Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump

by Robby Soave

Since the 2016 election, college campuses have erupted in violent protests, demands for safe spaces, and the silencing of views that activist groups find disagreeable. Who are the leaders behind these protests, and what do they want? In Panic Attack, libertarian journalist Robby Soave answers these questions by profiling young radicals from across the political spectrum.

Millennial activism has risen to new heights in the age of Trump. Although Soave may not personally agree with their motivations and goals, he takes their ideas seriously, approaching his interviews with a mixture of respect and healthy skepticism. The result is a faithful cross-section of today's radical youth, which will appeal to libertarians, conservatives, centrist liberals, and anyone who is alarmed by the trampling of free speech and due process in the name of social justice.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Education, Sociology, History, Audiobook

324 pages, Hardcover

First published June 18, 2019

About the author

Robby Soave is an associate editor at Reason magazine. He enjoys writing about culture, politics, education policy, criminal justice reform, television, and video games. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Report, The Orange County Register, and The Detroit News. In 2016, Forbes named him to the "30 Under 30" list in the category of law and policy. In 2017, he became a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies. He also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Soave won widespread recognition for setting the record straight in two infamous cases of media malpractice: the 2014 Rolling Stone hoax article about sexual assault at the University of Virginia, and the 2019 incident involving Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial. He won a Southern California Journalism Award for discrediting the former; his writings about the latter prompted several mainstream media outlets to apologize for having wrongly smeared the boys.

A Detroit native, and a graduate of the University of Michigan, Soave now lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Carrie, and their two Yorkies, Caesar and Oliver.

Reviews

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's closer to a 2.5 stars but I give him the extra 1/2 star credit for his Progressive safe space "woke" definitions. No easy task.

There are parts I skim read with speed because they were 90% anecdotal through times I observed or read thoroughly about before, like the Berkeley Campus free speech movement escapades of decades ago. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. testimony and example criteria for base line civil rights activism as he practiced it. Those past things that I have seen myself, lived through.

What I found the best parts of the book for my use, were the intersectionality related chapters and the drawing of the activist landscape. Including safe spaces context for the present young college age crowds in the USA and elsewhere. That part was at least a 4 star window to the division they advance and the anger that is so apparent and visible. I have described it here and elsewhere for many years as drinking water from their own self-poisoned wells. He at one point within Women's March and other prime activist's voices/ examples equates it to a snake eating its own tail. Regardless, it was anecdotal in largest portions too. But not as filled with vast generalizations about society in general and voters in particular that he floats throughout the rest of the book. And it did teach me a few things about why this is so endlessly dividing to society, increasingly within emotion and in loyalty observable MORE every year. And how that Berkeley campus could have gone from such champions of Free Speech to muzzling every other voice with resultant violence of "worthy or not" to have one. Arriving currently to a state of function where every word or phrasing has to be "apt" or conscience or offensive or some "not" acceptable to hear kind of line judgment.

It's incredibly depressing as a book on the whole to hear these (sounding miserable and angst radiating) voices, IMHO, and also in some of the Trump information completely outdated to the point of 180 degrees wrong in policy classifications etc.

Many of the chapters of individual's stories / interview are faulty. Many of them in groups like Antifa are not at all what they have told him about themselves on top of it. And eventually admitting by sections and by individuals that they are bottom line anarchist and want all government violated, pulled down, act/violence destroyed. It was pitiable that the victims of violence interviewed or reported in nearly all cases were other left sided or extremist factions of their own ilk or mere innocent passers-by of no relationship at all to the politico event in which they were killed or seriously injured. Some in several cases most publicized, members of the youth school papers or press.

I wouldn't suggest this read unless you are like me and don't fully "get" (we over 65 come from another era of such ENORMOUSLY different necessary priorities) why people of such youth and vigor, not in any way having to grow/provide their own food, who have solid dependent shelter lodging, and days filled with nothing more exerting than lifting keys or notebooks- would be so endlessly angry and mean spirited in general. And so dismissive of the exact vast community and country system that made the life of their "ideas"and time restraints /life possible.

