous since the popularity spike was more likely in response to DJT's promise to fix the border crisis. [Incidentally, criminals among the illegals is a problem and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have documented the alarming number of sexually assaulted immigrants entering at the Mexican border]. So, makes one question other conclusions made by the author.
The Dem's (the Progressive-Lib's) Christophobia: accusing conservatives and Christians of bigotry and hate speech to restrict their right to free speech, freedom of expression "and force religious people to participate in activities that violate their consciences."
Extremes of our zero-tolerance, politically correct culture: "Children are suspended from school for pointing their fingers like a gun ... chewing their Pop-Tarts into the shape of a gun" or participating in a water balloon battle, etc. Also, mob-rule enforcement and the new illiberal ruling class.
5. Promethean government
"a right to ... disagree with any administration" (said by HRC) unless you're a conservative. The Obama Administration weaponized the IRS to target conservatives. There's a war on descent, especially against church folk. Prosecuted over a gay wedding cake, "marriage" and "family values" ruled hate speech and other examples of punishing those with opposing beliefs or religious convictions.
"Climate denier" used as a pejorative to denounce any who dissent from the Progressive's global warming agenda or those with science data that conflicts with the party line.
Dismissive of the constitution in favor of social justice and Obama's law-making without the Legislative Branch. Judicial activism - the court acting like a legislature, infringing on constitutional rights and concocting a right based on political correctness. "If new rights are to be recognized and enumerated beyond those in the Bill of Rights ... they should be decided through the democratic process, not by judicial fiat."
6. bullies, shaming rituals & the culture of intolerance
College campus: "now among the least free speech-friendly places in the country," radicalizing students, silencing professors, climate change exaggeration, Twitter trolls and intolerant peeps.
7. death of the liberal intellectual
8. legacy of radical enlightenment
9. closing of the lideral mind
Conclusion: the way forward
The author assures us the cultural pendulum swings back and forth. "The excesses of the 60s and 70s gave rise to the conservative era of Ronald Reagan." Obama and the postmodern left are trying to transform our constitutional order, but the author believes Americans will get fed up with the left's bully tactics and hypocrisy.
[Published in 2016, it's now 2021 and the hostile Dem-Libs are more intolerant and violent than ever. Can't wait for that pendulum to swing right again.]
Mostly enjoyed his writing, but some chapters get tiresome.
..
.
The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left
By Kim R. Holmes, pub. in 2016, about 300 pages.
Overview:
A former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Kim R. Holmes surveys the state of liberalism in America today and finds that it is becoming its opposite—illiberalism—abandoning the precepts of open-mindedness and respect for individual rights, liberties, and the rule of law upon which the country was founded, and becoming instead an intolerant, rigidly dogmatic ideology that abhors dissent and stifles free speech...
Where once freedom of speech and expression were sacrosanct, today liberalism [as practiced by the Left, the Progressives, the Democrats] employs speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, and shaming rituals to stifle freedom of thought, expression, and action. It is no longer appropriate to call it liberalism at all, but illiberalism—a set of ideas in politics, government, and popular culture that increasingly reflects authoritarian and even anti-democratic values, and which is devising new strategies of exclusiveness to eliminate certain ideas and people from the political process.
illiberalism ... is today the dominant ideology of progressive liberal circles. This makes it a new danger not only to the once venerable tradition of liberalism, but to the American nation itself, which needs a viable liberal tradition that pursues social and economic equality while respecting individual liberties.
The book is in 9 chapters plus an intro & conclusion.
The intro explains how liberals today are no longer open-minded, tolerant and fair. "Illiberalism is not only the defining feature of what we call progressive liberalism today; it is, in fact, the predominant worldview of Barack Obama’s Democratic Party.
The focus of this discussion ... will be on how deeply this progressive illiberalism infects many aspects of our society today—so much so that our very identity as the nation that championed liberty in the 20th century is threatened, and we may not keep that title for long in the 21st."
