For some time now, I’ve been following the work of Nathan J. Robinson, the founder and editor of Current Affairs, a journal that provides some of the most solid and thorough discussion of current events to be found. Time and again, I’ve been impressed by his astute and informed commentary. So I was excited to hear about his new book, Responding to the Right. And now that I’ve read it, I’m pleased to say that it measures up to expectations.
In the book, Robinson deftly dismantles 25 of the most common right-wing talking points and doctrines. These include trickle-down economics, transphobia, taxes are evil, panic over migrants, the Christian persecution complex, and the deification of the nation’s founders.
It’s a rather extensive list. And yet there are some glaring omissions — most conspicuously, climate science denial and “more guns, less crime”. But Robinson has already addressed those issues elsewhere, and giving them the treatment they warrant in this volume perhaps would have taken up an undue amount of space — the 25 discussions included are each brief enough to be consumed in a single sitting. Yet they are also packed with facts and reason, and supported by a considerable depth and breadth of sources, with suggestions for further reading. In some cases, he also seasons the hearty stew with his own personal experience.
For example, in dismantling the myth that paying employees a decent wage is economically unsustainable, he points to his own experience as the founder of a business on a shoestring who paid his employees enough that they actually didn’t have to sell their blood to survive. And in addressing the persistent and popular credo that college campuses are hotbeds of leftist indoctrination, he mentions that as a left-wing student at one of the most liberal Universities in the nation, he found it a Sisyphean struggle to break through the dam of apathy and get students involved in progressive activism at all.
For all its meaty matter, Responding to the Right occasionally misses an opportunity here and there. In tackling the canard that “abortion is murder”, he could have pointed out that, contrary to common right-wing phraseology, there is no “moment of conception”, because conception can take several days. More important, the beginning, middle and end of any discussion of abortion should be that banning or restricting it actually causes the incidence to increase. That inconvenient and ineluctable fact should quash the “debate” on the topic and unite opponents of, and advocates for, reproductive choice to work together toward a common goal. But in order for that to happen, the truth must get out. Yet he barely hints at it in passing.
But while the book might have its flaws, it’s certainly not a flawed book. In addition to the heart of the volume that picks apart the 25 theses, there is a section with an excellent breakdown of the propaganda techniques (some of which echo or dovetail with the “propaganda props” you’ll find on the present site) and logical fallacies — all of which make conservative stances sound much better than they really are, and thus have helped to make conservatives “wildly successful” in getting their points across.
Additionally, there’s a section on how to debate conservatives, if you really feel so inclined. Robinson operates on the (perhaps inexcusably naive) assumption that there is a significant number of conservatives out there who actually can be reasoned with. In fact, he actually dedicates the book to “those on the right who are open-minded and thoughtful enough to entertain the idea that they have gotten everything completely wrong.” As well as, presumably, to all the five-legged unicorns in southwest Nebraska.
You have to give him credit, at least to some extent, for being willing to engage right-wing “ideas”, both in this book and in his columns. It’s a mistake, he asserts, that so many on the left are dismissive of conservative arguments, regarding them as unworthy of consideration; this, he says, simply allows those claims to go unchecked and become more deeply rooted in the public psyche. There is a great deal of truth to this; certainly, it’s important to debunk lies and misinformation — hence this blog. But it’s also important to remember that every time you repeat a lie, even to debunk it, you give it another set of wings. It may not be fair, but that’s how the world works. So it’s important to be very careful that you give a minimum of space to the lies, and a maximum to the truth.
Furthermore, it’s possible to address the lies without giving credit to the individuals who propagate them. Bear in mind that many right-wingers — a very, very great many — are motivated mostly by a desire for attention. And they will say absolutely anything to get it. They don’t care if their utterances are tethered at all to reality; they just want to hear their names repeated. So it’s important to avoid repeating them as much as possible. And at least 90 percent of what they say can be safely ignored, anyway. It’s when their statements gain traction and become memes that their words need to be blown apart. But even then, you can do so without giving the attention whores what they crave. Robinson prefaces each chapter with a series of credited right-wing quotes that are indeed relevant to the discussion; but there’s no reason he couldn’t have cited them without attribution.
