Robinson shared some good tips and approaches to responding to many of the usual right-wing arguments, most of them fact-based. I was sold on that until I read Mehdi Hasan's "Win Every Argument," which made the convincing case for a different way of approaching things. So while I do think Robinson presents compelling evidence to refute many of the conservative talking points, I'm not convinced that is the best way to "win" the argument. Still, an interesting read. (Note: for audiobook listeners, be prepared to be irritated by the way Robinson speaks - his odd cadence and strange pronunciation of some words lends an air of "trying to hard to sound academic.")

I struggled to finish this book because of how divided the country it is and how angry listening to it made me. The book gave some interesting arguments against those on the right but felt a bit disorganized to me. It didn't feel like the counter-arguments (to the right) were phrased in a way that I would actually be able to use to convince someone of the left's point of view. Additionally, his tendency to lump people into set categories seems like it would be difficult for those people to be open to the arguments he's making. The audiobooks tone came across as a bit patronizing at times and it felt like the author just assumed that any right-leaning persons were dumb or cruel. I'm not sure that this book will help us to open up dialogue to resolve differences, but perhaps that's not the author's aim. All in all, some interesting points and an okay read.

Thanks to Netgalley for the ARC audiobook.

https://compactmag.com/article/the-left-s-debate-bro

The Left’s Debate Bro
Sohale Mortazavi
Image for article: The Left’s Debate Bro
March 7, 2023
PHOTO: AUSTIN DSA
Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments
By Nathan J. Robinson
St. Martin’s Griffin, 384 pages, $19.99

Nathan J. Robinson’s new book, Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments, presents itself as a practical guidebook in the vein of Saul Alinsky’s 1971 Rules for Radicals, updated for the social-media age. Whereas Alinsky was writing for professional activists engaged in direct action, organization building, and real-life campaigns, Robinson’s target audience are “liberals and leftists who want the ‘ammunition’ necessary to do battle with conservative ideas, whether in public discussion or at the family dinner table.” Robinson provides a quick primer on rhetoric and logical fallacies, best practices for debate, and—the meat of the book—readymade rebuttals to common conservative and libertarian talking points and arguments.

The Alinsky method has been criticized for, among other things, an unambitious “pragmatism” that puts any quick “winnable demands” over ambitious ideological goals. Though demonized (sometimes quite literally) by certain figures on the right, and occasionally embraced by others who employed it to their own ends, the Alinsky method actually defangs social movements by eschewing “rigid” ideologies and redirecting energy into bureaucratic organizations staffed by professional organizers. No wonder, then, that Rules for Radicals is a favorite among liberals who prefer a more bureaucratic, less militant, less radical community organizing (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were big fans).

“The focus Robinson places on political debate is inherently ideological.”
By comparison, the focus Robinson places on political debate is inherently ideological, but his project is ultimately even less ambitious than Alinsky’s. Robinson isn’t just making the case for a certain vision of politics—he elevates “making the case” for one’s political views to the actual pursuit of politics. Though the book closes with a reminder that “building strong political movements involves far more than words,” and that we shouldn’t let “the intellectual and theoretical aspects of politics distract too far from the practical realities of movement building,” the preceding 300-and-some pages are devoted to readying progressives to battle ideological opponents in the marketplace of ideas.

Political theory and ideas matter—but we should have serious reservations about presenting debate as the paramount political activity. Public intellectuals such as Robinson, the founder and editor of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs, might be able to argue that their own political discourse amounts to important political activity. There is an even better case to be made for everyday people engaging friends, family, acquaintances, and, especially, coworkers in constructive political dialogue. But the kind of political sparring Robinson has in mind is rarely carried out in break rooms or on shop floors, but over holiday dinners and social media.

Aside from voting and maybe attending the occasional protest or rally, the primary way most people “engage” in politics is through passive media consumption and online posting. Encouraging them to expend even more time and energy on frivolous hashtag activism will only leave participants feeling more outraged, frustrated, and atomized.

In Responding to the Right, Robinson both refutes right-wing arguments and makes the case for progressive alternatives. He positions conservatism and libertarianism not only in opposition to left-wing politics, but also to rationality as such, asserting at one point that “the right’s core beliefs cannot be maintained by a rational human being.” They are simply “ignorant and fallacious.”

The author isn’t interested in determining why someone might hold such “mistaken beliefs,” only in proving them wrong. He cites Corey Robin’s book The Reactionary Mind as an example of left-wing thinking with a misguided focus on trying to “psychoanalyze” conservatives to determine their motivations, which Robinson suggests is fraught, given that we can’t read others’ minds. But you don’t need to psychoanalyze individuals to determine why they might prefer to conserve and promote existing power structures and social relations.

You might expect such a material analysis to come easy to a self-professed socialist, but Robinson has a troubled relationship with the cold logic of the Marxist tradition, to which he pays lip service when pressed but which he ultimately rejects as authoritarian, devoid of moral urgency, and mistaken in many of its core tenets. Robinson favors a fuzzier libertarian socialism and anarchist analysis, which are better suited to his brand of utopian progressivism.

If Robinson’s new book is an update on Alinsky’s, we could similarly view his previous, Why You Should Be a Socialist, as his own reboot of Oscar Wilde’s 1891 essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” which saw socialism as a path to—paradoxically—radical individualism. Wilde imagined a world without capitalism where all people—free from work, poverty, and duty—can spend their days pursuing creative passions and personal interests. It was the original case for “fully automated luxury communism,” and Wilde the prototypical “radlib,” a bourgeois rich kid turned bohemian layabout directing socialists away from solidarity and class politics and toward an aesthetically radical individualism, conveniently to the interest and benefit of creatives such as himself. (Wilde even slipped in a quick abolish-the-family: “Socialism annihilates family life, for instance. With the abolition of private property, marriage in its present form must disappear.”) Robinson, who on the Current Affairs podcast once lamented how Marxism “killed utopian socialism,” picks up the torch. (His trademark dandyism and put-on English accent are so on the nose here that you might think he is goading us.)

“Robinson’s libertarian socialism is a fundamentally moral politics.”
Robinson is correct that many of the foundational tenets of Marxism are simply wrong. The labor theory of value, for example, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and leftists still waiting for capitalism to collapse under its own internal “contradictions” any day now—a century and a half on—bring to mind the unshakeable conviction of a doomsday cult. But the Marxist tradition, at its best, helps us understand the trajectories of history and society as the logical outcome of material conditions. By comparison, Robinson’s libertarian socialism is a fundamentally moral politics. The vulgar Marxist tries to understand how the world works. Robinson is most concerned with how the world should work, which isn’t something that can be settled through reason alone. Conservatives and others have their own competing visions for society rooted in a different moral logic that Robinson doesn’t take nearly as seriously as he pretends.

While Robinson acknowledges the moral framework underpinning his politics, he nonetheless maintains that his political positions (and his alone) are simply the natural product of careful reasoning. But the claim, along with the pretense of taking right-wing arguments seriously, is undermined by the inconsistency with which he applies his rational analysis. Responding to the Right is full of the kind of bias the book critiques. Robinson calls out conservatives for selective omission of contradicting information, leaving out the other side of the story, or attacking the weakest or strawman versions of arguments—but he himself does all of this routinely. Likewise, he fails to hold progressives to the same standards of logic and fair debate he imposes on conservatives.

For example, he acknowledges no contradiction between his contention that bakers aren’t actually forced to bake wedding cakes for LGBT clients, since they could simply opt out of the market entirely, and his articulation of the leftist principle that workers are actually forced to sell their labor under capitalism lest they starve. He decries right-wing figures who employ ludicrous hyperbole and false or misleading analogies, such as the likening of “cancel culture” to literal violence. But, in this condemnation, he fails to acknowledge that social-justice mantras like “silence is violence” or the progressives characterizing “microagressions” as violence do exactly the same thing. Though he blasts conservative commentator Ben Shapiro for “lying with statistics” when falsely claiming that 40 percent of transgender people commit suicide, Robinson fails to mention that trans rights activists first popularized and routinely cite the same erroneous figure for their own purposes.