Chapter 1 is the decline of liberalism.
This is a lengthy and somewhat tedious section on the history of liberals and progressives and how the meaning has changed significantly through the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
2. Rise of the Postmodern Left
Details the history of the destructive ideas the Lib-Dems are now using in their assault against Western culture and morality: critical race theory, whites are born racists, being perpetually offended, a difference of opinions is now hate speech and microaggressions, only Black Lives Matter, radical multiculturalism ... [basically, all the nutty beliefs and practices the Lib-Dems employ to get their way as they attempt to control everyone, alter society and justify ruining anyone who opposes them].
3. the Postmodern Left is not Liberalism
As with the previous chapters, the author provides a great deal of historical context for the beliefs of today's illiberals. The Lib-Dems have built upon the ideas of these past philosophers, scholars and radicals as they pursue their own version of social justice, an egalitarian worldview, forced compliance and disregard for Liberty.
4. today's illiberal style
Begins with the intolerance perpetrated by the progressive Dems. "The purveyors of liberal intolerance are not bit players. They are political leaders, public officials, teachers, intellectuals, corporate tycoons, famous celebrities" ... and of of course the mainstream media (MSM).
As an example of intolerance on the Right, the author says the Trump comment about rapist illegals from Mexico caused a spike in conservative popularity. His conclusion is erroneous since the popularity spike was more likely in response to DJT's promise to fix the border crisis. [Incidentally, criminals among the illegals is a problem and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have documented the alarming number of sexually assaulted immigrants entering at the Mexican border]. So, makes one question other conclusions made by the author.
The Dem's (the Progressive-Lib's) Christophobia: accusing conservatives and Christians of bigotry and hate speech to restrict their right to free speech, freedom of expression "and force religious people to participate in activities that violate their consciences."
Extremes of our zero-tolerance, politically correct culture: "Children are suspended from school for pointing their fingers like a gun ... chewing their Pop-Tarts into the shape of a gun" or participating in a water balloon battle, etc. Also, mob-rule enforcement and the new illiberal ruling class.
5. Promethean government
"a right to ... disagree with any administration" (said by HRC) unless you're a conservative. The Obama Administration weaponized the IRS to target conservatives. There's a war on descent, especially against church folk. Prosecuted over a gay wedding cake, "marriage" and "family values" ruled hate speech and other examples of punishing those with opposing beliefs or religious convictions.
"Climate denier" used as a pejorative to denounce any who dissent from the Progressive's global warming agenda or those with science data that conflicts with the party line.
Dismissive of the constitution in favor of social justice and Obama's law-making without the Legislative Branch. Judicial activism - the court acting like a legislature, infringing on constitutional rights and concocting a right based on political correctness. "If new rights are to be recognized and enumerated beyond those in the Bill of Rights ... they should be decided through the democratic process, not by judicial fiat."
6. bullies, shaming rituals & the culture of intolerance
College campus: "now among the least free speech-friendly places in the country," radicalizing students, silencing professors, climate change exaggeration, Twitter trolls and intolerant peeps.
7. death of the liberal intellectual
8. legacy of radical enlightenment
9. closing of the lideral mind
Conclusion: the way forward
The author assures us the cultural pendulum swings back and forth. "The excesses of the 60s and 70s gave rise to the conservative era of Ronald Reagan." Obama and the postmodern left are trying to transform our constitutional order, but the author believes Americans will get fed up with the left's bully tactics and hypocrisy.
[Published in 2016, it's now 2021 and the hostile Dem-Libs are more intolerant and violent than ever. Can't wait for that pendulum to swing right again.]
Mostly enjoyed his writing, but some chapters get tiresome.
..
.
October 26, 2016
I found this book to be helpful because it is far more than a screed aimed at the illiberalism of modern progressives (although those necessary points are made well). It is rather, primarily, a look at classic liberalism and its enlightenment roots, both the "moderate" (English/Scottish) and "radical" (French) elements (there's a good discussion of Kant as well), and how these roots have, interestingly enough, led to both radicalism and "conservatism" (as the term is used today). Holmes' organization is a bit hard to follow at times, and he likes tangents attacking the silliness of identity politics and the intolerance of tolerance (who could blame him?), but his argument is nevertheless strong.
At the end, he's startlingly pessimistic. He cannot see how the political and social structures that are keeping us from anarchy and moral nihilism can continue if the powers that be in academia, the media, and, increasingly, government continue to deny the existence, let alone the validity, of absolute truth. I would tend to agree with him--but can enough books like his begin to stem the tide? Time will tell.
At the end, he's startlingly pessimistic. He cannot see how the political and social structures that are keeping us from anarchy and moral nihilism can continue if the powers that be in academia, the media, and, increasingly, government continue to deny the existence, let alone the validity, of absolute truth. I would tend to agree with him--but can enough books like his begin to stem the tide? Time will tell.
September 16, 2021
This is one of the typical conservative harangues about how MEAN and INTOLERANT everyone who advocates for policies left of hunting the homeless for sport is. Most of the best examples he can dig up, though, are of students at college campuses shouting down public speakers. This is rather obnoxious behavior (though far from untypical of young adults, who usually grow out of their extreme self-righteousness before graduating), but it's rather goofy when the introduction to the book actually brings up the Charlottesville car attack. If the only recent examples one can bring of the so-called Far Left's intolerance merely involve speech (as opposed to the Far Right's use of violence), a reasonable conclusion would be that one is currently a hell of a lot more dangerous than the other.
As one might expect, it starts up a strawman of contrasting American liberalism (which is Good) with European liberalism (which is Bad) by contrasting the American Revolution with the French Revolution. Any historian worth their salt would point out that these two revolutions turned out very differently is due heavily to the different circumstances surrounding. Kim briefly pays lip service to the idea that Ancien Regime (with its hereditary aristocracy and state church) was very different from the American colonies, but then jettisons this idea to claim that the different outcomes were simply because of a difference in ideas and the American revolutionaries being good people and the French revolutionaries being bad people. These kind of childish fairy tales ignores the vastly more complex realities of history. Among them is that Great Britain, Prussia, and Austria all declared war on revolutionary France in 1792, which did not happen to the American colonies, quite simply because a colony thousands of miles away from Europe breaking away from its rulers did not have the same political effect on Europe and the balance of power therein as revolution in France. Since the American colonies had no one state church, it is far from surprising that the many different types of Christian clergy were not viewed as potential royalist agents. Even so, one can't forget that Jefferson and some pamphleteers like Thomas Paine were quite critical of Christianity.
As per usual for books of this type, the author has no idea what postmodernism is other than it's bad and tries to present it as something new and unusual when postmodernism actually first arose in the 1950s. While the book, at first, correctly identifies that postmodernism is anti-Marxist, this is in then forgotten and postmodernism is bizarrely also equated with existentialism, multiculturalism, identity politics, and critical race theory. Most hilariously, Noam Chomsky is mentioned in tandem with the postmodernists, which is ironic because Chomsky has been quite vocal about his hatred for Derrida and the like.
As one might expect, it starts up a strawman of contrasting American liberalism (which is Good) with European liberalism (which is Bad) by contrasting the American Revolution with the French Revolution. Any historian worth their salt would point out that these two revolutions turned out very differently is due heavily to the different circumstances surrounding. Kim briefly pays lip service to the idea that Ancien Regime (with its hereditary aristocracy and state church) was very different from the American colonies, but then jettisons this idea to claim that the different outcomes were simply because of a difference in ideas and the American revolutionaries being good people and the French revolutionaries being bad people. These kind of childish fairy tales ignores the vastly more complex realities of history. Among them is that Great Britain, Prussia, and Austria all declared war on revolutionary France in 1792, which did not happen to the American colonies, quite simply because a colony thousands of miles away from Europe breaking away from its rulers did not have the same political effect on Europe and the balance of power therein as revolution in France. Since the American colonies had no one state church, it is far from surprising that the many different types of Christian clergy were not viewed as potential royalist agents. Even so, one can't forget that Jefferson and some pamphleteers like Thomas Paine were quite critical of Christianity.
As per usual for books of this type, the author has no idea what postmodernism is other than it's bad and tries to present it as something new and unusual when postmodernism actually first arose in the 1950s. While the book, at first, correctly identifies that postmodernism is anti-Marxist, this is in then forgotten and postmodernism is bizarrely also equated with existentialism, multiculturalism, identity politics, and critical race theory. Most hilariously, Noam Chomsky is mentioned in tandem with the postmodernists, which is ironic because Chomsky has been quite vocal about his hatred for Derrida and the like.
May 14, 2020
I bought this book in the same shipment with, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality." The purchases were triggered by the phenomenon of anti-COVID-19 shutdown demonstrations in America. I just had to try to understand how even a pandemic could be so politicized along the bipartisan fault line in America.
Disclaimer: I am well aware that I fall politically left of center. On the Political Compass test (https://www.politicalcompass.org/), I fall smack in the center of the bottom left square.
This book reads like a mashup of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson trying to sound polite.
Mind you, the book makes some good points (hence, two stars). It identifies and defines illiberalism, points out Trump as a populist, and does a wonderful job elaborating on the excesses of the post-modern radical left (e.g., over-criminalization, calls for hate speech laws, political correctness, warped sense of proportion, microagressions, identity politics, etc.).
And that's about it.
Beyond that, it's a mess.
The book uses "post-modern radical left" and "liberalism" pretty much interchangeably. The book pays lip service here and there to the difference between them from a perspective of definitions, but beyond that, they're all one and the same in this book's arguments.
The book also spends a lot of time and space criticizing a variety of political anecdotes, mostly from the Obama administration. Come on now, if I wanted that I would go to Fox News.
A major flaw in this book is that it uses gay rights (gay marriage, specifically) as an example of moral relativism and imposing lifestyle choices, etc. Yeah, no. Homosexuality is not a moral lifestyle choice. It is a normal biological variant. Get over it. Homosexuality is as normal and natural as interracial relationships.
Another section that had me facepalming is where he describes Spinoza's monism as a materialism. Just like that. Really, man? A debate going on since the 18th century, and you just reduce it to that?
I broke at the book's description of Islamist Jihadism's expression and politicization as "thoroughly postmodern."
Disclaimer: I am well aware that I fall politically left of center. On the Political Compass test (https://www.politicalcompass.org/), I fall smack in the center of the bottom left square.
This book reads like a mashup of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson trying to sound polite.
Mind you, the book makes some good points (hence, two stars). It identifies and defines illiberalism, points out Trump as a populist, and does a wonderful job elaborating on the excesses of the post-modern radical left (e.g., over-criminalization, calls for hate speech laws, political correctness, warped sense of proportion, microagressions, identity politics, etc.).
And that's about it.
Beyond that, it's a mess.
The book uses "post-modern radical left" and "liberalism" pretty much interchangeably. The book pays lip service here and there to the difference between them from a perspective of definitions, but beyond that, they're all one and the same in this book's arguments.
The book also spends a lot of time and space criticizing a variety of political anecdotes, mostly from the Obama administration. Come on now, if I wanted that I would go to Fox News.
A major flaw in this book is that it uses gay rights (gay marriage, specifically) as an example of moral relativism and imposing lifestyle choices, etc. Yeah, no. Homosexuality is not a moral lifestyle choice. It is a normal biological variant. Get over it. Homosexuality is as normal and natural as interracial relationships.
Another section that had me facepalming is where he describes Spinoza's monism as a materialism. Just like that. Really, man? A debate going on since the 18th century, and you just reduce it to that?
I broke at the book's description of Islamist Jihadism's expression and politicization as "thoroughly postmodern."
November 24, 2022
Published in 2016 (pre-PLANdemic and the initial Trump presidency), this book makes a really insightful and valuable contribution to understanding the Culture War in the USA during the 2010s. The author's profound knowledge and in-depth analysis is most admirable, as is his articulating some of the historical roots of the modern conflict.
This written, there's still perhaps a few important things missing from his narrative as to why the modern West has been degenerating the way it has, and why the Culture War has now reached the point where it has. One key factor is to understand that people's thinking is largely determined by their genes. Extending on from this, what some call "the dysgenic effect" has been profoundly impacting on the quality of intellectual discourse.
Holmes correctly identifies that society is being "dumbed down". But a big reason why, is because the quality of our genes is degenerating. When your gene quality degenerates, your entire society degenerates. This must of course have an effect on politics. People are not getting smarter, they're getting stupider. This has led to what Professor Michael Woodley calls the "spiteful mutant" factor; that people with poor quality genes have a tendency to seek power and authority over others, and then to advocate policies that undermine rather than advance the group interest.
This about sums up the (white) post-modern Left. They despise their own society and their own (white) people, and are constantly trying to undermine and take that strength away, including by advocating anti-natal agendas like abortion-on-demand and the constant importation of foreign immigrant peoples, not to mention the over-reaching empowerment of women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities - which is all a complete obsession for the "Woke" cult of the post-modern Left.
This written, there's still perhaps a few important things missing from his narrative as to why the modern West has been degenerating the way it has, and why the Culture War has now reached the point where it has. One key factor is to understand that people's thinking is largely determined by their genes. Extending on from this, what some call "the dysgenic effect" has been profoundly impacting on the quality of intellectual discourse.
Holmes correctly identifies that society is being "dumbed down". But a big reason why, is because the quality of our genes is degenerating. When your gene quality degenerates, your entire society degenerates. This must of course have an effect on politics. People are not getting smarter, they're getting stupider. This has led to what Professor Michael Woodley calls the "spiteful mutant" factor; that people with poor quality genes have a tendency to seek power and authority over others, and then to advocate policies that undermine rather than advance the group interest.
This about sums up the (white) post-modern Left. They despise their own society and their own (white) people, and are constantly trying to undermine and take that strength away, including by advocating anti-natal agendas like abortion-on-demand and the constant importation of foreign immigrant peoples, not to mention the over-reaching empowerment of women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities - which is all a complete obsession for the "Woke" cult of the post-modern Left.
October 13, 2022
Truth is hard on some. Loved this book. Library's won't carry it cause they are liberals . JS
July 8, 2016
This could have been such a good book, focusing on how liberals support or forgive illiberal values in an attempt to support multiculturalism (such as accepting the sexism in Islam), but too often this book turns and becomes illiberal itself, such as repeatedly scoffing at the idea of "Queer Studies" (his quotes) at colleges. According to the latest polling, around 4% of the US identifies as LGBT, so why wouldn't a look at the history of oppression, politics, art and social progress of gays be worth consideration? Moreover, he launches into tirade about how Christianity and Christians are being persecuted in the US, which is a very hard case to realistically make with any kind of realistic, measured statistics (the plural of anecdote is not data).
Hopefully one day someone will tease the measured arguments out of this book and write less of a conservative polemical screed and instead a book about the importance of raising liberal ideology above culturally liberal elements.
Hopefully one day someone will tease the measured arguments out of this book and write less of a conservative polemical screed and instead a book about the importance of raising liberal ideology above culturally liberal elements.
December 30, 2016
Insightful
Very well written and put forward. This book does a great job of putting forth its case and presenting the evidence for such. It is very surprising and intellectually insightful.
Very well written and put forward. This book does a great job of putting forth its case and presenting the evidence for such. It is very surprising and intellectually insightful.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews