Pluralistic: Nathan J. Robinson's "Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments" (14 Feb 2023)

Today's links

The cover for the St Martin's edition of 'Responding to the Right.'

Nathan J. Robinson's "Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments" (permalink)

In "Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments," Current Affairs founder Nathan J. Robinson addresses himself in a serious, thoughtful way to the arguments advanced by right-wing figures, even when those arguments aren't themselves very serious:

Robinson is a keen student of right-wing media. He reads the books, watches the talk shows, listens to the podcasts. This is a lot of work, because the right wing media machine is extremely repetitive, often unhinged, and frequently grossly offensive. But, Robinson argues, a close study of right-wing media is worth it for what it reveals: the currents and fracture lines, and the underlying beliefs that the whole edifice is built upon.

Robinson sets up his subject with an essay on the curious un-reason of conservative arguments, which are inevitably styled by their proponents as "rational" (with left arguments condemned as irrational, softheaded and sentimental). But conservative arguments, motivated by fear and discomfort with uncertainty, are frequently, demonstrably, historically, provably irrational.

The arguments against letting everybody vote – proffered in the mid-19th century – threatened societal collapse if the "wrong" people were given a say. Despite society's manifest failure to collapse, these same arguments were advanced again for the next 150 years (and are still repeated today) in conservative circles.

Likewise, the general conservative pessimism that reform isn't possible – bad regulations can't be replaced with good ones, bad working conditions can't be improved through unionization. These arguments are repeated again and again, impervious to evidence.

Robinson describes conservativism as a comforting, fixed ideology that allows its adherents to move through the world without having to question themselves: you broke the law, so you're guilty. No need to ask if the law was just or unjust. This sidelines sticky moral dilemmas: no need for judges to ask if something is good or fair – merely whether it is "original" to the Constitution. No need for a CEO to ask whether a business plan is moral – only whether it is "maximizing shareholder benefit."

There are rigid, dogmatic leftists, too (whom Robinson decries) but conservatives who are quick to point out how Marxist dogma can lead to ghastly atrocities – as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge – are completely indifferent to, say, the horrors of US imperialism in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Conservative arguing techniques break down into a dozen categories:

I. Speculative fiction: "More immigrants will destroy the social fabric of our society" – anything we can vividly imagine is certain to occur. Likewise, "companies that abuse their workers will lose those workers when they quit."

II. Saying things rather than proving things: "Central America is poor because bad laws restrict capital formation" – asserting dogma as though it was obviously true, rather than a proposition in need of evidence and proof.

III. Extrapolating from narrow examples: "All the private housing in Chicago is terrible, therefore public housing is impossible to do well." No attention is spared for counterexamples that disprove the proposition or analysis that asks why this situation arose.

IV. Lofty abstractions rather than actual thought: "Nothing is more important than the freedom to explore the destiny of one's soul and risk it at every moment" – it's inspiring, but what does it mean? How does it apply to the climate? Family leave? Health care?

V. The rhetoric of "reason, fact and knowledge": "Facts don't care about your feelings" – but "facts" are just what conservatives call their "feelings."

VI. Assumptions about human nature: "Man, acting without religion, is unable to break any chains that oppress him" – unproven, blithe statements that humans are naturally greedy, or hierarchical, or lazy, etc. These are unfalsifiable superstitions masquerading as science.

VII. Ludicrous hyperbole: "American Marxism is actively working to destroy our society and culture"

VIII. Bad stats: "The NHS costs British households £5000/year. Governments can't run efficient services." Sure, the NHS costs UK households 5 grand per year – how much do American households pay for private insurance?

IX. (Allegedly) unanswerable questions: "We're supposed to be in awe of teachers' dedication and outraged at their low pay. Which is it? Are they in it for the money, or because of their mission to help kids?" These "gotcha" questions usually have straightforward answers (for example, people can be dedicated to their jobs and deserving of a living wage).

X. Gish gallops: Throwing out so many assertions in a single tirade that you don't even know where to begin.

XI. Plausible, but terrible, analogies: "If a million Mexican soldiers tried to invade the USA every year and 150,000 of them made it and claimed territory for Mexico, we'd be outraged. We should be just as alarmed at 150,000 Mexican migrants who settle here." Mexican migrants aren't an occupying army annexing territory to a foreign power – they're low-waged, hard workers who pay tax, don't get to use the systems that their taxes pay for, and come at their own direction, not at the direction of a foreign power.