This kind of subtle hypocrisy and bias render the project a predictable exercise in partisanship, less rationalism than rationalization. The uneven hand suggests that Robinson sometimes starts with his position and works backwards to fashion the particulars of the argument. He has written a polemic masquerading as unbiased rational analysis.

This doesn’t mean his positions are always wrong or bad. Robinson may have a penchant for the utopian, and his partisanship forces him to defend even the most ridiculous excesses of leftist culture-warring, but many progressive policies would benefit American workers and families by rebuilding social safety nets hollowed out by fifty years of bipartisan neoliberalism. However, Robinson simply didn’t arrive at any of his positions through reason alone. They arise from his own values and interests, which are often in conflict with those of conservatives and libertarians. Downplaying these fundamental differences precludes serious analysis of right-wing moral reasoning, but such analysis isn’t the purpose of the book. Robinson would rather dismiss his opponents as irrational sophists who, having somehow arrived at “objectively incorrect” positions, can be properly excluded from political discourse.

“Politics is a battle of competing interests and values, not just competing ideas.”
Politics is a battle of competing interests and values, not just competing ideas. Robinson argues passionately and—to me—convincingly about the infeasibility of a true “equality of opportunity,” but he isn’t going to win over libertarians (or even many liberals) who are fundamentally opposed to the kind of radical egalitarianism he proposes, nor will he have much luck convincing capital to relinquish power or adopt redistributive policies. There is no squaring egalitarianism with a belief in the “natural and just” existence of hierarchies, multiculturalism with the desire for societal homogeneity or cultural preservation, abortion rights with certain religious beliefs, open borders with protectionism, or a host of other competing or even irreconcilable values and interests.

A more honest, effective, and helpful critique of right-wing politics would take the cultural values and economic interests that underlie the right’s arguments seriously without dismissing them as fundamentally irrational. Doing so leads Robinson into a highly partisan “rationalization-ism” that functions a lot like the “facts don’t care about your feelings” or “DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC” rhetoric he criticizes right-wing media figures for.

“Both sides” would do well to admit that it isn’t just “feelings” or poor reasoning that divide people, but intractable disagreements and conflicts of interest that won’t be definitively solved through rational debate, but only through ongoing political contestation that transcends mere words.

*received for free from netgalley for honest review* Very informative and interesting read! Really didn't want to put it down but wanted to take my time with this book so i made sure to do so! Would buy and recommend.

Thank you NetGalley and St. Martin’s Griffin for sending this book for review consideration. All opinions are my own.

For my liberal and far left-leaning friends, this could be considered a kryptonite briefing book against your conservative nemesis. For my conservative and right-leaning friends, you will consider it all horse manure not worth the paper or electronic nano bites it was written on. And for my independents and those with no allegiance to left, right, or in-between friends, well this will be an interesting read to say the least.

Nathan J. Robinson is the founder and editor of Current Affairs magazine, which he started in 2015, that can be categorized as a progressive publication which discusses social, political and cultural topics of the day. Mr. Robinson is a self-avowed socialist and not ashamed of it. He’s developed a reputation for taking on far-right conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Breitbart, and many more. This is Robinson’s treatise on why he believes the conservative agenda is dead wrong, the harm it is doing and will continue to do to America if not confronted directly. The arguments against his conservative adversaries are systematic, methodical, and supported by facts. As John Adams stated, “Facts are Stubborn Things.”

Robinson attacks head-on conservative talking points on taxes, abortion, immigration, race, gender, government regulations, white privilege, the judicial system, and much more. He covers twenty-five points, presenting the conservative position and his rebuttal. HIs responses are are clear-eyed, factual and have examples to support. Robinson points out how even some conservatives don’t buy or understand all that they are selling. He uses radio show host Joe Rogan, which he is no supporter of, as an example. Rogan in his interviews with far right conservatives, through hard hitting questions, can show the chinks in their thinking and in many cases the downright absurdity of their positions. Rogan does this by getting them to either admit they don’t have all the facts to support the views they are espousing or at the very least come across as ill-prepared and uninformed. Robinson does the same, he systematically picks apart the arguments and his rebuttals will get you to think.

Before my left leaning friends begin to get too smug, you don’t get a hallway pass. Robinson argues that liberals are ill prepared to take on the conservative agenda for lack of preparedness and or simple fatigue. Liberals are out talked and out maneuvered, not strategic, provide weak and ineffective counter arguments that fall flat and they are often caught off guard, Their game is defense versus the right’s nonstop offense. In sum, liberals don’t bring the same passion to the table as the right does.

Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, Libertarians, are all covered in this frank and hard hitting rebuttal of conservative ideas. Whether you agree or not with the twenty-five points and Mr. Robinson’s response is not the goal of the book. The goal is to present a counter-argument to what he sees as dangerous far-right conservative thinking and actions that he believes tears apart the fabric of America.

I received both the audiobook and e-book versions and listened to the audiobook. Robinson did a very good job narrating his own work. His counter arguments were articulated in a reasoned and understandable manner, well modulated, passionate and serious, with humor laced throughout.

This is a good read no matter which side of the isle you are on.

I like the format of this book and the idea of creating frameworks for disagreements with right-wing ideology. I think that many people could benefit from reading this book to at least understand how to maneuver around the conservatives in their families that feel the need to argue about politics (even when it's not appropriate.)

This book is a fantastic tool as well as a good read. I learned a lot and definitely want to buy a hard copy so I can read it again more closely. I think this would be a great book to gift because it can offer so much to many different demographics. A leftist will find much to agree with tools and examples to help them argue better. A right wing person reading in good faith would, I think, be hard pressed to find much to push back on. Nathan J. Robinson isn't sanctimonious or condescending, he treats conservative ideas with respect and acknowledges where they have rhetorical power and where they speak to real fears. I will definitely recommend this book to my Twitter followers, who run the gamut from communist to religious conservative.

One has to wonder if Nathan J. Robinson is actually a right-wing psyop. Before reading this book, I was only dimly aware of via Twitter. Of course, this was mostly overly earnest socialist tweeting and quote tweeted vicious dunks on him.

Returning to the semi-serious psyop claim, let's just take look at one aspect of his bio. He's in his mid-30s (tries to dress like Tom Wolfe fyi) and has three advanced degrees (MA, JD, and PhD) from elite institutions, but as far I can tell he's doing little economically productive. He runs a tiny socialist magazine with a log fold smaller audience than other socialist magazines that are themselves struggling, if not failing. Robinson is indeed example A of the general uselessness of non-stem higher education (Bryan Caplan is smiling somewhere). But alright, let's stop picking on Nathan even if he seems to be begging for it. Let's examine Responding to the Right and generously evaluate what he's trying to do.

Responding to the Right is pitched as a surgical takedown of the Right's 25 most popular claims. Unfortunately, Robinson has no real methodology for choosing what these claims are so we end of with a sloppy, somewhat repetitive list. Plus, the listed claims themselves are barely formulated by Robinson into anything resembling actual arguments. They're mostly memeified, casual versions of what could otherwise be serious claims. Robinson reassures readers that he respects right-wing claims, but it seems that he hasn't demonstrated the care and attention necessary to actually formulate their claims properly.

Robinson's sloppy thinking extend to his subject itself. He takes a brief moment in his introduction to lump all right-wing thought together with a flimsy justification. This is a fatal issue. Many of his criticism is actually leveled at left-liberals and libertarian not even conservatives or other right-wingers. Most importantly, Robinson fails to actually provide a clear and persuasive account of what right-wing thought is relying mostly on the understandings that a sympathetic audience would bring to the book.

I understand that this is meant to be a book aimed at a popular audience, especially younger ones, but it is remarkable that Robinson isn't able to communicate persuasively. While he's building an argument up to deliver a purported coup-de-grace to a conservative meme, it will become evident to many close readers that he's flailing around aimlessly and futilely. Many of the subjects of his criticism, like Ben Shapiro for example, have a talent for distilling complex ideas and communicating effectively. This is something Robinson concedes but appears unable to emulate.

If a young reader is looking for an accessible and current defense of left-wing ideas, I'd recommend readers check out the writings of Freddie deBoer and Matt Yglesias on Substack.

Our societies are more polarized than ever, and opting out of the necessary conversations with those on the right is no longer an option. If you have ever felt the frustration of trying to engage with extreme conservatives in real dialogue but suddenly being catapulted into a pitiless well of demagoguery, then this book is for you. It can help you regain composure and prepare to take on the right-wing fanatics who spew lies at breakneck speeds, outright manipulating the narratives for their destructive gain.
If you only read one non-fiction this year, let it be this. I listened to this as an audio-book, but this is the kind of book you'll also want as a hard copy to annotate. This book is an indispensable tool in regaining control - it sets out arguments that can be quickly delivered and pack a punch.

My thanks to Macmillan Audio and NetGalley for the audio ARC.

Thanks to Mr. Robinson and Net Galley for the ARC. This book must be required reading for pretty much everyone who struggles with frustration when talking to someone who likes to parrot talking points. I could use this for multiple classes. I have already recommended it to some colleagues.

Ok this may have not been the best choice for an audiobook. Nathan J. Robinson narrates his own work with enthusiasm, but I really feel like I needed to see all this information laid out before me. The book accomplishes the goal of having information that responds to some of the major talking issues for the hard Right. And I appreciate the well cited information and references and stats in the back. I think the book would be useful for someone trying to navigate political conversations or learn more about where parties stand on certain issues and why...I just struggled with this as an audiobook and had to re-listen to several bits to really absorb it. It is informative, just dense. I do find the concept rather hopeful since all of this is predicated on someone wanting to have an actual discussion about issues and not just an information shouting match. I don't think that many people on the far side would listen to even a well crafted rebuttal and they definitely aren't open to changing their minds. Regardless, I did find the book useful and it gave me some solid talking points to add to my toolbelt.

A helpful book that deconstructs common right-wing talking points and how to refute them. I'm not sure that I would actually remember these approaches in the middle of an actual argument, but it still made me feel a little more prepared going into family Christmas.

Nathan J. Robinson follows=up his previous book, Why You Should be a Socialist, with Responding to the Right, a book that details arguments leftists can make to bolster their position in regard to the political right. Robinson is in part a little bit overly credulous of the right and perhaps disregards the work of other leftists in bridging the gap. It seems more likely that Robinson's arguments work for liberals rather than leftists. An interesting installation in the left-of-center school of thought for the casual reader.

I really enjoyed listening to this and learning more about how political arguments really work. It was fascinating! Robinson's counterarguments seem well researched and give an in-depth description as to why the right's arguments work so well. While I had hoped for quicker comebacks to in the moment debates, I realize if I truly want to debate an issue, I need to have familiarity with the topic at hand. Robinson does go into several different topics at length and had me taking notes on those that I am passionate about! I learned a lot from listening.

I have said it before and I’m going to say it again anytime you start an argument with the with everyone who blank does blah blah blah your argument is flawed. If you say all white people have privilege that’s a flawed argument because not all white people have privilege. Secondly anytime someone saying all lives matter is racist to me that’s delusional thinking. even Barack Obama said saying Black Lives Matter is racist because when you insinuate that one group suffers vulnerability that another one does not you’re wrong. We are more alike than we are different and if people would just stop focusing our differences and come together with the things we have in common ultimately we would make more progress. And as far as cultural appropriation goes Taco Bell and dominoes we’re started by white men and I don’t see Italians in Spanish people trying to shut them down. They say imitation is the biggest form of flatter until when people say that people are culturally appropriating something we would have to go back eons to see what one thing belong to what culture. I mean an African-American owns Burger King I don’t think hamburgers from Africa… I’m just saying this is so stupid and frustrating there’s so many things in this book that I disagreed with and I had a lot of things I did agree with I didn’t like that he said Christians were delusional because again that’s clumping all Christians together and saying all of them are delusional God is love and just for the record they have gay churches or at the very least Christians who are gay because anyone who knows the Bible knows that God loves everyone but I digress I’m getting upset and this is pointless. I wish I would’ve never read this book more than that I wish there was no need for this book. I was given this book by Nat Gally and I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any errors as I am blind and I dictate my review but all opinions are definitely my own.