Another highly questionable assumption he makes is that conservatives have been more successful in getting their message out in part because they tend to be better writers than liberals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What conservatives are skilled at (as he himself details) is catty put-downs, pithy soundbites, simple-minded straw men and mindless mantras. Which hardly add up to literary prowess, particularly when there is little to no substance involved.
Many liberal commentators are or have been excellent writers, and genuinely entertaining, with something of value to say. Michael Moore and Al Franken come to mind, along with Greg Palast and the late Molly Ivins. Garrison Keillor, though he strays into political waters only intermittently, is an unabashed liberal; and you won’t find a more skilled wordsmith anywhere in the galaxy.
But you can just about count on one finger of one hand the living conservative commentators who are eloquent and lucid. Jonah Goldberg. That’s just about it. He has absolutely nothing to say, but he says it pretty well. As for the rest of the stable of right-wing punditry, they are pretty much all as thin on literary style as they are on substance. If you’ve read one of them, you’ve read them all. Even the rare conservative who achieves a genuine acumen in letters — e.g., William F. Buckley or perhaps Thomas Sowell — simply uses florid rhetoric and pedantic bombast to mask utterly hollow arguments in support of intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology.
Robinson, by his own admission, is no William Faulkner. But he is an assiduous scholar and thinker (and you don’t have to be, as he is, a socialist to appreciate his skill and his achievements), and his book is an invaluable contribution to the public forum that hardly could have come at a better time.
The Propaganda Professor 
Does the book discuss how to counter whataboutism or false equivalence, their trying to make an argument more about a larger issue than the specific thing that you’re discussing and just how conservatives generally change the subject?
He does discuss these techniques, though he doesn’t brand them as such.
Thanks for tipping me off about Currentaffairs.com And the work of Nathan J Robinson. I have added it to my short cuts and will examine it in the future.
Why all the hatred?
After reading your comments about Nathan J. Robinson’s book, I googled his name and found a 37-minute video of him being interviewed by Greg Godel (who is a communist) and Pat Cummings (who is a self-described socialist) One thing that immediately stood out to me was how very young Robinson is, yet he still considered a great intellectual, and perhaps he is? I was expecting to see an older person like other talented thinkers who commonly display definite signs of aging, especially as Godel does.
But yes, Just as you noted Robinson seems very intelligent despite, or because of, his youthful presence. And since I often become aggressive and polarized when trying to argue with Trumpers I found his open-minded observations about why Trumpers are upset when they are criticized for being mindless and stupid MAGA worshipers–a characterization that few of us would enjoy. And although it’s easy for me to be aggressively insulting when encountering what I beleive are ridiculously shallow beliefs and snide comments. None of us yearns to give up certain sacred beliefs that are sincere but also untrue, and just as anger-inducing for Liberals as it is for the followrers of Trump
In a recent phone conversation with a relative who agreed with me that Hillary shouldn’t have chosen to describe Trumpers as a basket of deplorables, I responded by saying, maybe she was right on the mark. When I allow myself to listen to the commentary on Fox News, I usually cannot survive for more than a few minutes of their smug and insulting views that ofen bring to mind a phrase from” (I Am The Walrus)” by John Lennon as he witnessed the surreal presence of riot policemen; If I remember correctly some of the lyrics were, “See the policemen, pretty little policemen in a row. See how they run like pigs from a gun ,see how they snide!” Although describing the police as pigs has never been ok to me, that word “snide,” seems pretty descriptive of the attitudes displayed by the commentators on Fox who deliver “catty put-downs, pity soundbites, simple-minded straw men and mindless mantras”–as you observed.
During the 60s while participating in a State speech contest, I left my motel room to witness a long line of menacing riot police dressed in dark black helmets and dark black clothing, Their billy clubs in hand. The entire spectacle was quite surrealistic and unnerving. They were there to contain rioters and students at our State’s capitol. However, Robinson is right when he notes that no one likes to be called stupid for holding certain ideas that they passionately believe, (both confimred conservatives and dedicated liberals). So today, in a letter I sent to the opinion page of a local newspaper, I tried to tone it down and not be so aggressive when responding to an older writer who is dismayed by liberals and the permissive and sinful attitudes that she believes we have all created. Here is a copy of the letter I wrote:
“Chuck, I believe this letter is under 300 words so please tell me if you will use it.”
I have recently discovered the work of Nathan J. Robinson who wrote a book titled, “Responding to the Right” In which Robinson dissects some of the common reasons liberals and conservatives are locked into endless debates that characterize each other as being stupid or evil.
I believe that Mitchell’s views make personal sense to her and that she is not just using them lightly. But why does she condemn liberal’s who accept Transgenders and gays? To her, those terms seem to be associated with evil things that make no sense to her. Thus If asked why she wants to “save” gays and Transgenders, she might respond “Why should I be criticized for not condoning evil? What’s wrong with that?” But many liberals are also upset about being insulted. So though she can believe anything she wants, unfortunately, that seems to include rejecting the objective research of MDs, psychiatrists, and psychologists, as evil? However, dedicated people who accept science do not hate children or want to perform “sadistic surgery” intended to “mutilate their genitals.” So, why do many religious people believe such absurd things? Teachers aren’t plotting to (make all our children gay)–That’s bizarre disinformation used to justify religious dogma. Democrats don’t believe that the Obamas and the Clintons ran a child sex trafficking ring, and for that matter, that Trump too would never do such a thing! and we are also angered by how false the claims of conservatives are. So can Mitchell tell us why she entertains such extreme beliefs–blaming those of us who hold liberal views of condoning evil? Like her, liberals use our beliefs as ways to help those who are suffering. So please, Will you explain yourself, Rosemarie?
Another thing I have noted is that at times I get so passionate about trying to rebut the comments of global warming deniers and contrarians, that I don’t choose my words well, and begin to feel like the struggle is about who is the most moral or who is the better person. However, I have noticed that climate scientists do not want to engage in petty debates with deniers, because they are not happy about needing to report the immensity of the climate disruption we all face. If anyone found a better way to lower C02 without drastically cutting dangerous amounts of man-made C02, climate scientists would be overjoyed because that would mean that millions of species would survive, as well as ourselves. So, If climate scientists want to keep their vital information “pure” why shouldn’t I? Climate change (is) a threat that is all too real, and wealthy oil executives are still attempting to distort the message as an issue of who is morally right and who is morally wrong. But it’s not a theological debate and no matter who wins, if C02 is not kept at prudent levels, all of us will suffer, and yelling “WE TOLD YOU SO” will not change a thing!
(POP) Here it is again above, with edits added.
Pete
I have not seen your previous comment.
OK that’s allright.