It's depressive for "eyes" of Soave too. He states he is a libertarian, but in his judgments and inclusions, IMHO, he's not really. Like the Progressive movement he also classifies anything with a policy program such as JFK would have had as "far right". It isn't. And the research and classifications of politico "position" slant along a spectrum aren't up to a 3 star either. Those are barely 2 stars.

It also did help me understand from their "eyes" why there are so many hate crime hoaxes. Some I had forgotten about that are decades old now. This victimhood is a cred and seems to validate themselves to their anger "justified".

[Carrie (The Butterfly Reader) · Rating 4 out of 5]

*I received this for free in exchange for an honest review*

I don't think this was quite the right book for me, not because it's a bad book but because I already knew everything the author was talking about. I've been following all the 'radical' news since it started to effect the book community. So I know just how... passionate these kind of people are. Now, I will say that it also talks about the alt-alright and discusses them as well. What I loved was how he showed the older generations and how they went after things and how my generation does it today. That was awesome. While I don't agree with everything the author says, it was pretty nifty seeing some of this stuff through another's eyes. As long as those are eyes are still reasonable and not so far gone down the rabbit hole on either side.

“I think of safety as the right of every person to leave their house or to leave wherever they live, to walk this world and to feel safe and comfortable in their own skin, in their own ways that they identify, and to not fear violence, not fear prejudice, not fear discrimination, to not fear being bothered or to not fear living." - My favorite quote

[Bonnie · Rating 1 out of 5]

A terrible book. The author did little research and used anecdotal stories to form a sweeping opinion. In the chapter on the metoo movement he tells stories of people wrongfully accused. This is the exception not the reality. The author thinks that all zillenials are entitled and weak. This reminds me of Socrates believing that the next generation was the worse. It isn't. It's just different.

[Scott Larson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Inaccurate, poorly researched, assumes facts not in evidence.

This book is a collection of assumptions that many millennials tout as fact that in reality are not. Honest research should lead the author to recognize that basic premises discussed as factual are deeply flawed while cherry-picked statistics skew the author’s assertions toward a pre-determined viewpoint.
I can not recommend this volume as it is blatantly dishonest in its intent.

[Chris Lira · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a number of social commentary books like this(The Coddling of the American Mind, Campus Rape Frenzy, Unjustified, etc.) and this one is a real standout. First off, the author is a libertarian, so he is often at odds with the more conservative positions taken in those books. He also discusses excesses of the right as well as the left- something those books don't do at all, or skim over. The result is a very balanced perspective.

There are a few points he made that I found particularly interesting:

1. I had no idea UC Berkeley was a stronghold of free speech and open discourse back in the 60's, The author contrasts that with what it is now- quite the opposite.

2. The author's point about the genesis of young people's' need for safe spaces and protection from harmful thoughts may be at least partially due(if not more) to their parents, and the media, and it is not something they developed on their own. The practices of parents that overshield their children with their perception that a child-kidnapper lurks around every corner, and now with school shootings. The author uses *statistics* to point out that child kidnappings and school shootings are both very, very rare events. But the media saturates coverage on these events, driving the perception of heightened danger. So given these things, is it any wonder that college kids feel the need for protection?

3. I really liked that the author differentiated between speech that is protected and speech that is not, and cited relevant court cases(Matal vs. Tam, and Brandenburg vs. Ohio, respectively). I really like Samuel Alito's words in the unanimous finding on the former:

"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom the express 'the thought that we hate'".

There's a lot of misunderstanding about what is and isn't free speech so I like that the author brought up both.

The book is well-written and well-cited. Names, dates, places, publications, etc. It's not just a bunch of invective in either direction. We that sort of civil, balanced discourse.

[Alan Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read opinion pieces by Robby Soave before since I support the Reason Foundation, which he works for. He is a first amendment absolutist, as am I, the question being that if you want to curtail free speech, who is qualified to do it? If everybody, all speech is in danger. If one person, that person then becomes a dictator. One more thing: Robby and I are both graduates of the University of Michigan. The book is about the activism of millennials and Gen Z, for which he has coined the term Zillennials. The activists described in the book are in a minority on college campuses (my grandsons who are both in college at the moment are not among them) but they have had an effect much greater than their number, such as shutting down speakers invited to campuses. Soave talks about intersectionality, which is a term applied to their tactics, and which the author shows is ultimately self defeating if they want to make changes in the world. The book is well written, with examples galore, and is a good read for anybody who is interested in free speech versus the alternative.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclosure: I know the author personally and have spent time at libertarian conferences with him since college.

After reading Jonathan Haidt's 'The Coddling of the American Mind' I was really excited to hear that Robby was going to write further on that topic. He has been in the trenches for a while and does a nice job of walking the reader through the current political radicals on both ends of the spectrum.

While Haidt's take was more academic and theory-based, Soave's take is more experience-based. He has been to the rallies and conferences and done interviews with many.

It's worth a read, but I'd recommend reading it in conjunction with Haidt's work to get a well-rounded view.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't be dissuaded from reading this book just because the author is a Libertarian. He is very even-handed, and provides valuable criticism of the tactics used by far lest activists. He has special criticism for intersectionality, not so much that the concept is wrong, but that it has been used too vigorously on the left to the point that it has destroyed any chance of unity among various groups on the left. Too deep a commitment to intersectionality has led many far left activists to even consider moderate left-wing activists as the enemy. In order for the left to meet with success, Soave believes that much more inclusiveness needs to be fostered so that, for example, feminists of all stripes, even those who do not support every left-wing goal, should be partnered with. Instead, may times far-left activists exclude any feminist who is not fully trans supportive or who is not purely pro-choice. This dilutes the power the left might otherwise have to bring about substantive change on the broader issues of concern to all feminists.

Soave also speaks out strongly against the left's (and the right's) tendency to shut down free speech. Free speech is a foundational Constitutional right that needs to be sustained, and by not upholding it, healthy dialog is not possible. He also criticizes what he calls the Zillennials for being too fixated on safe spaces, a problem that also impacts free speech.

Although I do not agree with some of Soave's Libertarian ideas, he does provide a useful critique of the left and of how activism might be more effective. I was pleasantly surprised at how perceptive he is, and his facts, for the ,ost part seem accurate. Sometimes he seems to err on being too critical, but he usually pulls back to provide perspective.

[Joel]

Pretty OK?

I would probably rather read a sociological study of young activists of various stripes than this sort of recap of news stories about them, I think. As a phenomenon, I'm morbidly interested in the polarization and radicalization of people at various ends of the political spectrum but I just wanted more somehow

[Kim Volk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish all of my friends and family would read this book! I especially wish those who continue to espouse the rhetoric of partisan politics (either side) would read this book - then maybe the level of political discourse in this country would rise to the point people could actually have intelligent and reasonable conversations. They might even understand why castigating those who don’t think like them on social media is counter-productive. Robby Soave is a libertarian, who attended the University of Michigan from 2006-2010. He is a terrific reporter and a talented writer. This book is a well-researched, in-depth look at millennial activism across the political spectrum and is presented in a respectful and interesting way.

[Alex Zakharov · Rating 5 out of 5]

I never heard of Robby Soave until Arnold Kling mentioned “Panic Attack” in his ‘Best of 2019’ book list. Soave covers similar ground to Douglas Murray’s “Madness of Crowds”, but there are a few key differences that make Soave’s book better. Firstly, in addition to general trends in feminism, trans, and race activism, Soave goes over a number of specific movements including Antifa, Black Lives Matter (BLM), Alt-Right, and Socialist Party USA. Secondly, Soave succeeds in maintaining an enviably detached attitude throughout the book. He neither sympathizes nor vilifies any of the activists, but simply provides a libertarian-leaning analysis of the ideologies that animate various groups.

Naturally, as every good libertarian, Soave is well-versed in the Bill of Rights, Constitutional amendments, legal precedent and history of seminal court cases. Throughout the book he draws on that knowledge often, and deploys it quite effectively when looking at many issues including post-2011 Title IX enforcement, speech codes on campus, and hate speech debates.

Soave lays the groundwork by pointing out the key commonalities between far left and far right activism: commitment to identitarianism, hostility towards free speech, distrust of the mainstream press, and distrust of the elites. He shows how every movement that he considered has these characteristics, although the vectors of their expressions can differ. For example, for the identitarian left the elites are capitalists and the rich, while for the far-right the elites are typically the jews. But also, quite often the object of critique is the same. For example, both “we don’t talk to the press” Antifa and the Neo-Nazis despise the CNN.

He cleanly presents the anatomy of intersectionality – the ideological workhorse of the progressive left. The key tenets boil down to the assertion that only the oppressed can be the true arbiters of their own victimhood, and the all-or-none commitment to the causes of all victimized groups.

This doctrinal foundation presents three fundamental practical problems: Educational Problem (“I don’t have time to educate you, but I’m also the sole arbiter of my victimhood”), Perfection Problem (e.g. you can’t be a good feminist, unless you also fight for racial and environmental justice, and resist inequalities of sizeism and ageism), and a Coalition Problem (e.g. all-or-none commitment requirement prevents somebody who is anti-racist, but doesn’t care about abortion or queer issues from joining forces to push through meaningful reforms).

While some of the problems seem esoteric and can be charitably written off to internal squabbling, Soave shows that identitarinism and intersectionality are uncomfortable bedfellows, and how the tensions in their dynamics can discredit and disarm their ostensible goals. For example, 2017 Women’s March was criticized by intersectional left for being too inclusive and too cisgender centric.

A converse example is criminal justice reform: the effort to attenuate mass incarceration, war on drugs, and police militarization used to have bipartisan support before 2015, but stalled ever since. Why? The easy answer is that Trump is to blame, but Soave urges us to consider the possibility that emergence of BLM, that heavily racialized all criminal justice issues, have made the reform less likely. Slogans like “Liberalism is White Supremacy” won’t win you too many allies on either side of the Congressional aisle.

Another related theme of the book is how activism can create conditions that spread the very thing it claims to oppose. For example, Antifa is quite explicit in words and action about using violence to fight real and perceived neo-Nazis, and that makes actual neo-Nazi recruitment easier. It is instructive that Antifa proudly cites the famous 1936 London anti-Fascist protests (“Battle of Cable Street”) as their inspiration. The sad irony is that in the months after the protests, it is estimated that Oswald Mosley’s British fascist party gained two thousand members, almost doubling its membership.

The above is just a sampler of the themes, the book covers many more areas including rape on campus and its disparate impact, racist and sexist incidents as well as hoaxes, longitudinal hate crime statistics, trans desistance and autogynephilia debates, Richard Spencer’s popularity, BLM’s criticism of ACLU, legal status of hate speech in US and Europe, appeal of Bernie Sanders, and Antonio Gramsci’s critical theory to name a few.

Much ink has been spilled on all these subjects elsewhere, but Soave’s coverage is unusual in that he identifies the generative model that drives various illiberal movements of the last two decades, and once you see the underlying mechanism you can’t unsee it. What is even more unique is that his narrative is neither triggering nor depressing. Recommended!

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers the weaponization of oppression by the left. Sadly the youth have indebted themselves with huge debt for an education in victimization. Soave writes about intersectionality in how insane it is. Here is my attempt to explain it. Apparently, if a white male that is gay is supporting a gay cause, he is not allowed because he is missing a oppression component. Apparently a person in a wheelchair cannot be called "wheelchair-bound" and not only, can you not call him/her that but you cannot even ask them what they would like to be called. It is truly the most insane attack on the first amendment.

Soave correctly calls out the ACLU on not sending up for free speech and that it has become an intersectionalist organization. Intersectionism will not last though because its goal is to continue to thin the "allowed" speech and in doing so alienating even supporters of the foundational issue. They will alienate or should I say "undocument" (sarcasm) everyone that does not meet the intersection dé jour.

Additionally, their own rhetoric works against them. If I say something about anti-black racism and they say I cannot because I am not black, well how about if I identify is a black person? Are there only some people that can "identify" and have it respected? Ironically, Black Conservatives are not allowed to use their "oppression" in any kind of statement. As a matter of fact, they are attacked viciously at times.

These people are not prepared for society in my opinion. Our enemies are laughing at us at how we are imploding from within. To think that these babies are our future is truly scary. It seems the more outlandish and cruel comments about people who disagree, the better you are in their eyes.

If there is any positive side of this book, is that these idiots are going to eat their own.

It was truly a great book. It is scary and sad, but very informative.

[Jay · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has been the story of two extremes…woke intersectional safe-space progressivism and red-pilled identitarian right-wing populism. It explains where they come from, what happens when they clash, and why they ultimately depend on each other.

I learned a ton from this book. Especially the nomenclature. Robby does a great job pulling from history and tying all of the issues we are witnessing today together. If you are confused by the state of our youth and political environment, read this. Robby does a nice job keeping it balanced.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author sums it up best.

"This book has been the story of two extremes, woke intersectional safe-space progressivism and red-pilled identitarian right-wing populism—where they come from, what happens when they clash, and why they ultimately depend upon each other."

It's about the never-ending, spiraling cycle of polarity and insanity from these two antitheses, and their symbiotic relationship of dependence on the other.

This book can appeal to any political person across the spectrum that is concerned with free speech and due process, and how extremists from both the Right and Left trample on these values. Unless you're already an alt-right Nazi or sociopath woke intersectionalist of the specific variety described within, there's probably not a lot here that will offend you, even if you don't agree with the author's specific viewpoint.

It's made clear throughout, and by the title alone, that the focus is on the most radical examples of Left and Right politics gone wrong. But these matters can and have affected factional dialogue for years now, shaping minds and activism in the process. They've had an untold and possibly unknowable effect on political discourse across the country.

The author does a tremendous amount of research. He visited a plethora of college campuses, along with conferences, rallies, and speeches, in order to engage the various activists in conversation. Whenever possible, he used their own words to describe the movements, ideas, and forces at play. This is intermingled with a healthy dose of objectively factual information about the different topics, rooted in history, from recent news at the time of publication, to the foundations of various organizational beliefs.

Perhaps one of my complaints about the book is that the tagline "in the age of Trump" is a little misleading. While that's the timeframe the author collected most of his research and factors extensively into this work, many of the ideas and histories start well before Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, and the pages examine those time periods as well.

It was difficult giving this book a 5* rating when most sections made me angry. The sheer amount of bigotry, hypocrisy, and downright insanity that formulates certain other worldviews boggles my mind. It's important to constantly remember, especially in this currently polarized political climate, that the newsworthy actions of a relatively limited group does not necessarily reflect politics as a whole, and that most people believe in their causes. That their causes are ultimately the most beneficial for society.

Like anyone moderately engaged in politics, I'm at least marginally fearful of what the future could bring. All of us have vastly different visions of America and what's best for the country. For those of us not trapped in divisive, hateful echo chambers, hopefully we can start working across aisles again to find the common ground that unites us as citizens and fellow human beings.

[Jim Dowdell · Rating 2 out of 5]

When free speech was not only permitted but expected in the unwashed public sphere, we were allowed to believe that there was a difference between men and women. There were standards of chivalry and decorum that permitted adjusted adults to converse with no expectation of violence. Opinions could be and would be different and the normal discourse would follow a road of logic to a destination of improved knowledge. This book is not like that. it fails in the sought-after results of opening minds to common values. I find it sad because it exposes my “identity group” to the reasons and values of the enemy identity groups in this war against our civilization – the culture war. The superficial examination of the “woke” social engineers is useful on an immediate tactical level. By showing the backstory motivations and goals of the “progressives” who are hell bent on destroying our Judeo/Christian civilization we can tailor our response more effectively. But those looking for the basic premises of the “progressive” movement will be disappointed.
Because Robby Soave is so marinated in new age thinking he has missed the forest and only sees the trees. While he claims to look through the lens of an outsider, he never seems to be able to drop the “snowflake” generation conditioning. He investigates the “woke” tribe from the inside with no great insight on the culture and fails to investigate any basic foundations.
The book is easy reading, well written by a professional social commentator. Unfortunately for those looking for solutions, looking for rational return to the power of the individual to control his own life, or those hoping to see how to return to the experiment that is evolving human society to accommodate true human nature, this is a step in the wrong direction.
At a time of constitutional upheaval with the “un-election Schiff Show” (and all the other DNC Star Chamber Show Trials) his stated anti Trump bias disqualifies him as an influencer. Not because of the bias, but because he can not step out of the “progressive” mindset to look on the trees from the level of the forest. This is a failing of the all the “burn it down and build a better utopia” “woke” forces. This is not any better than the general mainstream media opinion masters. His claim to be a fair reporter is nullified by this failure. He had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but he couldn’t do it.
I would file this book in the “I do not agree with your ideas but I defend your rights to express them” file. Then I would reread this as a soldier would read the reports from intelligence operators. The useful information helps my strategy planning. So my one line assessment of the value of this work; “Not a waste of money or time, just not as advertised’”.
Read and enjoy it, just don’t look for insights into returning to the coveted free speech era.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a bad book. In many ways, it's well-researched. However, I have some issues with the factual statements made by the author, including (not verbatim)

"Donald Trump's appalling treatment of women"

"Black and Hispanic women have more to fear from Donald Trump than white women"

"Gamergate is largely male and the movement is about opposing political correctness in videogames"

"Milo Y. was attracted to Gamergate for the attention it would garner him; he formerly was insulting towards gamers"

"What about Christina Hoff Sommers, who also supports Gamergate?"

"Cultural Marxism is a Nazi and anti-gay term?"

Of all of the above, I think the latter statement about cultural Marxism, might actually be true.

However, I think the author is wrong about Gamergate. It really was about fairness in video game reviews, and many of the Gamergate activists are women.

I'm still puzzled by why black and Hispanic women have more to fear from the president than do white women. As far as I can tell, from the last 40-50 years he has spent in the public eye, Trump actually loves, not hates, women. But, if for some reason, the author thinks that black and Hispanic women have more to fear from the president than do white women, he should have supplied some kind of evidence to back up the statement. For example, if the president were known to have actually assaulted women, or otherwise physically injured them, and if those assaults were almost entirely against black and Hispanic women, I'd say that Soave's statement is true. But because there is no evidence that the president ever assaulted any woman, it really makes the book less valid, in my opinion.

Overall, a fair book, but too biased against Trump to really be anything more than a political book. It's a shame, because without the political bias, this book could have been a more longlasting statement on the early 2000s, but I can only ever remember it as a book by a guy who dislikes the president. Still, not a bad write-up!

[DH · Rating 3 out of 5]

Soave is an able reporter who provides a panoramic tour of the activist landscape inhabited by millennials and Gen Z. He delves into campus pc wars, intersectionality and sexual harassment rules with the old school investigative reporter verve that illuminates the contradictions and conundrums common among today's leftists. His self-declared libertarian stance - he writes for Reason Magazine and is funded in part (gulp) by the Koch brothers - ensures his chapter on democratic socialism is shallow and dismissive. Tell that to 13 million Bernie voters in 2016! However, his embrace of free speech - something that many young leftists today have eschewed at their own peril - helps him imagine a common arena for the battle of ideas where the quality of one's argument, not the stifling of speech through virtue signaling, is the measure of merit. Worth reading, despite his failure to grapple with the merits of social democracy and regulated markets over his imagined libertarian Valhalla, which always ends up looking more like Somalia than Stockholm. Worth reading.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was well researched and well written. I was not sure what to think prior to reading it as the topic of politics and Trump is so polarizing nowadays its hard to be rational and logical. Soave looks at how millennials are protesting and how it differs/ compares with previous generations. I love how this book didn't focus on just one end of the political spectrum. The most important aspect of this book was how it highlighted how these "protests" across universities are a means to stifle differing opinions and free speech. This topic is one that should be important for every person, regardless of how they fit on the right and left spectrum. This book also provides an excellent insight into how millennials are viewing modern political protest. I look forward to reading the sequel that will likely come out after the 2020 election *regardless of the results. I received an ARC in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.

[Counselor1 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Libertarianism in general strikes me as anemic, a not- full-blooded commitment to human improvement, human welfare. But I bought and read this book and have found it quite useful. Soave has done an entertaining job revealing idealistic young Leftists hacking away at each other in debates. The uber debate Is of course between capitalism and socialism. Here in old age I'm inclined now to agree with the witticism of John Kenneth Galbraith who said " Under capitalism man exploits man. Under socialism it's just the opposite." Human work involves pushing a mass through a space. Under some conditions it can feel good and under other conditions it can be onorous. These conditions can be either good or onerous under each basic system. Capitalism has now had a longer development in the US protected by geography and nurtured by science, than has socialism in Russia and China. Russia and China have great inequalities of wealth and power just as does the US.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this book was well-researched and interesting. I graduated college back in 2001 and while there was definitely a left of center push, it's ridiculous now what I read on the news sites, the fake news phenomenon, and comments to internet news articles. It's also amazing to me the amount of obvious pandering that occurs.

I do not agree with the author on his opinions he would throw into there upon occasion. For example, he discusses the rarety of school shootings and how the media sensationalizes them to make them seem much more prevalent, but did not do so regarding perceived police attacking minorities stories; that's just hypocritical in my view.

The book is an interesting read, however.

[Rheathebookwormdreamergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

**4.3 Actual Rating
I will start by saying, I was a little hesitant to read this book, but I am glad I did. Also, I want to state that is by no means a perfect book, and I do not agree with everything Soave says. However, it is a well written book and offers some insight into a group that we often don't as serious as we should. This book also drives home the point that when we focus on the loudest voices, we tend to get extreme versions, and I think it is important to understand that there is such a thing as going too far in one direction or the other. I think Soave is presenting an interesting argument, and I think that overall it is worth a read, no matter what side of the aisle you stand on.

[Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I now know more about "woke intersectional safe-space progressivism" and "red-pilled identitarian right-wing populism" than I ever wanted to know!

This book only got 3 stars because of it's dry content. The writer--Robby Soave--is a competent writer and took very complicated issues and made them clearer. Would that this book could rid the world of alt-left and alt-right views and activism, we'd be so-o-o much better off; but, alas, that will never happen.

And an aside... it wouldn't have taken me this long to read this book, but I took a break from it to read "One Good Deed" by David Baldacci because I would not have been able to renew it.

[Bailey Loveless · Rating 2 out of 5]

It uses tweets as sources, need I say more? Look there’s a lot of valid ways to criticize the left, but I honestly don’t know who this book was for. It really doesn’t provide make an appealing, persuasive case for anyone who identifies as progressive to get their act together, and doesn’t provide much beyond anecdotes that basically anyone on the left, right, or center could prob ask already tell you. It’ll piss off the progressives and get the conservatives to go off about special snowflakes. So is it for extraterrestrials? People living under a rock? Or is just an to monetize a longer version of clickbaity, echo chamber drivel we see all the time?

[Mathew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a phenomenal book. It's a really interesting expose on the evolution of activist politics, and how that has influenced college students today, some of which will probably be entering the work force this year or next. It was also interesting to reflect on my own political ideas back when I was getting ready to go to college, especially considering I graduated high school and Bush got 4 more years. I can't really imagine being a high school student going into college today with the possibility of 4 more years of Trump.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, especially if you aren't a regular Reason reader. A lot of the stories will be familiar to Reason readers however Soave does a great job tying things together into a cohesive and intelligent narrative. The book is even handed in it's treatment of the extremes and while he spends more time on some of the baffling positions taken by the illiberal left, he is clearly more concerned, and as a result hard on, the illiberal right.

[Jaime · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book as a easy primer to help me organize my thoughts about the current cultural milieu. There is literally nothing new in here; it's best suited for those who have no idea whats going on and need a jumping off point. 3/5 stars because there is absolutely nothing I can say about it.

[Theri Rowen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book . I loved reading his interviews especially the theater professor Helen who is just trying to teach her acting class and then all of the sudden she cant do it because the students feel triggered. Robby is terrific reporter and reports the truth. I cant wait to read his next book

[Patrick Duran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Soave provides insight on intersectionality and identity politics which was much appreciated on my part, as I've been trying to understand all the divisive rhetoric which is becoming more common in our culture. Robby's writing is sprinkled with his opinion on certain issues, which may or may not be appreciated.

[Zak · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was fairly balanced, but then I see some reviews calling him a leftist and some others accusing him of being anti-right, so maybe I don't know much about these things. I guess that's what you get nowadays for standing somewhat in the middle.

[Kristen · Rating 4 out of 5]

4⭐️.

You have to be willing to give this book a chance and understand the points of view. I think this an important book to understand now in our country & why Trump may have made so many people so unhappy. I enjoy politics and dabble in all points of view. I am not attached to any, one party.