XII. Selective omissions: "Thousands of Canadians go to the USA to get health care they can't get at home" – not said: millions of Canadians get excellent health care at home, and tens of millions of Americans can't get healthcare in the USA.

After this anatomy of bad argumentation, Robinson offers general tips for countering these arguments, including "don't assume they're stupid," "focus on arguments, not statistics," and "stories matter as much as empirical correctness." These are hard-won, field-tested tactics for both winning over persuadable conservatives and keeping neutral observers from being sucked in by bad arguments.

The next two thirds of the book are taken up with analyses of specific conservative arguments, and responses to them. All told, Robinson takes on 25 of these, from "the woke left want to destroy free speech" to "immigration is harmful" to "there is no such thing as white privilege."

For each of these arguments, Robinson lays out the best versions of the conservative positions, quoting extensively from both right wing intellectuals and demagogues, and then describes their weaknesses and suggests avenues for arguing these points. He also provides a bibliography at the end of each section.

Robinson also signposts areas where no common ground can be had – true believers in fetal personhood are likely to stay that way, and nothing you say is going to change that. The best you can hope for is to make sure that observers hear the better arguments.

But there are other conservative positions, like "the Nazis were socialists," that are just plain wrong (Robinson quotes an authoritative source on why Nazis are not socialists – one A. Hitler). These are areas where it's possible to disabuse people of things they don't understand well but have fallen into reflexive opinions over.

In his conclusion, Robinson rounds up some conservative positions he agrees with:

  • many authoritarian "socialist" governments of the 20th century were horrifying;

  • some leftists are unpleasant and self-righteous;

  • the Democratic Party is pretty worthless;

  • conserving things is good.

Though Robinson notes that even on these areas of seeming agreement, conservatives often fall short of their rhetoric (for example, conservation of our forests, oceans, animals and atmosphere are antithetical to conservative policies).

Robinson also anatomizes the most effective parts of conservative rhetoric and exhorts his leftist comrades to learn from it, and put it to better use.

I confess that I find it hard to spend a lot of time in conservativeland; the podcasts and books and TV are often excruciating. Robinson's book is proof that it's worth the effort, though.

Hey look at this (permalink)

A Wayback Machine banner.

This day in history (permalink)

#10yrsago Missouri lawmaker wants to redefine science to include “faith-based philosophy,” force creationism into science class

#5yrsago The Internet Archive’s John Perry Barlow collection

#5yrsago The astounding science and engineering of printer jams

#5yrsago IBM Security survey finds users value “security” over “convenience”

#5yrsago The first-ever independent audit of whistleblower retaliation in US spy agencies was looking bad for the agencies, so it was shut down

#5yrsago The world’s worst money launderers are the UK, Switzerland and the USA

#5yrsago Vinegar Valentines: Villainous Victorian woodcuts that lament the irritations of engaging tradesmen

#5yrsago I Am the Very Model of a New York Times Contrarian

#5yrsago Deepfakes that hurt people are already illegal, so let’s stop trying to rush out ill-considered legislation

#5yrsago Charles Stross’s “Dark State”: transdimensional, nuclear-tipped mutually assured destruction by way of a first-rate spy novel

Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • Picks and Shovels, a Martin Hench noir thriller about the heroic era of the PC. Yesterday's progress: 500 words (105370 words total)

  • The Bezzle, a Martin Hench noir thriller novel about the prison-tech industry. FIRST DRAFT COMPLETE, WAITING FOR EDITORIAL REVIEW

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING

  • Vigilant, Little Brother short story about remote invigilation. ON SUBMISSION

  • Moral Hazard, a short story for MIT Tech Review's 12 Tomorrows. FIRST DRAFT COMPLETE, ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

  • Spill, a Little Brother short story about pipeline protests. ON SUBMISSION

Currently reading: Analogia by George Dyson.

Latest podcast: Social Quitting

Upcoming appearances:

Recent appearances:

Latest books:

Upcoming books:

  • Red Team Blues: "A grabby, compulsive thriller that will leave you knowing more about how the world works than you did before." Tor Books, April 2023

  • The Internet Con: A nonfiction book about interoperability and Big Tech, Verso, September 2023

  • The Lost Cause: a post-Green New Deal eco-topian novel about truth and reconciliation with white nationalist militias, Tor Books, November 2023

This work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.

How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

(Latest Medium column: "Of Course Mastodon Lost Users"

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla