Rate this book

The Tyranny Of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat In The War Of Ideas (2012)

by Jonah Goldberg(Favorite Author)

4.03 of 5 Votes: 2

ISBN

1595230866 (ISBN13: 9781595230867)

languge

English

genre

History & Biography

publisher

Sentinel

review 1: I got this book for free. It took me a while to read it, but I am glad I did. I am a independent with liberal tendencies and I still found truth in most of what Mr. Goldberg said. I really liked how he did not just rip down liberals. He pointed out flaws in conservatives as well. He pointed out flaws on both side which was a nice change. Although there were not points that I do not agree with I still found this book very insightful.
review 2: Goldberg’s book is an uneven mess that tries to squeeze a few separate ideas for a book into one at the expense of the whole.The problem with this book is that Goldberg’s agenda forces a few separate ideas for a book into one at the expense of all of it. If he had left the book as an examination of the origin of clich... moreés and how they play a role in tainting how we discuss life and politics, he certainly has enough examples in this book and from the side he chose to ignore that it would have been an interesting, well-rounded read. However, by trying to make it an indictment of “liberals”, it loses its objectivity and consistency. As far how well he makes his case, I think it is really, really poor. His purported motivation is that conservatives are more up front about their ideology, while liberals often ignore the implicit bias of their discussion points. While there are moments where he shows this to be true, too often because of this explicit bias in the book the reader is left with numerous holes in the text or where his own ideological stance is out front and center without being stated explicitly. And all of this is done with the guise of being entertaining, most of which essentially just creates a divide between him and anyone who might question what he’s written.Apart from the general purpose and design of the book, he also doesn’t seem to know who he’s arguing against. The term “liberal” is thrown around with such abandon as to be laughable. He mocks the liberal movement at points for basically being a catch-all term, with everything bad and evil being conservative and liberal being what’s left over, but in the end that’s how he too often treats liberalism, as an all-encompassing movement of the state, with conservatism being everything good and true.For an example of how this mish-mash of ideas and hypocrisy gets thrown around, here’s how the first few chapters go: “Random person A is a liberal. Here is half a sentence he once said. Do you know who also said something like that? Hitler. . See, liberals all secretly want to be like Hitler!” I wish I was making that up, but the Nazi comparisons are rife. And there are so many quotes repeated numerous times in the book – one wonders how his editors let that repetition through…I guess maybe the audience for his last book was a whole lot less discerning.But the real issue with the book is just it doesn’t know what it is trying to be. There are a few good chapters in this book, and there are even sections within terrible chapters that are interesting. But I read the chapter on “Social Darwinism” and thought, “Well, okay, so you’ve shown that the origins of Social Darwinism are not what we thought, and that it might not apply to all of the ‘robber barons’, but what about its use today, which is actually what you are railing against?” There are a number of these historical “origin of phrases” that are interesting but irrelevant to the larger point of his book, but he tries to wedge them in as some all-encompassing picture of misguided liberal clichés. It’s very problematic. He could have easily made an interesting book on “actually, this is where that comes from”, and it would be better suited to his historical curiosity, which is clearly the stronger point of the book.The weak point of the book is his inability to draw on a vast array of sources and perspectives and his own bias-blindness, which is why I think so many people have criticized the book as hypocritical. I understand the reason for his exclusion of conservative clichés, though I think it weakens the book and essentially prevents him from making the case he’s trying to prove, but too often he doesn’t seem to be aware of his own ideological claims, which thus goes very much against his case. The fact that he has an entire chapter on “Science” that rails not against the hard sciences but against the social sciences and then repeatedly uses similar social science findings throughout the book would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. Then there is the fact that basically any analytical work he cites comes from AEI, or Heritage, or Reason. Hell, he even cites National Review blogs for good measure. He offhandedly uses this bullshit repeatedly to slide policy points into the text, even though that has nothing to do with the purported point of the book.It’s really a shame he couldn’t see past his own bias and ego to write a book on the origins of clichés we resort to every day. By trying to make it a polemic against an opposing political view, it leaves open far too many holes for the reader. less

Download links for: The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

Advertising