Holy crap this book is a MUST-READ. I live for this kind of extended rhetorical analysis, which beautifully bridges “theory” and its very immediate, real-world applications. What stood out to me in particular (and what I’m using to plug the book to my friends & family) is an excellent chapter-long examination of “political correctness” and its history, as well as a much-needed critique of the US Democratic rhetorical strategy (e.g. the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign). While the claims being made in this book are not entirely new (if not as widely circulated as they should be), Malik’s thoroughness in this book-length discussion is absolutely welcome and necessary, as is her precision and clear understanding of the current stakes. Wholeheartedly recommend!

This book is perfect for this moment for me. We are undergoing some generational changes in our high school teaching staff and this book is so important. We need to recognize that the history we have learned in the white washed history. This book is an incredible supplement to our basic course work. I love it.

For more reviews, follow me on IG @literaturewithalatte.

In this book, British-Sudanese journalist, Nesrine Malik, breaks down the myths that can be attributed to the division and discontent we see in our politics today. This book was incredibly eye-opening. Through rigorous analysis and research, the author debunked some of the myths that , whether we have realized or not, we find ourselves believing as truth or taking for granted. The six political myths dissected in the book are: reliable narrator, political correctness crisis, free speech crisis, harmful identity politics, national exceptionalism and gender equality. The author highlights how these myths have permeated our culture and how they are used to distract or even shut down social justice discussions and movements. This book was truly thought-provoking and was an exercise in critical thinking.

Genre: Non-Fiction/Politics
Publication Date: May 11, 2021

Thank you to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for my copy!

Nesrine Malik offers a powerful analysis of 5 political myths in an effort to show how history, race, gender, and classical liberal values are being leveraged by various groups to stop "any disruption of a centuries-old hierarchy that is paying dividends for fewer and fewer people." Her point is that until we recognize how these myths underpin current efforts to block democratic progress and social justice, we cannot effectively resist their influence on our society. She opens with the myth of the "reliable narrator." This is a bold move in that she is pointing a critical light on her own profession -- journalism. Specifically, she calls attention to the lack of diversity in newsrooms; most reporters are white males from upper middle-class backgrounds. Their politics tend to be center or right of center.. This lack of diversity, she argues, helps to explain why so few anticipated Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory or the results of the Brexit vote. A white, male-centric newsroom means that many stories go unreported and many sources go untapped because it is beyond their experiential respective and no one in the newsroom is offering an alternative perspective: "In this mediarchy," analogous to patriarchy, "there is a groupthink born of uniformity in pedigree and a proximity to power via shared networks and values, which means that instead of reflecting reality, it distorts it, instead of embracing change, it resists it. In short, more voices with differing views would do much to correct this problem.

Having established how the media plays a part in perpetuating existing power structures, the author next tackles the myth of political correctness. As the author notes, this particular myth has a long history of being used to prevent change: "The PC myth has a lifecycle that starts with grievance creation, moves on to fabrication, and ends in diversion" by creating an imaginary injustice to distract from the real one. She discusses various conservative "think tanks," such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, that have invested large sums to perpetuate this myth. Most notably, she shows how this myth contributed to the widespread belief in the United that that the Covid-19 virus was a hoax. She highlights how Trump dismissed the seriousness of the virus at the outset and labeled those who voiced concern as being politically correct. Once this narrative gained traction, wearing a mask in public ceased to be a health issue and instead because a badge of political identity. Sadly, believing this myth cost many their lives.

The other myths she tackles are the myth of a freedom of speech crisis, myth of harmful identity politics, and the myth of national exceptionalism. With each of these myths, she offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how they have gained credence in our society and the ways in which they serve to buttress inequalities. Although the author's analysis is spot on, my concern is that this book will do little to convince those who do not already agree with the author's assessment. In part, this concern simply reflects the unlikelihood that today's Trump voter would ever pick up such a book. However, the book is also unlikely to convince the non-believer because it does not apply the same level of scrutiny to the sources it cites as it does to those that it criticized. What do I mean by this? I mean that the author provides a detailed history of the various institutes and foundations, such as the Heritage Foundation, that it takes issue with, but does not provide the reader with the same level of information about the sources that it relies on to debunk these myths. For example, she includes statistics from National Bureau of Economic Research and the Center for Democracy and Technology, both private non-profits, without giving the reader any information about why they should trust the data of these two organizations. In other words, the reader is expected simply to accept the "reliability" of the institutes and foundations, which the author quotes. Given the opening chapter on the myth of the reliable narrator, I wanted the author to interrogate her own sources with the same rigor as she does those of her opponent and include that interrogation in her analysis, as bias is not a phenomenon that only occurs on the right side of the political spectrum. And if we inadvertently act like it does, we will only reinforce distrust. So, while I agree with the author's analysis, I am concerned that it will not change minds.