The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America

by Hyrum Lewis, Verlan Lewis

A groundbreaking argument that the political spectrum today is inadequate to twenty-first century America and a major source of the confusion and hostility that characterize contemporary political discourse.

As American politics descends into a battle of anger and hostility between two groups called "left" and "right," people increasingly What is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? In The Myth of Left and Right , Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis provide the surprising nothing. As the authors argue, there is no enduring philosophy, disposition, or essence uniting the various positions associated with the liberal and conservative ideologies of today. Far from being an eternal dividing line of American politics, the political spectrum came to the United States in the 1920s and, since then, left and right have evolved in so many unpredictable and even contradictory ways that there is currently nothing other than tribal loyalty holding together the many disparate positions that fly under the banners of "liberal" and "conservative." Powerfully argued and cutting against the grain of most scholarship on polarization in America, this book shows why the idea that
the political spectrum measures deeply held worldviews is the central political myth of our time and a major cause of the confusion and vitriol that characterize public discourse.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology

168 pages, Hardcover

Published January 6, 2023

Reviews

[Logan Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I may be biased, but I honestly feel that this book is life changing. It helped me reposition the paradigm through which I view world events and political issues. This book explained the history behind the idea of a “right vs left wing” political spectrum. It shows the damage this way thinking has done to not only our politics but to us as individuals and a nation. The authors show the fallacy of the myth that all political issues can be placed on some axis right to left, and all issues on the right share an underlying essence while those on the left share an underlying essence. The book clearly demonstrates that right and left issues have changed and swapped sides depending on the needs of the parties at that time. Positions on a spectrum are contradictory and the spectrum is meaningless and actually damaging. I appreciated their proposal to critically assess each issue individually on its own merits and to make decisions separate from some misguided perception that I have to support or oppose certain stances because they are on one side of the spectrum. Removing the facade of principled moral essentialism, and exposing it for mere tribalism allowed me to better analyze my viewpoints on their own and realize I have more in common with other tribes than I expected. There is hope for a reconciliation and for peaceful dialogue and solution finding.

Having been raised republican, I grew up and was surrounded by a community espousing “conservative” views. When I made the choice to be more open minded and accepting of alternative viewpoints, and subsequently moved to a “liberal” community, I found many of my ideas challenged and I felt conflicted. I was told by others I was moving from “right to left”. When I switched my political affiliation from Republican to Democrat I wondered how to absorb the information presented to me and I found myself feeling more and more antagonistic towards those on the other end of the spectrum. This book has set me on a path towards better understanding and I hope more open mindedness, acceptance, humility, humanity, and community.

A must read!

[Philip of Macedon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The essentialist theory of ideology states that there is an underlying essence that unites political beliefs of each political sect: the left and the right. It claims that a huge variety of beliefs are coherent according to a fundamental political philosophy. In this view, it makes sense that knowing one’s view on abortion alone can predict one’s views on immigration, taxes, gun control, the size and role of government, military interventionism, religion, social justice, an assortment of other things — because they are all united by a single underlying philosophical principle of liberalism or conservatism. This is what most tribal and ideological Americans believe. If you’re pro-choice then essentialism says you should be for strict gun control, anti-war, big government, higher taxes, lax on immigration, soft on crime, against police, anti-authoritarian, and you will take dozens of other predictable positions that are said to be borne of the same liberal or leftist political philosophy. If you’re pro-life, essentialist logic dictates you take the opposing view on all of these issues.

As brothers Hyrum and Verlan Lewis, historian and political scientist respectively, argue in this book, the essentialist theory is a myth. It’s a pervasive myth that most politically active Americans have bought into. It has deluded them into false beliefs about political reality, and the consequences of this are serious.

Their book makes the case for the social theory of ideology, a model positing that political ideologies have no essence and that people join the tribe for personal reasons: family or friends, or a single issue, then adopt all the other beliefs and values of the tribe. They submit fully to the clutches of the tribe and believe instead they are thinking for themselves, following a coherent political logic in accepting the party view on dozens of unrelated issues. In reality they do not research the issues dispassionately, arrive at conclusions on those issues, and then discover that there is a political party that happens to believe all the same conclusions. This model possesses more explanatory power over what we observe, and makes testable predictions. This theory more adequately explains the conformist phenomenon of the uniformity of political views in each party. The issues are not grounded in a common philosophy, they are fickle convictions that change constantly over time. They are not changing as updated beliefs to better match reality, but to align with the shifting values of tribal leaders. The authors argue the false perception of essentialism is causing intellectual, moral, and political damage.

I have to admit that I was already onboard with this way of understanding the American political spectrum. Political tribalism and ideology are things I’ve studied and written about as a hobby a lot over the last fifteen years. So I didn’t have to be convinced. But their case is strong, and the book’s historical and political overview leave just about no room for a sane person to believe in the essentialist myth that continues to dominate our culture.

The authors share copious studies that suggest the social theory as the realistic description. They explain the history of left-right terminology, beginning with the French Revolution and spreading through European politics. Bolsheviks latch onto the terminology to describe rifts within socialist movements. American political history did not originally follow a left-right spectrum, for no spectrum existed. Revolutionary Whigs, Anti-Federalists, Jeffersonian Republicans, Democrats and Democratic Republicans have been lumped under the left by modern historians, and Tories, Federalists, National Republicans, Whigs, and Lincoln Republicans have been characterized as being on the right. But the actual beliefs of these parties do not align with either the left or right as they look today. Nor do they align with each other. Our perceptions of political identity are sculpted by historians anachronistically forcing this spectrum.

Politics in America wasn’t thought of as a spectrum until the 1920s, after the phrasing had been used by reporters in the 1910s to describe factions of American and Russian socialists. By the 20s it was being used to describe splits within the Democrat and Republican parties. Here it pointed to views on government intervention in the economy — left wing progressive, or right wing conservative.

In the 30s the spectrum concept materializes with Roosevelt’s New Deal in response to the Great Depression, transforming the role of the federal government. This makes the Democratic Party the party of activist government and the institutional home of progressivism and the left and new liberalism. Talk of left and right attached to liberal and conservative became more common. But there were in fact progressives in each party, and support for the New Deal could be found on both sides. Eventually opponents came to call themselves conservative in the postwar years when a narrative of preservation was used to match the liberal narrative of change. Here was “…birthed a conservative narrative of tradition and caution to match the liberal narrative of reform and progress.”

These narratives could have worked for either side, since the terms were vague and loose. As the authors demonstrate, narratives are concocted to make sense of each tribe’s beliefs. This narrative holds the real power, with no discernible political philosophy ever materializing. This has become the dominant mythology tying together the tribes. Policies associated with each evolved and reversed over the coming decades, but with the language cemented, now fossilized, creating an “illusion of philosophical consistency to inconsistent political positions.”