Peter Johnson
From:purlundmagaxqfolly@yahoo.com
To:purlundmagaxqfolly@yahoo.com
Thu, Apr 25 at 8:53 PM
purlundmagaxqfolly@yahoo.comShow original message
I found almost everything said in the article to be true except for one. You are painting with a way to wide brush while claiming that Conception is a process that includes the time it takes (before) an egg can be fertilized by a sperm cell, as well as what time of the month a woman is most likely to conceive, relative to the times of the month that she is most fertile. Yes, all these things can be considered factors, leading up to the moment conception. But consider these cases in point. in addition to considering all those extra factors, why not also consider the age at which men can first climax as adolescents, and then add maybe 5 years or more before they first have intercourse, or before they get married to a spouse whom they want to have children with? And additionally, perhaps you should include the time it takes before an adolescent woman has her first period. Then maybe we should add the time it takes for human beings to become attracted to those of the opposite sex. After all, pheromones are part of our biochemical makeup and thus, might determine how long it takes for someone to begin a sexual relationship–in addition to the date and time when intercourse first occurs, and result in the pregnancy of a female spouse, or perhaps you should add the lengh of time it takes before a husband has an affair with another woman, as well as the time it may take a woman to have an affair with another man, besides her actual spouse–(and how long that kind of relationship remains active)? Or perhaps the most common way of measuring when a pregnancy begins can simply be measured from the time a sperm and egg combine and begin the unique genetic process of producing another human being, because only after that time can the biological and genetic process of creating a human child begins to unfold. However, just because I believe it happens in such a personally indesputable way, (that the development of a child happens only after that), does not define me as being a pro-life person or pro-choice person–because even though it takes time to begin and then complete a pregnancy I don’t think that any specific time before a fetus is truly known to be alive satisfies all the questions scientists and philosopher have. Scientists know that at a given time the embryo may not have a nervous system, or a muscular system, feel pain, or even fear death. So I think it is acceptable to abort a fetus before15 weeks when it first becomes visible and looks about as large as a peanut–which is commonly revealed during an ultrasound procedure. And of course, exceptions should be made when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or that of her child, because not to allow assitance under those circumstances is a totally inhumane act and can easily be construed as nothing short of court ordered murder–at the hands of those whose cruelty has eclipsed human compassion in the name of politics and/or religioous philosphies
Isn’t it just common sense to understand that when an egg begins to unfold according to its unique genetic code, that happens only after a sperm fertilizes an egg and begins the actual process of becoming a new human being? i.e.If I tell you when breakfast will be ready, do I have to include the time it takes to drive to a store, the time it takes to bag the ingredients and get back home, plus the time it take to get those groceries out of a bag? Of course not!–simply because an omelet becomes an omelet only after preparing it with the required ingredients, and placing it into a frying pan on the top of one’s stove, it is not really an omelet until these things are done and it is then ready to eat! So if you want to get technical, why not include all of the above factors before determining how long it will actually take you to cook breakfast for your children i.e.Similarly, isn’t the amount of time for a woman’s egg to get into her fallopian tube until the time a sperm cell actually penetrates it, define exactly when a human life begins? Thus, why not accept that such a moment happens only after a woman’s egg is fertilized by a sperm cell. And likewise all the formentioned additional factors are not truly needed to estimate the time it will take to cook your children’s omlets–just as many of the things you point out do not mark the actual length of time before, the unfolding of a new life begins.
Scientists may factor in all of hose other things, but a new life only starts after after a woman’s egg is fertilized. And it’s logically acceptable to judge the time a child will take to become a full human being–(after fertilization takes place)–only after one sperm cell enter the ovum and the process has truly begun. As a non-medical person, I am inclined to say that you are being way too picky, And anyway, the time it takes to make breakfast is truly determined by the time it takes to mix the ingredients and place them in a hot frying pan on one’s stove!–not including such a lot of extraneous factors.
I simply cited what scientists say.
OK, you can accept that, but it doesn’t take a liberal or a conservative to know that a child does not begin to develop until after the union of an egg and sperm cell. I have seen that moment documented with live cameras that are placed in a woman’s womb in the same ways that doctors test for cholesterol blockage in an artery (with a camera that is advanced with a long tube behind it.)And, at that exact moment, the egg becomes miraculously resistant to other sperm cells, So I think conservatives are viewing that exact moment as the beginning of life, but if they do, that is not going to stop me from favoring liberals and the Democrats, because pointing out that exact moment is actually irrelevant considering the many ways that Trumpers and his complicit henchmen in Congress misrepresent the facts. as if they were drunken sailors on leave in Hawaii, considering the many lies and hypes they use to circulate propaganda.
Thanks for publishing my initial comment, but you can erase the extraneous parts now, and just post my actual letter. I keep being asked for a password I used several years ago, but it has completely been forgotten.