For a short time the left-right and liberal-conservative divide adequately described a unidimensional political spectrum, concerned with the size and role of government. All other issues were non-ideological and unattached to either party. As political concerns grew to include more issues this model stopped serving any explanatory purpose.

Before 1952 the left and right had adopted views opposite to what they hold today: the left being more hawkish and “warmongering” interventionist, the right being dovish and isolationist. Conservatives saw communism and the New Deal as major threats to the freedoms they championed, and decided to infringe on individual rights in an effort to preserve them. Their philosophy of limited government was changing to one favoring larger government involvement in certain areas of social policy, while the left’s views were shifting to favor less government involvement in foreign policy.

By the mid century the political landscape had changed, with the left and right’s collective views on many issues having undergone radical alterations. Yet, the one-dimensional map referring to this landscape did not change — and it hasn’t changed since. Ex post narratives began forming in an effort to give the illusion of coherence to the views held on each side, to claim that an underlying philosophy could explain why such views belonged to the left or to the right. Self deception was booming.

The left and right are continuously morphing, switching places on key issues, and lack any sort of core ideological consistency. Because the parties, ideologies, tribes are transforming with time, the only way one can really define either tribe is in snapshots. The tribes at this moment hold very different views than they did ten years ago, and ten years ago they held very different views than they did 20, 40, or 60 years earlier. Many examples are listed - abortion, tax cuts, interventionism versus isolationism, free trade, war, attitudes toward Russia. The ideology does not define the party, but the tribe’s leader at some moment defines the tribe which in turn defines the beliefs.

Statements of the parties moving “rightward” or “leftward” politically are meaningless — this is a tautology because what is leftist is simply defined by what the party believes at that time, and what is right wing is defined by what that party believes at the time. The claim amounts to “Democrats are being like democrats” or “republicans are being like republicans”. There is no ideological core for either tribe to compare their new actions to.

Tribe precedes principle for ideological Americans. Ideologues will cling to the version of an ideology they grew up with, not necessarily an essence. They are faithful to the ideology’s previous iteration. There is no sacred or authentic form of the left or right which is any more or less correct than other iterations. Each tribe evolves over the years. In an attempt to make a No True Scotsman fallacy, many ideological individuals will claim that someone who believes X and Y but not A and B could not possibly be a true leftist, or a true conservative. This requires an assumption of essence, and appeals to personal definitions instead of common definitions. Private language is used in the attempt to define the public usage of terms. But these terms are defined in how they are publicly used, not privately used.

Many objections to the social theory of ideology are that it doesn’t deal with the “authentic” left and right. This is a hangover of essentialism, falsely believing there is an elusive but existent authentic nature to either ideology. In making this appeal, ideologues will offer simplistic dichotomies theyb believe encapsulate the true essence of each side. Predictably, almost every ideological dichotomy boils down to Good versus Bad, and which side is which depends on the tribe the ideologue belongs to. Examples of dichotomies that ideologues have offered over the years to cleanly and easily distinguish the two are numerous. But all evidence shows that tribe precedes principle.

Some of these dichotomies that have been suggested over the years are arrogance vs humility, autonomy vs control, big vs small government, compassion vs greed, change vs preservation, complex vs simple, ignorance vs intelligence, idealism vs realism, unconstrained vs constrained visions, oppressed vs oppressor, nurture vs nature, pluralism vs monism, reason vs tradition, weakness vs strength, relativism vs absolutism, heart vs head, tolerance vs authoritarianism, and plenty more.

The brothers Lewis take the time to unpack a few of these, showing how each dichotomy is purely narrative framing — a story built from selective snippets, ignoring inconvenient items, to preserve self-delusion. They explore the causative and genetic origins of people’s tendencies toward some beliefs about certain issues, but show how socialization is responsible largely for tribal ideologues adopting most of their beliefs about the world. And those beliefs are often tied to identity and membership, not to truth or reality.

They also take time to unpack some of the sloppy social science research that has bolstered many of these false dichotomies. There are well known studies seeming to show that conservatives are more prone to fear, for example, than liberals. This result came from flawed studies in which the researchers asked questions they knew conservatives at that particular snapshot in time would respond fearfully toward, and no questions that liberals of the same snapshot would respond with fear toward. So they ask how a respondent feels about gay marriage, drug use, abortion, and atheism, for example, and register a general pattern of (expected) fear among conservatives. From the liberals they see approval. To dishonest amateurs conducting this study that looks like good data for a dichotomy. They fail to see how respondents react to issues primed for liberal fear, like religion, Halloween costumes, cops, or misgendering. There are many studies like this, I’ve written about them myself. It’s puzzling how bad much social science research is on the topic of politics.

It isn’t true that everyone is duped by the essentialist theory of ideology. Plenty of people are intelligent, open minded, critical thinking, and rational enough to avoid the trap of essentialism. This can be seen in people jumping ship and joining a different party after their party abandons everything they once appeared to stand for, as the individual is unwilling to conform to the new shibboleths and orthodoxies the tribe has adopted. Or it can be seen in those who do not subscribe to any party and make up their minds on each issue individually, often earning the ire of the ideological essentialists to their left and right. The authors note the multiple studies that have shown educated people can become more prone to this black and white ideological thinking, due to their time in academia socializing them into this mindset.

The consequences of this nationwide delusion are numerous. Instead of summarizing some of their description of the intellectual consequences, here are some excerpts from the book that bring the severity into focus:

“By giving the illusion that ideology is about principle instead of tribes, essentialism turns people into ideologues and ideologues are generally more dogmatic, less fact-based, less able to solve problems, more given to confirmation bias, more simplistic, less able to think critically, less able to develop creative solutions to problems, more likely to misinterpret data, quicker to jump to conclusions, less given to carefully weighing evidence, and less willing to update beliefs in the face of new evidence than others. Ideologues are more easily driven to extremes, are more likely to base their opinions on fantasy rather than fact, and are more given to self-justifying, self-righteous, and self-aggrandizing beliefs. In general, the more strongly someone buys into essentialism, the more strongly they identify with an ideology, and the worse their thinking becomes.”

“The more ideological someone is, the more they are given to unjustified certainty, rigidity, and imperviousness to evidence. Adherence to any political ideology, and particularly extremism, is associated with dogmatism, intellectual simplicity, and needs for certainty and security. Since the views of ideologues are bound up with their identity and status, they see it as dishonorable to admit error and will go to great lengths to hide any evidence that does not confirm their prejudices.”

Ideology produces dogmatism and kills intellectual humility.

“It’s easy to see why ideology produces dogmatism. The essentialist theory tells us that if we are correct about the one essential issue of politics, then we are correct about all political issues. By giving the illusion of monism, essentialism also gives the illusion of omniscience: once we have chosen the “correct side” of the master issue, then the thinking is done and all that remains is to silence any disagreement.”

“Under the essentialist illusion, ideologues today have come to believe they are moral heroes like Thomas More, Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martin Luther King Jr., or Rosa Parks, fighting for eternal justice, but the reality is that they are moral chameleons fighting for whatever is currently popular in their tribe.”

“There is a false belief that ideological extremism means greater commitment to truth and justice. But the social nature of ideology reveals the importance of moderating our views and opens us to changing our minds. Studies showed when ideologues are forced to translate their beliefs into probability judgments and track the accuracy of these judgments over time and across questions, they become more moderate and careful in their political attitudes and those they attributed to the other side. If truth had a left or right wing bias we would expect the opposite effect — predictions and testing leading to one side, the “correct side”. Instead scientific thinking steers one away from ideology.”

“Scientists alter models to fit data while ideologues alter data to fit models.”

Intelligence can be a liability in an ideological person, giving them greater ability to rationalize falsehoods, doubling down on errors, and spinning narratives to justify tribal myths.

“Because ideology increases our capacity for self-deception, a non-ideological “partisan ambivalence” is a much better predictor of sound political thinking than is intelligence.”

The authors also dive into the moral and political consequences. Prejudice and hostility, Us vs Them thinking, black and white tribal moralizing, guilt by association, totalizing in thrall to a false paradigm, dehumanizing and antipathy toward political opponents. To replace the racial segregation of 60 years ago, we seem to be devolving into ideological segregation and discrimination thanks to the essentialist delusion.

All is not hopeless, however. The Lewises offer encouraging advice for how a thoughtful political person might overcome this self-deception, and think more rationally and seriously about the issues they care about. First, recognize the myth and be aware of how it manifests in almost all political discourse. Go granular — look more closely at the nuance and properties of beliefs, issues, problems, understand their characteristics and refuse to lump ideas together in a simplistic but lazy framework. Individuation breaks us out of all-encompassing categories and improves political discourse. We can change how we speak about politics and ideas, refrain from using tribal labels and instead “taboo our words”, as others have put it.

Replace the language of ideology with the language of party and point out that idea clusters belong to tribes and should be recognized for what they are. If one’s tribal nature cannot be suppressed or extinguished, seek out healthier tribes. Engage in, and even institutionalize, adversarial collaboration, and embrace intellectual and ideological diversity, which promotes greater group intelligence. Commit to freedom of speech as an important anchor enabling free and open expression. Promote and exercise intellectual humility. This final chapter is full of sound thinking and a succinct model for transcending this enormous political illusion.

This is an exquisite book. I don’t read a lot of books on politics, and I’m no expert on the political history of the United States, but I place this book above most other intellectual attempts at understanding a persistent delusion we suffer in this country. In light of what one will learn here, the majority of political discourse in the country will appear as vapid and convoluted and confused as it really is. Free yourself from this myth.

[John Martindale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. At the beginning of the book, I was wondering how on earth Lewis was going to defend this case as it is rather natural to speak of the Left and the Right in America and to think they have some fundamental essence that distinguishes the two. Lewis though did an excellent job defending his case, dismantling the claims for essentialism and calling to mind, how during my lifetime, I too have witnessed how Team Blue and Team Red have evolved, and how due to tribal allegiance to one party, the same people who passionately supported one issue a short time ago now vehemently oppose it, without seeing any inconsistency. It really does seem many people adhere to a package of beliefs--within the package may be a few points rooted in principle and value, but other parts don't rationally cohere. The package of beliefs also continues to mutate and remarkably people go along with its many twists and turns--even to the negation of the fundamental principles. The brain can always offer post hoc reasons, create a narrative, and justify the changes.
As someone who resonates with many principles found within libertarianism (or classical liberalism), I have consistently been at odds with both the "left" and the "right." I have wished that things didn't have to become so tribal, that we could try and evaluate issues and policies, considering merits and tradeoffs, and argue what is best.

[Jennifer Talbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I felt like they made their point early in the book and then just kept repeating it in a different way. The first few chapters and last chapter and conclusion were good but the middle of the book didn’t do much for me.

[Paul Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

Hyrum Lewis was my teacher during my undergrad, and today I consider him a mentor and friend. I’ve never met his brother and co-author, Verlan, but I've listened to some interviews and they seem like men of comparable temperaments. I say this up front to establish that I may have some biases in my evaluation. I’ll also note that I’m not entirely certain I experienced this book from the best angle. Let me explain.

The Lewises argue that American politics is at a crisis point, and this is fueled by an essentialist argument that politics exists on a spectrum, what we have called the Left (i.e. liberal”) and Right (i.e. “conservative”). The Lewises persuasively argue that these terms are merely social constructs and there is no Platonic ideal for what these mean. It’s eye-opening to think about – Ronald Reagan wasn’t “conservative” because conservatism isn’t a real thing, at least not in any meaningful or essential manner; FDR wasn’t “liberal” because that’s not actual a real thing. Instead these are social tribes that we join, drawn by specific policy and values claims.

The danger, as the Lewises argue, is when we join the tribe and mistake the tribe for a philosophically-driven entity built upon a moral foundation. If I believe that my political tribe isn’t a tribe but rather a Side in a Conflict (i.e. a moral battle) then I will adopt the tribe’s platform and assume that this makes me a Good Guy; more dangerously, it turns philosophical opponents into Bad Guys, meaning I have a moral imperative to stop them, and any effort on my part in the pursuit is acceptable. This is how we got an endless barrage of Senate filibusters regardless of how it hindered the federal government's ability to respond to the Financial Crisis (among other things) and the polarization of the Supreme Court of the United States, to say nothing of the insurrection at the Capitol Building on 6 January 2021.

Once we recognize that the spectrum has no essential meaning we are better able to step outside the rhetoric that has done enormous damage to the United States. The Lewises would have us move from partisan politics to granular politics (i.e. coalescing around and voting according specific policies, regardless of which party promotes them), moving us towards a productive pluralism.

I’m persuaded by the Lewises argument against political essentialism and the dangers of ideology masquerading as political philosophy. I’m also intrigued by and convinced that the solutions offered in the final chapters (i.e. granular political discourse; constructive “adversarial collaboration” in which people with opposing view points collaborate to find what's most effective rather than what’s partisan jockeying; intellectual humility; etc.) would be productive. I don’t think the book offers a truly holistic argument, nor does it present itself as such. It’s one entry in what I hope will become a productive discourse.

So why knock it 1.5 stars? I found the middle of the book tedious, even repetitive. The argument is overly determined in the first two-thirds, hammering away at the essentialism point too extensively. The result was an argument that seemed to want to extend beyond it’s core premise, to take the non-essentialism argument farther, but also unwilling to actually go that far and so retreating to the core argument. It made for uneven reading, and I felt the argument was trying too hard without doing as much as that effort would suggest. I wonder if this would work better as two articles: one to lay out the problems of an essentialist reading of the political spectrum and recasting the spectrum and its attendant labels as myths, and a second article to argue how we as a society might respond to and mitigate the dangers that have resulted from these myths.

I’m also a bit bothered by the tone the book takes at times. Again, I’m very fond of Hyrum Lewis and greatly respect him as a teacher and expert on American intellectual history. I also respect him personally and spiritually (it was my privilege to serve with him in a leadership capacity at church after I’d graduated). And I think he and I actually share many personality traits that have helped us bond during the time we've been in each other’s orbit. That being said, I do think this book’s rhetoric is at times a bit condescending. While it's good to deconstruct harmful systems and beliefs, constantly referring to movements that, while intellectual in nature, are still attached to actual people, as “nonsense” seems counterproductive. The first remedy the book offers for partisanship is intellectual humility, but I question how humble a book is when it moves so quickly through its evidences and shouts its conclusions using language that, at the very least, didn't seem particularly compassionate.

And there are moments I do not feel the arguments are made in the best faith. As one example, on p. 47, while arguing against political essentialism, the Lewises point out that in 2016 Donald Trump promised to not cut entitlements such as Social Security. To their point, Trump kept this promise, which, if political identities were based upon essential criteria, would be at odds with how people labeled Trump as “far right”. Now, allowing that essentialism is a construct and not real, the paragraph seems to suggest that this one economic policy move is at the crux of the mislabeling of Trump as “far right," when in fact he was labeled "far right” for other political and public moves. Admittedly, since "far right” isn’t actually a thing, the argument isn't entirely invalid, but it does seem a bit like a bait-and-switch since I'm not certain the example is properly self-coherent, even as a self-negating example.

I also wish the book had spent more time fleshing out solutions. Some are offered so pithily that I fear how they will be misappropriated, should this book have a watershed effect. A diagnosis is essential – conventional wisdom tells us that the first step to solving a problem is admitting to and understanding it. But after that, we risk paralysis if we do not identify and execute as many solutions as possible. A more robust analysis of this part would make the book invaluable, rather than just useful.

And perhaps I have not yet fully integrated some of the book’s argument, and in time will think even more highly of it. I am glad we have it and hope it yields much good for our society. I guess I just wish there had been more than what I got.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super interesting, super readable, and super provocative. I'll be writing a sort-of-review of this book on the BHL substack soon, but if you haven't checked this book out yet, I highly recommend it. It's short, punchy, and its main idea - that we should stop conceptualizing politics in terms of two ideological poles (left vs right) and think instead of it as a social/tribal phenomenon, is pretty persuasive. I don't say this about many books, but this one will definitely change the way you think about politics at a pretty fundamental level!

[Max D'onofrio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great short book. Just succinctly and clearly lays out what I feel like a lot of people already know, that political parties are really tribal and their policy positions change based on their leaders. It explains how we are more polarized than ever while not actually sorting our policy stances logically. I did research on this in college. Just nice to have it laid out like this. But the book fails to really clarify that the tribalism is still a real difference, and staying the fact that policies don't align to parties doesn't solve the issues we have real division in our culture.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been saying this for years. That's not a brag; it just seems obvious that all this dumb political stuff we fight about all the time has little to do with issues, nothing at all to do with political philosophies, and almost everything to do with having chosen a tribe to belong to. It should be obvious to anyone who has ever tried to understand why Hitler and Stalin are considered ideological opposites, why "small government" conservatives get behind big federal government moves all the time, or why liberals are so maddeningly illiberal on certain issues. As Verlan and Hyrum Lewis put it (much more intelligently than I ever did):

“A conservative or liberal is not someone who has a conservative or liberal philosophy, but someone who belongs to the conservative or liberal tribe. This means that ideologies do not define tribes, tribes define ideologies; ideology is not about what (worldviews), it is about who (groups); there is no liberalism or conservatism, only liberals and conservatives; and the political spectrum does not model an essential value, but only tribes and what they stand for at a specific time and place.”

In The Myth of Left and Right the Lewis brothers encourage us to recognize not only that political polarization has nothing to do with opposing ideologies but also that if we stop pretending it does, we can stop vilifying each other and actually have nuanced discourse about politics instead of continually shouting "your team bad, my team good" and, honestly, save that shit for football games. While it's not a perfect book, often seeming overlong and repetitive despite its actual brevity, it's one that people should read to rethink why they're devoting so much time, energy, and emotion to something so inherently irrational. Team Red isn't full of Nazis; some people who vote Republican also happen to have unsettlingly fascistic ideas while many others don't. Team Blue isn't out for your children; some people who vote Democrat also happen to have batshit ideas about sex and developmental appropriateness while most don't. Ultimately, the lesson here is that as with race, ethnicity, social class, etc., essentialism based on political party affiliation is both counterproductive and, ultimately, dumb.

[Aleesha · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who considers themselves 'politically ambiguous', this book hit on a lot of topics that I've been shouting from the rooftops for years now. The bipartisan hatred we see coming from both sides, dividing this country feels irredeemable. I've myself struggled against a fatalistic view that we won't ever be able to come back from the division we've created in recent years--but this book gives us first a harsh look at our own tribalistic ideologies, then offers solutions on how to combat this tribalism in order to work together for a better country and world.

I'm gonna leave my notes as a review:

Chapter 1: Unilateral support based on what we're told our chosen party supports is a thing I've seen in real life. People have interviewed people on the streets, and expressed statements and views from politicians like Biden or Harris or DeSantis or Trump, without telling the interviewee who made the statement--or falsely claiming that the statement was made by the opposite party, and a liberal will oppose something just because they're told Trump said it. A conservative will oppose something just because they're told Biden said it.

Watching those videos always boggles my mind, because it's like people quit listening when they hear who is supposedly making the statement--it doesn't matter what the statement is, even if it's heinous, racist garbage, if it's said by someone they approve of, or someone who identifies with the party they support, they feel compelled to excuse it or deflect from it--or at worst, they'll call the person providing the information names because they have no better argument to defend themselves with. It's a strange phenomenon, because I've personally always paid more attention to WHAT is said, rather than WHO is saying it.

People like me will often say things like "I don't have to like the MAN to approve of his policies." People like me are policy voters, not personality voters. We don't subscribe to a party because we can't be pinned down to a single platform. We may lean left on some issues, and right on others. And our opinions are open to being changed as new information presents itself. This is as it should be, in my opinion, and what I believe is being argued here--that people don't try to THINK about the deeper issues being presented, they simply group themselves with all their friends or with their family/community, not necessarily because they believe in the individual tennents of a political ideology, but because they are socialized to think they have to feel a certain way or be associated with a certain party.

- Yessss, the idea that both Libs and Conservatives are equally accepting and resistant to change, depending on the issue is SO TRUE. However, I think it's generalizing to state that Conservatives are pro-war. That's a very 90s worldview in my opinion. In 2023, it seems like most Conservatives are ANTI-war of any kind. Look at how they oppose the USA's involvement in the war in Ukraine.

Chapter 4: Fascism and Communism are 2 sides of the same coin. The more you look at the 'spectrum' of politics, you realize it's not a straight line, but rather a circle, or horse shoe. It seems you can lean SO FAR one way, you end up mostly identifying as an entirely different party than you claim.

Chapter 5: It's really interesting that the more educated someone is the more likely they are to accept ideological essentialism. They're more likely to accept the "our side good, their side bad" narrative. That explains SO much about our educational institutions and the people coming out of them these days. When I was in college in the early 2000s, it was a LOT less politically divided.

Chapter 6: Ideology: We DO have a country full of ideologues these days! On both sides. Facts don't matter, and when people are presented with them, they either argue or get mad and insult the fact-giver, as if they're personally responsible for the cognitive dissonance they're experiencing. I've seen it time and time again in videos people put out, in interviews on news channels, etc.

This is why phrases like "facts don't care about your feelings" have permeated our culture. Because ideologues have settled for the comfortable lie rather than the truth that challenges them.

"Ideology is the identity killer, it turns us into soldiers instead of scouts."

"Since Essentialism turns us into ideologues, it is fundamentally anti-science."

"Ideology binds and blinds."

- Moral Consequences: Essentialism produces moral hostility. "Ultimately Essentialism makes us evil as well as stupid."

I've been saying it for years now. The sides have demonized each other to the point that there's no longer any chance of coming together, crossing the aisles for the greater good, or bipartisan voting anymore (this is the fatalism I mentioned before, the 'there's no hope left' mentality I struggle with personally).

This idea that 'I'm right, and you're evil' has taken over--we see hostility everywhere these days in the threats and insults hurled across the aisle until the focus on the issue is shifted away from what is important and onto totally destroying the character and life of all those who don't agree with us.

You support the LGBTQ community? You want to sexualize our children! You want to cut their genitals off, mutilate, and sterilize them!
You DON'T support the LGBTQ community? You're a homophobe! You're a bigot! You want to kill trans people!

There's a severe lack of critical thinking coming from both sides, and we see it every night on news channels (Fox AND CNN), where instead of unbiased news reporting, the opportunities are taken to make one side or the other look bad.

"Ideologism is indeed a form of bigotry."

"By labeling someone 'Left' or 'Right' we can make them guilty of crimes they did not commit and prescribe them to beliefs they do not hold." --This happens a LOT to people like me who oppose both labels. I'm solidly in the middle, and right- and left-wingers BOTH hate it.

"We cannot have reasoned political debates when we consider those on the other side guilty of humanity's greatest sins."

"Ideological Essentialism ... shuts down critical thinking and stirs up anger and prejudice."

Chapter 7: There's still hope! If we can go back to focusing on individual issues. Focusing on the POLICIES will help us see the nuances people have--because a LOT of us aren't strictly left- or right- wing. We're almost always somewhere in the middle, leaning one way or the other on individual topics.

[Marius Dippel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hat meine Sicht auf die Politik der USA und ein Stück weit mein allgemeines Verständnis von Politik verändert.

[Paul Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors, Verlan Lewis and Hyrum Lewis, make a pretty good case that the one-dimensional political spectrum everyone uses for convenient pigeonholing of others and themselves is (let's see…) historically illiterate, inherently fallacious, and profoundly damaging to ourselves and our political discourse. The book's argument is presented in an accessible and punchy style. I get it, and I'm probably going to be a lot more careful about ideologizing people (and myself) in the future.

The authors' look at the history of "left" and "right" politics is illuminating. You might remember from a high school history course that it originated in the seating arrangements of the post-revolution French legislature, with stodgy monarchy supporters on the right, wild-eyed radicals on the left. How could that possibly apply to American politics?

Well, for a long time, it didn't. The authors note that the "spectrum" simply wasn't a part of political discourse in America until the 1920s; before that, we just had a bunch of politicians and statesmen taking stances on issues. Hard to believe, I know! (Later, historians and pundits tried to shoehorn previous pols into the spectrum, unconvincingly.)

The authors identify "left" and "right" as essentially tribal positions. You, you typical voter you, first associate yourself with your political party, then (and only then) do you try to fit in, discovering that your positions on the issues just happen to coincide with the prevailing positions of your party.

The authors (entertainingly) debunk efforts to explain the one-dimensional spectrum in any other way than tribalism. Even the sainted Thomas Sowell's dichotomy of "constrained" vs. "unconstrained" political visions is rebuffed.

The authors' association of the spectrum with today's political parties is probably the least convincing bit of the book. Republicans have their ideological fractures (just ask Kevin McCarthy or any never-Trumper). So do Democrats, although I think they do a better job of hiding it. In any case, they are very leaky pigeonholes.

But the "tribalism" accusation can sting. Am I being tribal in my general disdain for Democrats? Especially when I disrespect a lot of Republicans too? I can't even stand many of the Libertarian Party pols these days.

But the strongest part of the book is the authors' description of where this tribalism (or "ideological essentialism", as the authors describe it) has taken our political discourse: right into the toilet. We are forever asked "which side are you on". The "other side" is not just people you disagree with on a number of issues; they are the enemy, who want to destroy the country, and probably you too. Tribal people are especially prone to nasty biases, especially confirmation bias. (I can confidently refuse to believe anything reported by the New York Times, because…). Every election becomes a "Flight 93 Election". Storm the cockpit!

The authors offer some advice, which I promise to take: stop the manichaean pigeonholing of others (and, if necessary, yourself). Disaggregate positions on issues from the one-dimensional spectrum; it's sloppy and stupid to dismiss someone as a left-winger because of their position on abortion; just describe them as pro-abortion. Check.

It's a short book, with a lot of end matter. According to my Kindle, the main text stops at page 100. The Notes section takes up pages 101-148, and the Index is on pages 149-160. My only gripe is that this makes the Kindle's estimates of remaining reading time of the book way off.

[Nicolas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is my favourite of the books I've read about politics. The authors ask the question: why is it that political positions come in "bundles" that we call ideologies? Why is it that in the US for example, if someone supports more state intervention in the economy, we can usually predict that they also support abortion rights, affirmative action, and oppose the war in Iraq? These are unrelated positions about unrelated topics.

The usual answer to this question is that there is an "essence" that ties all left wing positions together, and all right wing positions together. Someone is left wing because they are on the left side of this "essence" or "main issue". 

This is the essentialist theory, which this book deconstructs in favour of the social theory: according to the authors, we become left or right wing first because of our peers, family, or because of a single issue we care about deeply. Our opinion on other topics then tends to align with our political "team" because of tribalism. 

This is supported by some very interesting social research which is well explained in the book. 

The fascinating conclusion for me is that there is no essence, no coherent philosophy behind the terms "left wing" and "right wing": they are social constructs.

I've struggled for a long time to come up with a good definition of what the left and right are, and I've never been fully satisfied. The book focuses on America, but in my home country of France, people often define the left as the party of state intervention in the economy and the right as the party of laissez-faire economics... But then why isn't Marine le Pen's "far right" party supporting a more extreme version of laissez-faire capitalism? Their extremism comes not from their economics policies, but from other unrelated policies. If the left are the team of "big government", why were Italian fascists advocating for "nothing outside of the state", and why are far-left anarchists advocating for abolishing the state altogether?

The authors do a great job of showing how the most common "essences" don't hold up to scrutiny: opposition to change vs. welcoming change; idealism vs. realism; liberty vs. equality; compassion vs. greed; big vs. small government... And many more. All of these are narratives we have built to justify ideologies, but in reality, both left and right wing parties defend policies that could belong to each side of these divides depending on the time and the place (and how they twist these concepts!)

The conclusion is that we should stop thinking in terms of left and right and "go granular": take every political topic separately, discuss it without ideology and focus on evidence. This might just be a cure for how divided we are at the moment. 

[Alex Gruenenfelder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Studying the rise of tribalism in the United States, Hyrum and Verlan Lewis blame many of our problems on what they see as a binary political spectrum. Without a truly unified ideological viewpoint, the authors argue, we end up with an "essentialist" view of ideology that doesn't have anything to do with real politics. People often choose their tribe and subsequently choose their views based on that, rather than the other way around, and I found this premise to be deeply compelling.

The biggest problem with this book is that it is essentially a treatise on the theory that the left-right spectrum does not matter, and its short length is largely spent hammering the point again and again. Although I largely agree with its central tenets, there are times when it is overly simplistic and attacks casual language over real ideology. For example, it is my fact-based belief that people on the left criticize Donald Trump and his allies as fascist; I don't think they do this simply because they see fascism as a "right-wing ideology," although this is what the authors claim.

The book also occasionally cites data out of nowhere that is just as dubious as that which it criticizes, such as when the authors write, "Attractive people are more likely to identify as conservatives." My personal experience certainly does not back this up. As a natural contrarian myself, I understand taking down flawed data, but it doesn't mean that your side inherently has better data to back it up.

The authors oppose the ideological lens that we apply to politics in this society, but it doesn't fall fully into the categories that define most books opposed to political tribalism. This is a book that proposes the end of terms like "liberal" and "conservative," and simultaneously believes that the two-party system is basically inevitable. As a result, it will likely only appeal to the truest of political junkies, who may still feel like this could've been a long-form essay instead of a short book. Still, as an academic exercise, I enjoyed it.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting thesis that left-wing and right-wing are essentially tautological terms (trying to make politics one-dimensional) and that historically parties associated with the terms have changed their policy positions (among the many actual dimensions of politics) so that almost any policy change can be charged as moving left/right. Certainly worth thinking about, even if one thinks that there is something to the distinction, because the book points out the difficulties in determining what could consistently be the one-dimension that divides "left" and "right" policies that could allow such a divide. The book argues that accepting two parties is ok so long as we don't think of them as philosophically consistent across all issues (esp. over time).

[My nitpicky and not crucial to the book's argument criticism is that they use the medieval astronomers kept adding epicycles analogy at the end of the book (the analogy is that adding epicycles is a last-ditch effort to save a geocentric/Ptolemiac theory such as there being a consistent left-wing and right-wing across all issues, when one should use the more correct heliocentric/Copernican theory). The epicycle criticism is ahistorical for two reasons. First, the Ptolemaic/geocentric system requires parameters for all the orbits, so adding epicycles and retaining accuracy is quite difficult and so wasn't actually done, as far as we know. Second, Copernicus actually added epicycles to his theory [relative to Ptolemy who would use equants] because he disliked equants. Finally, I also dislike when people use the Earth orbiting the Sun as a "fact." You can construct equations for any observer so that who orbits whom is not really something absolute. The Earth and Sun orbit the barycenter (near the center of the sun) in the inertial reference frame, which is preferred for theoretical reasons, but other frames are not wrong so that I'd argue it is not a "fact" in a simple way.]

[Stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was insanely good! It articulates perfectly how I have felt about the political discourse in this country for a long time. Anyone who thinks ‘left/right’, ‘liberal/conservative’ or ‘democrat/republican’ are more than tribal affiliations should read this book!

There were so many profound statements but I loved the idea of expressing views at the granular level. If our high school students can say ‘she plays tennis’ instead of ‘she is a jock’ then we can say ‘he supports pro-life’ instead of ‘he’s right winged’. Because frankly, someone can be pro-life, favor greater gun restrictions, support fracking & favor opening our country to refugees. Neither party has a monopoly on moral
superiority. In fact, our parties have become less about political views and more about who you hate. We need to do better!!!

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A cogent and compelling - if brief - argument that the "essentialist" model of ideology is bunk. They provide loads of evidence that people merely elect the appropriate tribe and then align their vaguely-held beliefs accordingly, but who really thought it otherwise besides professors and people who write for the cultural magazines (I'm one of them, but I've always rejected that hogwash). That said, their sensible remedy - picking your issues carefully! - will never come to pass, because the two parties are a simple (if not useful!) heuristic for people with limited time.

My friend Oliver Traldi wrote a good review of this book: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...

[Lynette Lake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish every American would read this book. I think it could radically change the polarizing discourse that currently plagues America. It does a great job breaking down the current beliefs of an essential right and left and helps the reader recognize where our political commitments are to a tribe rather than a correct set of ideals and if we would practice some humility and open mindedness and take issues on an individual basis I think it would work wonders to how we make decisions for our nation as well as heal so much of the resentment, anger and even violence that we seem to see ever increasing in society. So much potential if we as Americans could wrap our minds around this! Can’t recommend enough!

[Andrew Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book and is going to give me a lot to think about on how I understand the bunching of political issues under the guise of the Left and Right. And I'm not sure if I'm ready to go as far as the authors are arguing, but this is everything you want in a political science book. A well-reasoned premise. The history and examples to back it up. A lot of great annotations and practical solutions to help address the facade of essentialism underlying the Left and Right. And a short book too. Reminiscent of Amy Chua's Political Tribes.

[Eugene Kernes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is This An Overview?
Humans are social animals. Wanting to belong to a tribe is normal, but the tribal categories are not. There are different ways to understand the political spectrum. The essentialist theory of ideology, or alternatively, the social theory of ideology. Principles or group dynamics. The essentialist theory of ideology claims that all political issues are related to a single underlying issue, an essence. That diverse issues are connected to a unifying essence. That people find a tribe that that fits all of the myriad issues they agree with. The social theory of ideology claims that diverse issues are connected by a tribe. People choose a tribe, then defer to the tribe for their values. People are socialized into the values of the tribe, then construct a narrative to justify their choices.

Political discussions tend to assume that there is an essence to each tribe, that there is an underlying theme for each tribe. But no such underlying theme exists. The political spectrum of left or right is not an indicator of what an individual thinks about ideas. All it indicates, is a commitment to a tribe. When making claims, people signal support for a tribe rather than the claim. They signal tribal solidarity, rather than adherence to principles. People are willing to abandon their beliefs, but not their tribes.

Ideologies do not define tribes, rather, it is the tribe that defines ideologies. The tribe makes a decision, even if opposing eve0rything they have done before, then the people justify the decision and following actions as being in accordance with the essence. What essentialism does is reduce cognitive ability, as it enables a confirmation bias. The more intelligent people are better able to misinterpret information to protect their tribe, and justify tribal prejudice.

Do Political Tribes Have An Essence?
The political parties have similar decision and do similar activities, they just do them differently. But they want to create division, thereby claim that the opposition is different. Both claim to want to reverse their opposition’s policies.

The political spectrum is defined in a way that includes people who have polar opposite ideas, but are forced to be on one side. Narratives can be created about any essence that unite diverse issues. A narrative that validates false beliefs. The tribes redefine terms to make the opposing tribe guilty by definition.

Even if a political party changes its policy entirely, their supporters consider it a move to their side whether left/right. Under the essentialist theory, no matter the change in policy is a further move to in their direction. They define a move to a side based on what their party does. A case of circular reasoning, as they redefine the conclusion by the conclusion.

The political spectrum is useful for coalitions. To share values during a specific place and time, but there is no underlying essence. People have not changed their values, but the ideologies have. As the tribes have changed their values, the people now stand on opposing tribes.

Reality is complex, with a search for an essence part of a need for simplicity. The problem of the search, is that the simplification loses content and harms dialogue rather than aid in understanding.

What Effect Does Essentialism Has?
Ideological tribalism turned people away from respecting other people’s rights, democratic values, accepting election outcomes, and follow the rule of law. Essentialism leads to conformism and hostility, which creates tribal stereotypes that become self-fulfilling. Tribal identity leads to hating the alternative. Disagreements can be divisive, but the animosity is amplified by tribal identity. Discrimination has become acceptable when using ideological labels.

Although people need to be part of a tribe, people deny their tribalism. Essentialist theory disguises tribalism. People earn membership in their tribe by signaling their support for the tribe’s claims. Extremist reaffirm tribal commitment when signaling support for the tribe’s claims, it does not mean they agree with the belief itself. Although people will claim to follow the same principles. Left-right essentialism persists to hide partisan values, to be tribal without feeling tribal. To conform to tribal values without admitting the conformation.

Tribalism is not a problem, the problem is not acknowledging tribalism. The problem is assuming that the socialization process does not affect the individual, when it actually does. The self-deception makes ideological essentialism attractive. They claim to be principled when actually they invent stories of their ideological coherence. The essentialist illusion enables the party to change principles without losing membership. Essentialism allows parties to change policies without appearing to change anything.

Essentialism reduces cognitive ability. Ideological Essentialism leads to confirmation bias, and a willingness to misinterpret information. To be self-righteous, and self-justify. Essentialism turns intelligence as a tool against reality. The more educated are able to defend their claims better than the uneducated. Intelligence enables the rationalization of self-deception about the opposition, to justify tribal prejudices.

There have been many inappropriate studies done on tribal fear sensitivity. The studies were inappropriate because they checked for sensitivity using questions meant to illicit a response from what an opposing tribe would fear. Individuals in a tribe have similar fears, defined by the tribe. When the studies asked neutral questions, the different tribes turn out to be equally considerate on various aspects. Although neither tribe is more intolerant in general, each tribe is intolerant to the other tribe.

How Did The Political Spectrum Come To Be?
Before the 1920s, Americans might have had different political parties, but there was no political spectrum. The parties stood for certain political principles during the moment. Later historians anachronistically imposed a political spectrum on those of the past, even if they did not actually think in those categories.

What turned the American political system into a political spectrum was reporting done on the Russian Revolution. As the Russians categorized between left-right spectrum, the reporters used the terminology. But starting in 1919, journalists applied the left-right to competing factions of American socialists. The terms were then domesticated to the main parties.

As more political dimensions were added, Americans retained a unidimensional model. Although the unidimensional approach was obsolete due to the proliferation of political issues, the ideologues would not change the way they approached the issues. What ideologues wanted was for them to be right about everything, and the opposition to be wrong about everything.

How To Overcome Essentialism?
Recognizing susceptibility to the essentialist myth is a step to overcome the problems that essentialism creates. Recognizing that the myth creates distortions. As essentialism packages ideas, the reverse is to use granularity by referencing the ideas separately. This is part of a way to change the way ideologies are discussed. Use constructive political disagreement.

There are many tribes, which means that there are options to choose from. As there are tribes that hurt the person and society, people should find better tribes to belong to.

Caveats?
The focus of this book is on the problems of the essentialist political framework. There are many examples given as evidence, they are diverse but short and can be self-similar. The explanation of the resolutions are more limited, and tend to have mixed qualities.

[Greyson Shoop · Rating 4 out of 5]

Could’ve been shorter and just as effective. Still a must read for anyone confused or shocked by the state of U.S. politics post 2016.

[Eli Prager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating. Am left wondering—> what now? You’ve convinced me that the political left and right don’t exist in the sense we know them today, what should I do with this info. Am planning to bring this up in tomorrow’s Socratic discussion.

Update: issues in the world get more complex. Obviously a “leftist” from 1930 is going to have different views from a “leftist” from the 2010s. The world is infinitely more complex now.

[Deirdre Clancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting treatise on the uselessness of the categories of 'left' and 'right' in the American context. Lewis argues that 'left' and 'right' are unstable categories, and gives a potted history of American politics that proves this (showing, for example, that policies that were considered left-of-centre 50 years ago could very well now be considered right-of-centre simply because they're adopted by Republicans). Numerous examples are provided to show that the terms are simply applied to policies depending on which politicial party adopts them, as opposed to the policies themselves.

The book goes on to argue against packaging policy positions together and placing them in ideological buckets with names such as 'left', 'right', 'liberal', or 'conservative', instead proposing a granular approach to discussion about issues that addresses the issues themselves as opposed to the arbitrary ideological designation into which they're placed. Underlying this need to package unrelated issues together under a false ideological umbrella, argues the book, is a primal human need to separate into tribal groups. This deception is at the source of many problems in politics and distorts individuals' ability to assess issues in an intellectually honest way.

There's a lot of common sense in this book, but it's difficult to get a handle on the alternative being proposed. The book talks a bit about granularity as a solution but doesn't really address how the party political system would actually work if everyone took a granular approach to elections and voting. It's been clear to many for a long time that the liberal/conservative divide in the U.S. is a highly distorting construct that creates unnecessary division and fuels conspiracy theories. There's an extent to which this happens in European countries also, but is not as extreme in its manifestations in recent years.

In Ireland, what up until recently were the two main political parties were arch-enemies for decades after the civil war. One was in favour of the Treaty with the British that created division of the island into two territories (Fine Gael) and tended to consist of the establishment. The other (Fianna Fáil) had originally been anti-Treaty and wanted to fight the British until the whole island was under Irish rule. The two parties, however, are now virtually indistinguishable, and happily went into coalition during the pandemic for the first time, partially to avoid the prospect of Sinn Féin going into governmet. The latter is a prospect many in the Republic of Ireland still feel uncomfortable with, but the likelihood is it will happen before too long, now that there is an entire generation of voters who do not remember the senseless violence of the Troubles.

Political categories are highly contingent on history and place. It's true that they're not always helpful. I tend to vote for candidates and their policies rather than parties myself, as I distrust politicians who are too dogmatically tied to an ideological agenda. Politics is imperfect and it's likely that this will always be the case.

This is a thought-provoking book but it's highly U.S. centric and short on comparisons with other countries. It would be more interesting if it had interrogated the meaning of right and left in the U.S. vis-à-vis, for example, mainland Europe or even Canada. By staying focused on the U.S., it feels like it's mirroring the self-referential, bullish nature of U.S. politics that seems to believe it knows best, does everything best, and is always the winner at everything. This makes it impossible for it to learn from the mistakes and triumphs of older and more refined democracies.

[Ben Gross · Rating 2 out of 5]

The main idea of this book strikes me as straightforwardly true. The rest of it varies from insightful to frustrating to plain wrong.

[Kiki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, my mind is blown. There really is no such thing as left-wing ideology or right-wing ideology. And there is no such thing as conservative ideology or liberal ideology. (Using “liberal“ in the political sense, not the Enlightenment philosophy sense.)

When I first heard the thesis of this book I thought, “Well… sometimes left-wingers don’t behave like left-wingers, and sometimes right-wingers don’t behave like right-wingers, but there IS a left wing and right wing.” But with example after example after example, the Lewis brothers bash down every clinging justification for the belief in a polarized binary of political principles called “left and right“ or “ liberal and conservative“.

Ideas which are held to be the core of the right in some times and places are held to be the core of the left in other times and places. There really is no essential principle behind left and right. There is no essential principle behind conservative and liberal. There are only two tribes. And those tribes pick different positions on different issues at different times — sometimes picking positions directly opposite to positions they held previously. And then they tell ex post stories to justify how the position is “left“ or “right“.

Once we, as individuals, realize this, we can stop being duped into lumping together a hodgepodge of positions on issues as though they were all somehow related to each other. We can begin to do a better job considering each issue on its own terms, regardless of which political tribe we belong to. We can realize that our tribes get some things right and some things wrong, but neither tribe has a principle behind it guaranteeing it is always right.

As we increasingly do this we will weaken the foundations of polarization. That will strengthen the foundations of democracy. Let’s begin now, for that is an outcome greatly to be desired.

[Spencer Marlen-Starr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hands down the best book about politics I have ever read! Notice though, I did not make the MUCH stronger claim that it was the best political book or book which has to do with politics.

It took me listening to the excellent version of the book available on Audible, watching 3 separate appearances of the authors on podcasts, and most importantly, reading the multipart correspondence with the hosts of one of those podcasts after their appearance on it (economist Bryan Caplan and political scientist Robin Hanson).

But once I fully grasped their thesis, it became almost obvious and something I could not easily unsee (forget). The simplest version of the thesis of this book is that left and right in the United States are 100% tribal labels which are simply lagging indicators for the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I will not try to more briefly restate their arguments and evidence here, because the book is so short!

It packs more of a punch in terms of the amount of new knowledge, perspective, and insights gains per page when reading or per minute when listening to it than any other book I can think of!

ALSO, the two authors are surprisingly accessible. I emailed both of them after listening to it for the second time and one of them got back to me within a week.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

While at times the argument is hyperbolic, I think this book makes a very strong case that the terms left and right do more harm than good in our culture and politics. I don’t think what the authors term essentialism explains everything and I think there are times when terms like liberal, progressive, conservative, etc. can be useful. But the combination of ideological sorting and two dominant political parties has created a situation where left and right signify tribes not understandable political philosophies. So while you can make an argument for a rather well defined Modern American Conservatism as a philosophical approach, even in during heightened consensus there was still a lot of disagreement within that approach. The author’s argument for granularity and specificity is much needed today as tribalism is king and terms and definitions have become even less useful.

A short and interesting read that should prod us to change the way we think about politics and language if we want to see better policy and better communities.

[Ashlyn Bingham · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Liberals accuse conservatives as being closed minded, and conservatives accuse liberals as being closed minded. But it turns out, they are both correct! Ideology is a humility killer. It turns us into soldiers instead of scouts. It’s easy to see why ideology produces dogmatism. The essentialist theory tells us that if we are correct about the one essential issue of politics, then we are correct about all political issues. By giving the illusion of monism, essentialism also gives the illusion of omniscience. Once we have chosen the correct side of the master issue, then the thinking is done, and all that remains is to silence any disagreement. No wonder cancel culture has taken hold in both political tribes. Many argue that we should consider alternative viewpoints because we might be wrong. But actually, we should consider alternative viewpoints because we are certainly wrong. And the only way to be less wrong is through open dialogue….The point of politics should be improvement of society, but ideological tribalism puts the quest for victory above the quest for truth.”

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic thesis of the book is interesting: the idea of a "left-right political spectrum" is a 20th century innovation that obscures more than it reveals. Libertarians like markets and distrust state interference, but fascists distrust markets and love state interference, so how are they both "right wing"? Similar things could be said about the heterogeneity of leftism, although the authors talk less about this (based on the things they talk about and the sources they cite, they seem to be in a right wing bubble, despite their persistent screaming about the badness of bubbles). This thesis is both interesting and plausible. Unfortunately the authors are annoying as shit. The information, especially the historical information, is very interesting. If the presentation were cleaned up, the caricatures of opposing points of views moderated, and some of overly-brief points elaborated, this would be a pretty excellent book.

[Lynette Lake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish every American would read this book. I think it could radically change the polarizing discourse that currently plagues America. It does a great job breaking down the current beliefs of an essential right and left and helps the reader recognize where our political commitments are to a tribe rather than a correct set of ideals and if we would practice some humility and open mindedness and take issues on an individual basis I think it would work wonders to how we make decisions for our nation as well as heal so much of the resentment, anger and even violence that we seem to see ever increasing in society. So much potential if we as Americans could wrap our minds around this! Can’t recommend enough!

[Cameron Archibald · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book and long overdue. I was surprised how much tribal thinking influences political positions.

One minor drawback- I don’t think that the same political position has indiscriminately bounced through each party. For example- they undersell the issue of taxes on the political left and right and I think it’s safe to say that the right has for the most part been in favor of lower taxes than the left though the appetite for “high” and “low” taxes has shifted over time. Today that the political parties haven’t anchored to any political position was a little bit of a stretch.

But their point in the main was correct. What one party favors often changes to the former position in just a few years with the political winds.

A important book for all Americans to read.