What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives' War on Fun
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
-H.L. Mencken
The Left used to be the party of the hippies and the free spirits. Now it's home to woke scolds and humorless idealogues. The New Puritans can judge a person's moral character by their clothes, Netflix queue, fast food favorites, the sports they watch, and the company they keep. No choice is neutral, no sphere is private.
Not since the Puritans has a political movement wanted so much power over your thoughts, hobbies, and preferences every minute of your day. In the process, they are sucking the joy out of life.
In The Rise of the New Puritans, Noah Rothman explains how, in pursuit of a better world, progressives are ruining the very things which make life worth living. They've created a society full of verbal trip wires and digital witch hunts. Football? Too violent. Fusion food? Appropriation. The nuclear family? Oppressive.
Witty, deeply researched, and thorough, The Rise of the New Puritans encourages us to spurn a movement whose primary goal has become limiting happiness. It uncovers the historical roots of the left's war on fun and reminds us of the freedom and personal fulfillment at the heart of the American experiment.
-H.L. Mencken
The Left used to be the party of the hippies and the free spirits. Now it's home to woke scolds and humorless idealogues. The New Puritans can judge a person's moral character by their clothes, Netflix queue, fast food favorites, the sports they watch, and the company they keep. No choice is neutral, no sphere is private.
Not since the Puritans has a political movement wanted so much power over your thoughts, hobbies, and preferences every minute of your day. In the process, they are sucking the joy out of life.
In The Rise of the New Puritans, Noah Rothman explains how, in pursuit of a better world, progressives are ruining the very things which make life worth living. They've created a society full of verbal trip wires and digital witch hunts. Football? Too violent. Fusion food? Appropriation. The nuclear family? Oppressive.
Witty, deeply researched, and thorough, The Rise of the New Puritans encourages us to spurn a movement whose primary goal has become limiting happiness. It uncovers the historical roots of the left's war on fun and reminds us of the freedom and personal fulfillment at the heart of the American experiment.
315 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 5, 2022
88 people are currently reading
871 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
April 8, 2022
I’m a progressive lefty who recognizes the problems with the “wokeness” of my side. But when grabbing a book like this, there’s always a concern that it’s going to be filled with terrible arguments and just an excuse to talk trash. Fortunately, this isn’t one of those books. Noah Rothman killed it with this book, and it met and exceeded all of my expectations.
I’m 36, and many of the woke folk are my age. It’s blown my mind that all these people seem to forget how we grew up, what we all thought was hilarious, and how we didn’t freak out over things that don’t matter. Now, everyone is so uptight, and that’s why I wanted to read this book from Rothman. In it, he relates all of the outrage culture insanity to the Puritan movement, and it’s uncanny to see the parallels. What’s even crazier is that the Left is supposed to be the free-spirit wild and crazy ones, but it’s like we can’t even have fun anymore.
I was worried this book would only cover comedy and all of the comedians getting canceled for current or old jokes, but it was so much more. Rothman covers everything from the clothes we wear to sex, to alcohol, and a ton of other topics. This book is everything, and I hope people read it and realize how damn silly everyone has become. Life is way to short to freak out about so many things and ruin relationships.
I’m 36, and many of the woke folk are my age. It’s blown my mind that all these people seem to forget how we grew up, what we all thought was hilarious, and how we didn’t freak out over things that don’t matter. Now, everyone is so uptight, and that’s why I wanted to read this book from Rothman. In it, he relates all of the outrage culture insanity to the Puritan movement, and it’s uncanny to see the parallels. What’s even crazier is that the Left is supposed to be the free-spirit wild and crazy ones, but it’s like we can’t even have fun anymore.
I was worried this book would only cover comedy and all of the comedians getting canceled for current or old jokes, but it was so much more. Rothman covers everything from the clothes we wear to sex, to alcohol, and a ton of other topics. This book is everything, and I hope people read it and realize how damn silly everyone has become. Life is way to short to freak out about so many things and ruin relationships.
September 8, 2022
"Not since the Puritans has a political movement wanted so much power over your thoughts, hobbies, and preferences every minute of your day. In the process, they are sucking the joy out of life."
Did you just skip the McCarthy period in the US during your research or...? Or the Golden Age of Hollywood when studios were basically punished by the damn Catholic Church (look up the rules of the PCA) for showing couples kissing horizontally on a bed??
"The PCA was strict upon the point that kissing must not occur in a horizontal position, since that was considered too suggestive. If one person was in a bed, the other person must lean over for them to kiss. If the sitting person kept one foot on the floor, the kiss was unlikely to become totally horizontal."
"The MPPDA was to act as Hollywood’s internal censor guaranteeing that films would promote wholesome values. Completely out of his element, with no understanding of the film industry and no rapport with the industry professionals, Hayes was largely a failure as Hollywood’s in-house censor-in-chief."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...
Or how comic books were so censored you couldn't even criticize the military? Look up the "Code of Silence".
"Faced with an angry public and the threat of regulation by the government or self-regulation, the comics industry was backed into a corner. They responded by establishing the Comic Magazine Association of America, which instituted the Comics Code Authority, a censorship code that thoroughly sanitized the content of comics for years to come."
One of the rules:
"Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority."
http://cbldf.org/resources/history-of...
But a bunch of losers on twitter whining about "wokeness" is bigger than that? Its bigger than denying due process and civil liberties to people because they "might be communists" (McCarthy era). You are conflating obnoxious human beings who use capitalism to get the results they want...with the actual government doing the very thing you're claiming progressives are doing in this book. Except that was the law AND you could lose all of your friends, family, your job or even your life.
"This law (the McCarran Act I believe it was called...there were a few similar laws) allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also to bar suspected subversives from entering the country. The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate."
I mean...Julius and Ethel Rosenberg anyone??? People can say "well that was all necessary for the fight against communism!!" when people who were not proven to be "working with the enemy" aka the USSR...were still treated poorly and some had their rights taken away. As American citizens. Its interesting how many working class movements were crushed during this period (in the US and abroad...) but I digress.
I absolutely agree that the virtue signaling and BS from so called "woke" people who are sometimes trying so hard to be "woke" they ironically will end up participating in the infantilization of marginalized people and treating us like children...just like our oppressors did/do. But to ignore where this came from and what institutions put this type of culture in place and trying to attribute it almost solely to "progressives" is absolutely ABSURD to say the least. Progressives, as in actual progressive leftists working on the ground for change, to unionize, etc. have never had any real power in the the US or most of the world. We can blame the CIA and imperialism for that. Yeah, annoying wannabe "woke" people who do nothing but blab on twitter about how Barilla pasta should be banned or whatever (as they throw out the pasta they have already purchased haha) are incredibly annoying and some have cost people their jobs, I know this.
But you are missing an incredibly large and much more powerful component when you do not factor in how the intentional spread of religious extremism (take a look at just about any country that has been colonized or been heavily influenced by outside countries or their intelligence agencies) and how THAT has led to and is still leading to an absurd amount of censorship and abuse. There is a reason why almost every major cult espouses right wing ideology or is blatantly right wing, regardless of what they claim to preach. They are allowed to exist while damn spy cops in the UK used to infiltrate small leftist groups (we are talking groups as small as THREE PEOPLE) and yet skin heads and other far right groups were left alone.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/n...
https://www.spycops.co.uk/the-story/
That is not a coincidence.
Also when will people stop conflating liberals with leftists :( its so exhausting. You definitely have your "woke" annoying leftists out there but the majority of leftists who are actually engaged in the fight for a better life for working class people...do not have time to sit and have sincere fights on twitter or to call people's jobs and get them fired.
(Mainly not that last one because that is the antithesis of what we are fighting for lmao).
Did you just skip the McCarthy period in the US during your research or...? Or the Golden Age of Hollywood when studios were basically punished by the damn Catholic Church (look up the rules of the PCA) for showing couples kissing horizontally on a bed??
"The PCA was strict upon the point that kissing must not occur in a horizontal position, since that was considered too suggestive. If one person was in a bed, the other person must lean over for them to kiss. If the sitting person kept one foot on the floor, the kiss was unlikely to become totally horizontal."
"The MPPDA was to act as Hollywood’s internal censor guaranteeing that films would promote wholesome values. Completely out of his element, with no understanding of the film industry and no rapport with the industry professionals, Hayes was largely a failure as Hollywood’s in-house censor-in-chief."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...
Or how comic books were so censored you couldn't even criticize the military? Look up the "Code of Silence".
"Faced with an angry public and the threat of regulation by the government or self-regulation, the comics industry was backed into a corner. They responded by establishing the Comic Magazine Association of America, which instituted the Comics Code Authority, a censorship code that thoroughly sanitized the content of comics for years to come."
One of the rules:
"Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority."
http://cbldf.org/resources/history-of...
But a bunch of losers on twitter whining about "wokeness" is bigger than that? Its bigger than denying due process and civil liberties to people because they "might be communists" (McCarthy era). You are conflating obnoxious human beings who use capitalism to get the results they want...with the actual government doing the very thing you're claiming progressives are doing in this book. Except that was the law AND you could lose all of your friends, family, your job or even your life.
"This law (the McCarran Act I believe it was called...there were a few similar laws) allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also to bar suspected subversives from entering the country. The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate."
I mean...Julius and Ethel Rosenberg anyone??? People can say "well that was all necessary for the fight against communism!!" when people who were not proven to be "working with the enemy" aka the USSR...were still treated poorly and some had their rights taken away. As American citizens. Its interesting how many working class movements were crushed during this period (in the US and abroad...) but I digress.
I absolutely agree that the virtue signaling and BS from so called "woke" people who are sometimes trying so hard to be "woke" they ironically will end up participating in the infantilization of marginalized people and treating us like children...just like our oppressors did/do. But to ignore where this came from and what institutions put this type of culture in place and trying to attribute it almost solely to "progressives" is absolutely ABSURD to say the least. Progressives, as in actual progressive leftists working on the ground for change, to unionize, etc. have never had any real power in the the US or most of the world. We can blame the CIA and imperialism for that. Yeah, annoying wannabe "woke" people who do nothing but blab on twitter about how Barilla pasta should be banned or whatever (as they throw out the pasta they have already purchased haha) are incredibly annoying and some have cost people their jobs, I know this.
But you are missing an incredibly large and much more powerful component when you do not factor in how the intentional spread of religious extremism (take a look at just about any country that has been colonized or been heavily influenced by outside countries or their intelligence agencies) and how THAT has led to and is still leading to an absurd amount of censorship and abuse. There is a reason why almost every major cult espouses right wing ideology or is blatantly right wing, regardless of what they claim to preach. They are allowed to exist while damn spy cops in the UK used to infiltrate small leftist groups (we are talking groups as small as THREE PEOPLE) and yet skin heads and other far right groups were left alone.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/n...
https://www.spycops.co.uk/the-story/
That is not a coincidence.
Also when will people stop conflating liberals with leftists :( its so exhausting. You definitely have your "woke" annoying leftists out there but the majority of leftists who are actually engaged in the fight for a better life for working class people...do not have time to sit and have sincere fights on twitter or to call people's jobs and get them fired.
(Mainly not that last one because that is the antithesis of what we are fighting for lmao).
August 1, 2022
Rothman’s overall metaphor of English Puritans to modern progressive politics is astute. I agree with his assertations of many of the book’s topics: online virtue signaling, performative activism, public shaming, the overpopulatiom myth (and how it’s often used to justify soft eugenics), race essentialism, and progressives’ inability to comprehend art for art’s sake.
But Rothman also completely misses the mark in several areas. This is most glaring when feminist issues (or sexual ethics issues that deal with the commodification the female body) are discussed.
First is an odd paragraph in the book’s introduction, where Rothman quotes someone who is concerned that sex is disappearing from cinema. Bemoaning that movie audiences are “deprived” and that movies are “less pleasurable” due to the decline of raunchy sex comedies and “sexy date-night movies” is ridiculous at best.
In Chapter 6, Rothman brings up Alfred Kinsey. When referencing Kinsey—who was a masochist and a rape apologist—it’s downright irresponsible not to condemn the blatant falsehoods in his research. He was fueled by his own biases, and sought to legitimize those biases by conducting a large portion of his research on sex predators and prostitutes (who are often victims of sex predators and sex trafficking). Therefore, whatever “evidence” Kinsey published about the nature of human sexuality should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.
In fact, throughout the entire chapter, it seems that Rothman frames the decline of casual sex and the uprise in celibacy or delayed sexual activity as a cultural loss. (A sociologist is quoted in this section, saying that the amount of “abstinent” young adults is “troubling.” Why is it troubling? That’s not explained.)
Rothman dismisses feminist critiques of pornography, and disdains the idea of women relying on themselves and not men for their own sexual fulfillment. The idea that women would choose to have no sex at all than to have bad sex is unthinkable to him, as does the idea of a fulfilling life without constant sexual pursuit.
(For the record, Rothman seems unclear about what asexuality is, and uses it interchangeably with celibacy. They are most definitely not the same.)
Also referred to several times throughout the book are nods to “Victorian stuffiness” and “Victorian mores” in close comparison to Puritanism. The so-called “prudishness” and “uptight” nature of the era has been grossly exaggerated, and the stereotype of the sex-fearing Victorians originated from the crusaders of the 1920’s sexual revolution. If Rothman cared to do any historical research whatsoever, he would have known this.
Passages I liked:
“…The existence of alternative preparations for a parricular culture’s favorites does not detract from that culture. It adds to it by expanding the number of people who wouldn’t otherwise have been exposed to those dishes.” (Pg. 66)
“The modern progressive moralist prides himself on his embrace of diversity in all things but thought.” (Pg. 85)
“The economic system in which [Gen Z] is participating is working ‘for them’ rather directly. It’s selling their own fatalistic anxiety back to them at a premium rate.”
(Pg. 108)
“Educating consumers around [cultural appropriation] isn’t controversial. The controversy arises when the conversation shifts from being informative to being accusatory and separatist, and when the line between appropriation and appreciation is deliberately obscured to preserve rather than resolve social conflict.” (Pg. 114)
“Harmonious social relations are difficult to maintain if your highest aim in life is pleasure-seeking. That is especially true if that pursuit of self-gratification is contemptuous of the boundaries others have established for themselves and their loved ones.” (Pg. 153)
“One needn’t become a prophet of doom to be perceived as sober and rational.” (Pg. 220)
“Living under constant threat is generating a lot of quiet resentment—resentment that will one day fuel a backlash.” (Pg. 247)
But Rothman also completely misses the mark in several areas. This is most glaring when feminist issues (or sexual ethics issues that deal with the commodification the female body) are discussed.
First is an odd paragraph in the book’s introduction, where Rothman quotes someone who is concerned that sex is disappearing from cinema. Bemoaning that movie audiences are “deprived” and that movies are “less pleasurable” due to the decline of raunchy sex comedies and “sexy date-night movies” is ridiculous at best.
In Chapter 6, Rothman brings up Alfred Kinsey. When referencing Kinsey—who was a masochist and a rape apologist—it’s downright irresponsible not to condemn the blatant falsehoods in his research. He was fueled by his own biases, and sought to legitimize those biases by conducting a large portion of his research on sex predators and prostitutes (who are often victims of sex predators and sex trafficking). Therefore, whatever “evidence” Kinsey published about the nature of human sexuality should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.
In fact, throughout the entire chapter, it seems that Rothman frames the decline of casual sex and the uprise in celibacy or delayed sexual activity as a cultural loss. (A sociologist is quoted in this section, saying that the amount of “abstinent” young adults is “troubling.” Why is it troubling? That’s not explained.)
Rothman dismisses feminist critiques of pornography, and disdains the idea of women relying on themselves and not men for their own sexual fulfillment. The idea that women would choose to have no sex at all than to have bad sex is unthinkable to him, as does the idea of a fulfilling life without constant sexual pursuit.
(For the record, Rothman seems unclear about what asexuality is, and uses it interchangeably with celibacy. They are most definitely not the same.)
Also referred to several times throughout the book are nods to “Victorian stuffiness” and “Victorian mores” in close comparison to Puritanism. The so-called “prudishness” and “uptight” nature of the era has been grossly exaggerated, and the stereotype of the sex-fearing Victorians originated from the crusaders of the 1920’s sexual revolution. If Rothman cared to do any historical research whatsoever, he would have known this.
Passages I liked:
“…The existence of alternative preparations for a parricular culture’s favorites does not detract from that culture. It adds to it by expanding the number of people who wouldn’t otherwise have been exposed to those dishes.” (Pg. 66)
“The modern progressive moralist prides himself on his embrace of diversity in all things but thought.” (Pg. 85)
“The economic system in which [Gen Z] is participating is working ‘for them’ rather directly. It’s selling their own fatalistic anxiety back to them at a premium rate.”
(Pg. 108)
“Educating consumers around [cultural appropriation] isn’t controversial. The controversy arises when the conversation shifts from being informative to being accusatory and separatist, and when the line between appropriation and appreciation is deliberately obscured to preserve rather than resolve social conflict.” (Pg. 114)
“Harmonious social relations are difficult to maintain if your highest aim in life is pleasure-seeking. That is especially true if that pursuit of self-gratification is contemptuous of the boundaries others have established for themselves and their loved ones.” (Pg. 153)
“One needn’t become a prophet of doom to be perceived as sober and rational.” (Pg. 220)
“Living under constant threat is generating a lot of quiet resentment—resentment that will one day fuel a backlash.” (Pg. 247)
October 18, 2022
This is the story about liberal progressivism overreach. The author alleged that the new social justice warriors are just reincarnated Puritans who just can’t stand the fact that some people, somewhere may be having fun! And draconian extreme solutions are the only way out…
Many excellent examples were given, here are some of them:
1. Letting your kids play in the park/walk home alone? Call Child Protective Services and arrest the parents! Put the kids in foster homes!
2. Children in nuclear families are oppressive and exacerbate inequality (you mean your parents actually raise you properly? How about those who don’t? Unfair!). So remove all kids and raise them in a commune! (By the way this has been tried in the Soviet Union with terrible consequences for the kids, so it was quickly abandoned)
3. Anyway having children will make climate change worse. So just stop making children, you don’t want them to suffer.
4. No person should ever wear other culture’s clothes, cook their food as it is ‘cultural appropriation’… it’s fun for me to wear different cultural outfit though…
5. Cotton/sugar/whatever grown by slaves last time is racist because of its history; anything made by people in third world country is oppressive; leather is from cruel farming of animals; synthetic fibres? Do you know the origin is from evil climate changing oil?
6. Flirting in the office? A praise about someone’s dressing? Well it is sexual harassment. Anyway sexual consent for college students must be constantly given (maybe every 10 minutes), or else it is sexual assault. No wonder young adults are having less sex. And see point 3.
7. Any wrong (racist/hate) speech spoken in youth must doom the person for life, by someone releasing the video of their act. Well my pastor used to be a Neo-nazist skin-head, but now he is a loving man…
8. Contact sports? Too violent. Alcohol? So many accidents and violence. Smoking? I’m dying from second hand smoke…
This over reach is sure going to invite a gigantic wave of backlash.
I can’t recommended this book more!
Many excellent examples were given, here are some of them:
1. Letting your kids play in the park/walk home alone? Call Child Protective Services and arrest the parents! Put the kids in foster homes!
2. Children in nuclear families are oppressive and exacerbate inequality (you mean your parents actually raise you properly? How about those who don’t? Unfair!). So remove all kids and raise them in a commune! (By the way this has been tried in the Soviet Union with terrible consequences for the kids, so it was quickly abandoned)
3. Anyway having children will make climate change worse. So just stop making children, you don’t want them to suffer.
4. No person should ever wear other culture’s clothes, cook their food as it is ‘cultural appropriation’… it’s fun for me to wear different cultural outfit though…
5. Cotton/sugar/whatever grown by slaves last time is racist because of its history; anything made by people in third world country is oppressive; leather is from cruel farming of animals; synthetic fibres? Do you know the origin is from evil climate changing oil?
6. Flirting in the office? A praise about someone’s dressing? Well it is sexual harassment. Anyway sexual consent for college students must be constantly given (maybe every 10 minutes), or else it is sexual assault. No wonder young adults are having less sex. And see point 3.
7. Any wrong (racist/hate) speech spoken in youth must doom the person for life, by someone releasing the video of their act. Well my pastor used to be a Neo-nazist skin-head, but now he is a loving man…
8. Contact sports? Too violent. Alcohol? So many accidents and violence. Smoking? I’m dying from second hand smoke…
This over reach is sure going to invite a gigantic wave of backlash.
I can’t recommended this book more!
July 10, 2022
Well written and no cheap shots. That said, it falls into the category of many non fiction books which could have been a five star essay. Instead it's a four star book. Still, well worth the time.
March 7, 2023
The woke left of today has numerous parallels to the original Puritan settlers of New England, namely for their worse qualities of moral absolutism, groupthink, self-righteousness, severe persecution of dissenters, not to mention their being all around no fun.
The author, Noah Rothman, takes a deep dive into the history of the Puritans with their religious underpinnings, escape from England for persecution related to their perceived excessive religiosity, their founding of communities and insistence on philosophical purity and immobility. He likens these attributes to the modern progressive movement which is notoriously intolerant, bigoted, inflexible, moralistic, and condemnatory of anyone not subscribing to their worldview. Their influence pervades politics, media, entertainment, and culture and has become insufferable to many who quietly resent their omnipresent grandstanding and hypocrisy.
This is told with measures of humor and wit, contrasting with woke humorlessness and sanctimony. Most optimistically, the author predicts a coming backlash and notes the outlines of an impending reaction to wokeness. He encourages readers to pay the woke their due through mockery, since only this will expose the weakness of their perceived imperviousness. I wait with enthusiasm to see if the tides will turn back to reason and common sense.
The author, Noah Rothman, takes a deep dive into the history of the Puritans with their religious underpinnings, escape from England for persecution related to their perceived excessive religiosity, their founding of communities and insistence on philosophical purity and immobility. He likens these attributes to the modern progressive movement which is notoriously intolerant, bigoted, inflexible, moralistic, and condemnatory of anyone not subscribing to their worldview. Their influence pervades politics, media, entertainment, and culture and has become insufferable to many who quietly resent their omnipresent grandstanding and hypocrisy.
This is told with measures of humor and wit, contrasting with woke humorlessness and sanctimony. Most optimistically, the author predicts a coming backlash and notes the outlines of an impending reaction to wokeness. He encourages readers to pay the woke their due through mockery, since only this will expose the weakness of their perceived imperviousness. I wait with enthusiasm to see if the tides will turn back to reason and common sense.
July 28, 2022
This book was so disappointing and dishonest.
The best and most honest critiques of the "new puritans" seem to come from the Left, not the Right.
The most disappointing (and dishonest) aspect of the book had to do with the Woke Left's treatment of women.
Hoffman had to go all the way back to the 80's to find any feminist attack on pornography.
For decades now, the "feminist" Left has trumpeted pornography and prostitution as "liberating" for women.
The "feminist" Left also celebrates any & all forms of kink, including BDSM and even what is called "ethical cannibalism".
For Rothman to ignore these blatant harms against women and instead make the totally false claim that the "woke" Left is anti-sexual freedom is absurd.
Perhaps Rothman, like a lot of Red State men, enjoys porn and prostitution and resents feminists from 40 years ago trying to make him feel guilty about it.
Well, here's a solution, Noah: read all the feminist literature of the past 20 years and you can view porn and solicit prostitutes to your heart's content (just make sure you refer to the women you consume as "sex workers" and it's all fine).
Rothman also claims that abortion rates have declined because of growing public "distaste" for the procedure, rather than greater access to and information about birth control (unwanted pregnancies in general have declined).
This book is just as dishonest as the "woke" puritans Rothman critiques.
So disappointing.
The best and most honest critiques of the "new puritans" seem to come from the Left, not the Right.
The most disappointing (and dishonest) aspect of the book had to do with the Woke Left's treatment of women.
Hoffman had to go all the way back to the 80's to find any feminist attack on pornography.
For decades now, the "feminist" Left has trumpeted pornography and prostitution as "liberating" for women.
The "feminist" Left also celebrates any & all forms of kink, including BDSM and even what is called "ethical cannibalism".
For Rothman to ignore these blatant harms against women and instead make the totally false claim that the "woke" Left is anti-sexual freedom is absurd.
Perhaps Rothman, like a lot of Red State men, enjoys porn and prostitution and resents feminists from 40 years ago trying to make him feel guilty about it.
Well, here's a solution, Noah: read all the feminist literature of the past 20 years and you can view porn and solicit prostitutes to your heart's content (just make sure you refer to the women you consume as "sex workers" and it's all fine).
Rothman also claims that abortion rates have declined because of growing public "distaste" for the procedure, rather than greater access to and information about birth control (unwanted pregnancies in general have declined).
This book is just as dishonest as the "woke" puritans Rothman critiques.
So disappointing.
July 25, 2022
It used to be the right that didn’t like your music, TV, video games, and the trash you read. In this new century, this dynamic has begun to change. The outlook is puritanical, argues Noah Rothman in this entertaining look at the history of puritanism in America. Yet the Puritans failed to shape the world to their Utopian vision. Rothman does an excellent—and humorous—job of detailing how these new puritans take themselves far too seriously. They are busybodies and should be mocked, he says. From the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the sex (the young) are not having, to the sports we watch, Rothman provides plenty of examples and evidence for his thesis. I really enjoyed how he weaved a historical perspective of puritanism along with his many contemporary examples. I learned a lot, and enjoyed his sardonic sense of humor along the way. H.L. Mencken defined puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.” Rothman makes a compelling case that this attitude is simply not sustainable.
August 30, 2022
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
Portsmouth is somewhat of a bastion of progressivism in New Hampshire, and that's reflected in its library. The staff took the liberty of producing an "Anti-Racism Zine" last year, enthusiastically weighing in on the Robin DiAngelo/Ibram X. Kendi/Angela Y. Davis side of a contentious public issue.
Fortunately, however, they do a decent job of keeping their shelves ideologically neutral. And when I submitted a suggestion for the purchase of this Noah Rothman book, they agreed, and even put it on hold for me when it came in. Now, I'm under no illusion that casual browsers in months hence will pick up the book, read it out of curiosity, and, bingo, Portsmouth Bernie Sanders voters en masse turn into National Review conservatives. I'm just happy to have it there, in case.
The author is the Associate Editor of Commentary, and I've mentioned him favorably over the years (here, here, here, here) I thought his 2019 book, Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America, was flawed but basically OK. This one is very good.
Of course, Mencken's famous definition of Puritanism is deployed early on: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Zing!
But, somewhat surprisingly, Rothman does not use "Puritan" as a simple epithet. (Something I didn't know: the term was originally conceived as an epithet.) That would have been pretty easy to do: simply pick and choose from the hundreds of tales of censorship, deplatformings, deinvitations, cancellations, firings; arrange them into themes, and voilà, you got a book. Instead, he looks back at the historical heyday of Puritanism, mostly in America, and if you (like me) were only paying fleeting attention during your history classes, you'll learn a lot.
Rothman shows how the "new" Puritans unconsciously echo the attitudes and actions of those bygone figures, and how that plays out in many areas, with tactics we've all noticed: theological-style indoctrination, denunciation and persecution of apostates, censorship of literature and art, humorlessness, and (above all) earnestness. (As P. J. O'Rourke observed: "Earnestness is stupidity sent to college". The Puritans, it should be noted, founded Harvard.)
Rothman laces his trenchant narrative with a dry wit: he notes that, in decline, the Massachusetts Puritans referred to the increase in civil litigation to resolve disputes as "creeping 'Rhode Islandism'". And comments: "Even today, the very concept is enough to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who doesn't live in Rhode Island."
And, it should be noted, Rothman goes out of his way to demonstrate that, in both historical and modern versions, Puritanism isn't an unalloyed bad. Historically, for example, they were famed for the "Puritan work ethic". Hey, I'm a fan. And in the current age, the new Puritans really did, for example, improve things in the workplace for women and minorities. (Not without going overboard in many cases, of course, but still.)
What about "fighting back", as promised in Rothman's subtitle? To a certain extent, the old Puritans carried the seeds of their own eventual irrelevance. (One of their last gasps, however: the witch trials.) Rothman recommends mockery; and clarifying "where culture ends and politics begins".
December 30, 2022
"Feminist, not the fun kind" is kind of my MO, so this book isn't written for people like me (lol).
Overall, there is the very, very occasional good point interspersed among many, many bad points. Like, how are you going to talk about Bon Appetit's demise and completely ignore everything that happened in 2020 (that's, y'know, the actual reason for its demise) and instead chalk it up to a single instance of a single person with minimal power doing something bad in a completely unrelated situation? It's either bad research or bad faith on behalf of the author; I'm willing to chalk it up to the former, but then it casts doubt on many of the other examples. Also like, women questioning the decision to have children because of climate change? Quelle horreur! There are just so many examples of people caring about things more than the author and then him spinning that into something bad. Sorry that there are people who care about the broader implications of their actions?
Do some people sometimes go too far? Sure, but at least those people are failing forward. If people are trying their best, then whatever, but the author seems to prefer ignorance and/or indifference to harm if the alternative requires a deeper look at one's actions.
Overall, there is the very, very occasional good point interspersed among many, many bad points. Like, how are you going to talk about Bon Appetit's demise and completely ignore everything that happened in 2020 (that's, y'know, the actual reason for its demise) and instead chalk it up to a single instance of a single person with minimal power doing something bad in a completely unrelated situation? It's either bad research or bad faith on behalf of the author; I'm willing to chalk it up to the former, but then it casts doubt on many of the other examples. Also like, women questioning the decision to have children because of climate change? Quelle horreur! There are just so many examples of people caring about things more than the author and then him spinning that into something bad. Sorry that there are people who care about the broader implications of their actions?
Do some people sometimes go too far? Sure, but at least those people are failing forward. If people are trying their best, then whatever, but the author seems to prefer ignorance and/or indifference to harm if the alternative requires a deeper look at one's actions.
January 9, 2023
Excellent examination of the PC/Woke culture war on society. The author is logical & forceful in his defence of letting people live their own lives vs. self-righteous folk seeking to impose "progressive" dogma. At the same time, he uses some humour taking on current absurdity.
September 22, 2022
Social Justice Warriors, Virtue Signalers, Woke Scolds…
Noah Rothman’s “The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives’ War on Fun” is the latest—though neither the first nor last—book to liken our current friends to the Puritans of old. And, as Rothman handily shows, the parallels are a thing.
I was most taken by TRotNP when Rothman elaborated on a point I had independently observed (myself and legions of others, really): True Believers in certain social movements of the last couple years seem to be advocating (nay, demanding) that our lives be devoid of pleasure and steeped in misery from here on out… Amazing as that modest proposal is, moreso is that millions of Americans have willingly submitted to it. After all, how can anyone have fun with friends/family or enjoy a hobby when we’re surrounded by injustice?
Rothman goes off on some weird tangents (what was that bug-eating thing about?), but this is, fortunately, another book that explores why old-school liberals so resist a new breed that, while professing to carry their torch, flatly contradicts many of their values.
After all, to paraphrase Rothman: self-censorship leads to quiet resentment.
Noah Rothman’s “The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives’ War on Fun” is the latest—though neither the first nor last—book to liken our current friends to the Puritans of old. And, as Rothman handily shows, the parallels are a thing.
I was most taken by TRotNP when Rothman elaborated on a point I had independently observed (myself and legions of others, really): True Believers in certain social movements of the last couple years seem to be advocating (nay, demanding) that our lives be devoid of pleasure and steeped in misery from here on out… Amazing as that modest proposal is, moreso is that millions of Americans have willingly submitted to it. After all, how can anyone have fun with friends/family or enjoy a hobby when we’re surrounded by injustice?
Rothman goes off on some weird tangents (what was that bug-eating thing about?), but this is, fortunately, another book that explores why old-school liberals so resist a new breed that, while professing to carry their torch, flatly contradicts many of their values.
After all, to paraphrase Rothman: self-censorship leads to quiet resentment.
August 2, 2022
A good chunk of the afterword would have been better served as a prologue in my opinion. In the afterword the author states that he started the project mostly for fun at the end of a terrible year. I was about ready to give it a two but for that. This book does have plenty of flaws, chief among them probably the overfocus on the Puritans themselves: these technical totalitarian impulses and concepts are present in much of the world today in different forms, like the Taliban for example. In some respects I might even say he goes a little too hard on the Puritans, and lumps together continental Puritans with colonial ones, and old ones with new ones: these were all different strains that had many distinctions and are being swept into a single pot.
I can't help but feel like this could have been a lot shorter, or a long form article. In a way it's just a long long list of quotes from the new left being compared with quotes from (mostly obscure) Puritan authors. The comparison isn't wrong but it gets pretty dry after a while.
I can't help but feel like this could have been a lot shorter, or a long form article. In a way it's just a long long list of quotes from the new left being compared with quotes from (mostly obscure) Puritan authors. The comparison isn't wrong but it gets pretty dry after a while.
Read
December 9, 2022I got curious about this book after seeing some reviews and I thought I’d give it a try.
Rothman appears as one of the old liberals who’s gotten a bit blindsided by the zeal of the “new” progressives, he is definitely not a Conservative as the text clearly shows, yet I think the title may make people think he is?
This may be both detrimental and beneficial to the book, while it may alienate a certain audience, it may also appeal to another. He does mention that getting a book “banned on Facebook” is heck of a way to get attention and make money of it…
“The new puritanism too has enjoyed many successes in its moral crusade, be it through persuasion or coercion they have all but rid commercialism of its vulgar appeals to male sexual fantasy, they have compelled powerful institutions like the National football league to bend to their demands, making the game more ethical without sacrificing its charm, and they have imposed on the corporate world a set of mores that compels captains of industry to treat everyone with decency and respect, and to stop looking the other way, when their powerful compatriots do not. The question before us however, is whether the new puritans will be thanked for their efforts…”
Personal thoughts on this book, firstly the metaphor both works and doesn’t, it definitely gets strained at times and feels overwrought.
Secondly, there were chunks I think would be better served in a discussion on how we as a society haven’t quite learned how to handle or appropriately deal with social media yet. It is still a bit of a bumpy ride, from all sides, and things can get blown up by the sheer reach things have now (from which ever side) which is a pretty new situation. I would like to see a different, deeper, and nuanced discussion on social media and its uses and societal effects.
Things that stood out to me:
On eating bugs. I know a lot of people who are quite outraged by this but I can’t summon the energy to be as engaged in the issue. I’m not someone who particularly savors food though, like when Rothman speaks of the comfort of a steak, that’s not something I can relate to. I’m not too bothered by the idea of eating bugs, even if I don’t particularly long for it either. If it becomes a viable alternative, I’ll definitely try it. And I did try a bug-based kibble for my dog because it’s supposed to have a high digestibility (didn’t work out, he got really sick, but still I’m not against the idea of bugs).
On Alcohol. I don’t think forced sobriety is a good path forward, I agree with him on that, but I also can’t disagree with people who encourage sobriety. I’ll never think sobriety is a bad thing, even in social settings like the office Christmas party. Yes, alcohol lubricates social events like that, but I think humans are perfectly capable of interacting without it and finding new norms if necessary. That’s not killing “fun”, it is however maybe a necessary look at how we define “fun” and if it needs to be that way.
The thing I would say though, and Rothman was against this, is that it was news to me that there are people in the US who want more stringent taxes on alcohol to make it more expensive (partly to discourage poor people from overindulging), and I would say that’s a dead end. I live in a country with very high taxes on alcohol, and a state monopoly as well, and it does not discourage consumption. There is no aggressive pushing of alcohol here through ads either, the opposite, the ads all highlight the dangers of alcohol (by law they must).
So, the idea that more expensive alcohol would increase sobriety… I’m skeptical. I would argue that, like other addicts, people who want alcohol will simply go without other things (like food) instead, or commit crimes… And I think people know that. Anyone who is arguing for higher taxes on alcohol, most likely just want those taxes for something else.
On Sex. It is interesting how much anxiety there is in society about sex, even as culture appears saturated by it. I disagree with Rothman as he states statistics on how youngsters and up to 30 somethings are having so much less sex now, and he dubs them as “celibate” or “abstinent”.
It may seem nit-picky, but I would argue that if they are performing sexual acts like masturbation or consuming sexual content like porn or sex on tv shows etc., then they’re not technically abstinent or celibate, they’re just not having intercourse with another person. But they are still engaging in sexual activity, and it’s a sexual activity which may be more gratifying to them.
As with sobriety, I can’t say that I think less sex is an inherently bad thing and I found this whole discussion confused, it brings up Dworkin (a nutcase) and the anti-sex ethos she was part of stirring (so he is pro-porn?), and it worries about the state of sexual relations between young people, but for me who finds progressive culture absolutely saturated by and extremely pro-sex (he laments the decline of sex in movies? Is there a decline???), this didn’t hit the spot.
I didn’t feel like I really understood what his goal of this discussion was. More sex for young people? For teens? More sex even if it is bad sex?
He seemed unable to grasp the idea that women would choose no sex (or rather self-pleasuring) over bad sex with men, which was mostly kind of funny.
I’m also not sure he understands either abstinence/celibacy or asexuality. He seems to argue that all these things are fine if it makes people happy, but he doubts that it does, a rather narrow perspective.
But yes, that can be a concern, you want people in a society to be able to have gratifying, sexual/romantic, relationships on terms that they find both safe and beneficial, and maybe there is a bit of a renegotiation going on there at the moment. But I didn’t find this discussion particularly informative about the state of things, it simply seemed to be clutching its pearls with anxiety that there needs to be more boffing! Which was strange to me.
What I agree with…
“Puritanisms blind zeal paved the way for its own demise…”
… yes, because it tries to perfect people and does so without giving room for the flaws of humanity and the tolerance, forgiveness, and flexibility that the building of stable traditions necessitate.
All in all, it is an interesting book, part of an on-going cultural discussion. However, as mentioned, the metaphor strains, and ultimately I feel like it points fingers more than it has anything deep or constructive to say. Pointing out the problem can be valuable of course, but for the most part I felt like this was sometimes willfully obtuse. I think this would've been better as an essay rather than a full lenght book.
Rothman appears as one of the old liberals who’s gotten a bit blindsided by the zeal of the “new” progressives, he is definitely not a Conservative as the text clearly shows, yet I think the title may make people think he is?
This may be both detrimental and beneficial to the book, while it may alienate a certain audience, it may also appeal to another. He does mention that getting a book “banned on Facebook” is heck of a way to get attention and make money of it…
“The new puritanism too has enjoyed many successes in its moral crusade, be it through persuasion or coercion they have all but rid commercialism of its vulgar appeals to male sexual fantasy, they have compelled powerful institutions like the National football league to bend to their demands, making the game more ethical without sacrificing its charm, and they have imposed on the corporate world a set of mores that compels captains of industry to treat everyone with decency and respect, and to stop looking the other way, when their powerful compatriots do not. The question before us however, is whether the new puritans will be thanked for their efforts…”
Personal thoughts on this book, firstly the metaphor both works and doesn’t, it definitely gets strained at times and feels overwrought.
Secondly, there were chunks I think would be better served in a discussion on how we as a society haven’t quite learned how to handle or appropriately deal with social media yet. It is still a bit of a bumpy ride, from all sides, and things can get blown up by the sheer reach things have now (from which ever side) which is a pretty new situation. I would like to see a different, deeper, and nuanced discussion on social media and its uses and societal effects.
Things that stood out to me:
On eating bugs. I know a lot of people who are quite outraged by this but I can’t summon the energy to be as engaged in the issue. I’m not someone who particularly savors food though, like when Rothman speaks of the comfort of a steak, that’s not something I can relate to. I’m not too bothered by the idea of eating bugs, even if I don’t particularly long for it either. If it becomes a viable alternative, I’ll definitely try it. And I did try a bug-based kibble for my dog because it’s supposed to have a high digestibility (didn’t work out, he got really sick, but still I’m not against the idea of bugs).
On Alcohol. I don’t think forced sobriety is a good path forward, I agree with him on that, but I also can’t disagree with people who encourage sobriety. I’ll never think sobriety is a bad thing, even in social settings like the office Christmas party. Yes, alcohol lubricates social events like that, but I think humans are perfectly capable of interacting without it and finding new norms if necessary. That’s not killing “fun”, it is however maybe a necessary look at how we define “fun” and if it needs to be that way.
The thing I would say though, and Rothman was against this, is that it was news to me that there are people in the US who want more stringent taxes on alcohol to make it more expensive (partly to discourage poor people from overindulging), and I would say that’s a dead end. I live in a country with very high taxes on alcohol, and a state monopoly as well, and it does not discourage consumption. There is no aggressive pushing of alcohol here through ads either, the opposite, the ads all highlight the dangers of alcohol (by law they must).
So, the idea that more expensive alcohol would increase sobriety… I’m skeptical. I would argue that, like other addicts, people who want alcohol will simply go without other things (like food) instead, or commit crimes… And I think people know that. Anyone who is arguing for higher taxes on alcohol, most likely just want those taxes for something else.
On Sex. It is interesting how much anxiety there is in society about sex, even as culture appears saturated by it. I disagree with Rothman as he states statistics on how youngsters and up to 30 somethings are having so much less sex now, and he dubs them as “celibate” or “abstinent”.
It may seem nit-picky, but I would argue that if they are performing sexual acts like masturbation or consuming sexual content like porn or sex on tv shows etc., then they’re not technically abstinent or celibate, they’re just not having intercourse with another person. But they are still engaging in sexual activity, and it’s a sexual activity which may be more gratifying to them.
As with sobriety, I can’t say that I think less sex is an inherently bad thing and I found this whole discussion confused, it brings up Dworkin (a nutcase) and the anti-sex ethos she was part of stirring (so he is pro-porn?), and it worries about the state of sexual relations between young people, but for me who finds progressive culture absolutely saturated by and extremely pro-sex (he laments the decline of sex in movies? Is there a decline???), this didn’t hit the spot.
I didn’t feel like I really understood what his goal of this discussion was. More sex for young people? For teens? More sex even if it is bad sex?
He seemed unable to grasp the idea that women would choose no sex (or rather self-pleasuring) over bad sex with men, which was mostly kind of funny.
I’m also not sure he understands either abstinence/celibacy or asexuality. He seems to argue that all these things are fine if it makes people happy, but he doubts that it does, a rather narrow perspective.
But yes, that can be a concern, you want people in a society to be able to have gratifying, sexual/romantic, relationships on terms that they find both safe and beneficial, and maybe there is a bit of a renegotiation going on there at the moment. But I didn’t find this discussion particularly informative about the state of things, it simply seemed to be clutching its pearls with anxiety that there needs to be more boffing! Which was strange to me.
What I agree with…
“Puritanisms blind zeal paved the way for its own demise…”
… yes, because it tries to perfect people and does so without giving room for the flaws of humanity and the tolerance, forgiveness, and flexibility that the building of stable traditions necessitate.
All in all, it is an interesting book, part of an on-going cultural discussion. However, as mentioned, the metaphor strains, and ultimately I feel like it points fingers more than it has anything deep or constructive to say. Pointing out the problem can be valuable of course, but for the most part I felt like this was sometimes willfully obtuse. I think this would've been better as an essay rather than a full lenght book.
August 3, 2022
Noah Rothman is a talented writer for Commentary. In this analyzes all of the facets of the cancel culture - which he describes as the new puritans. The book is well worth the read. Many of the supporters of this movement deny it is real - so I have had friends claim there is no move to Critical Race Theory and it is only an obscure branch of theory in some law schools. That is simply nonsense.
Rothman starts with the writers who contributed to the movements of cancel culture - from Herbert Marcuse's on Repressive Tolerance. While its supporters don't recognize it - the movement is ultimately totalitarian - demanding rigid conformity who want to coerce a largely silent majority into a set of ideas that are closely allied with what the original puritans tried to accomplish in New England in the 17th Century.
Like the predecessors they believe that with strict rules (many of which are simply silly) they can build a better world. They believe that it is possible for laws to perfect human behavior - and in many cases that is simply not possible - they could have benefited from reading Federalist #51.
His conclusions are simple - we in the majority might do well to ridicule the absurd pronouncements like man can have children. We also should directly confront the nonsense. At the end of the book he is somewhat hopeful that the cancel culture is coming to the end of its absurd line. I hope he is correct - but this book will help you identify the patent nonsense that supporters are trying to foist on the rest of us.
Rothman starts with the writers who contributed to the movements of cancel culture - from Herbert Marcuse's on Repressive Tolerance. While its supporters don't recognize it - the movement is ultimately totalitarian - demanding rigid conformity who want to coerce a largely silent majority into a set of ideas that are closely allied with what the original puritans tried to accomplish in New England in the 17th Century.
Like the predecessors they believe that with strict rules (many of which are simply silly) they can build a better world. They believe that it is possible for laws to perfect human behavior - and in many cases that is simply not possible - they could have benefited from reading Federalist #51.
His conclusions are simple - we in the majority might do well to ridicule the absurd pronouncements like man can have children. We also should directly confront the nonsense. At the end of the book he is somewhat hopeful that the cancel culture is coming to the end of its absurd line. I hope he is correct - but this book will help you identify the patent nonsense that supporters are trying to foist on the rest of us.
September 8, 2022
Devoured every word like a hungry man just offered an entire cake. I am shocked and dismayed that this book is not in the top 10 non-fiction on NYT list. It should be. It must be. Our country is deeply divided. How bad is it? On Labor Day leaving a parade my wife was driving my car when she was yelled at by a passing motorist who called her a democrat based perhaps on one of my 3 bumper stickers. She is, like me, conservative. We chased him. I got out of the car and yelled at him, correcting him as to our political affiliation. We agree with him on politics! The point of this story is that he told her that her mother should have aborted her. A Republican promoting abortion? When a fellow conservative yells at other conservatives and insults my dearly beloved's very existence? We as a nation have let ourselves get too close to the edge. So what can we do? One thing - - just read this book whether you lean right or left. If the former, you will view the insane elite ruling class with some compassion - - they are only human and re-discovering a trait now 400 years old on this continent. If the latter, please give this read a shot - - I promise you it will quickly let you see yourself and your ideas and ideals in a clearer light and make you a more effective promoter of whatever legislation or behavior you wish to push (but I'd be happier if you stick to legislation and stop working so hard to change my behavior. I really am not a son of Satan. I am a loving human.)
So everyone, please read this book if you care about America. We all need it now. Thank you.
So everyone, please read this book if you care about America. We all need it now. Thank you.
November 30, 2022
This is an excellent read and as much a history lesson as a cultural critique. Rothman carefully lays out the similarities between the 17th century Puritans and today's new puritans. His writing is light and appealing. What Rothman does is demonstrate two trends in history that are often overlooked. One the cyclical nature of behavioral actions. What is going on today with the cancel culture and the virtual witch burnings of dissenting thinkers has happened in past and will happen again. Second, he develops the theme that careful examination of historical movements shows their results are far short of what they set out to accomplish because of the slippery concept of human nature.
While he hints at it, the real concern he has is that today's puritans are willing to go to totalitarianism to accomplish what they see as the ultimate good, and that political leaders are in many ways aiding the march to tyranny. As another author said "when you believe you have the ultimate truth, there is no need to search for more."
While he hints at it, the real concern he has is that today's puritans are willing to go to totalitarianism to accomplish what they see as the ultimate good, and that political leaders are in many ways aiding the march to tyranny. As another author said "when you believe you have the ultimate truth, there is no need to search for more."
May 27, 2023
To paraphrase and agree with George Carlin, I am against extremism on the right and the left. I am a leftist who believes we need to destroy the system and rebuild it with equality and protection for all. Now that you know where I stand and somewhat of where I am going, here is my take...
I can see what the author is trying to say. There is a censorship and a tightrope we see being pushed by the left. However, there is a cold shoulder and outrage from the right. This book does not offer a balanced viewpoint. It's the usual talking points one would see on Fox News.
I can see what the author is trying to say. There is a censorship and a tightrope we see being pushed by the left. However, there is a cold shoulder and outrage from the right. This book does not offer a balanced viewpoint. It's the usual talking points one would see on Fox News.
August 6, 2022
The author posits an interesting thesis, namely that the silly, loud, hate-filled children making such a mess of western society these days are the inheritors of the Puritan mantle, seeking to prevent anyone from having any fun anywhere.
My main issue with the book is the author’s apparent need to occasionally sympathize with the silly children, semi-legitimizing their prejudice and bigotry.
My main issue with the book is the author’s apparent need to occasionally sympathize with the silly children, semi-legitimizing their prejudice and bigotry.
July 27, 2022
Respectfully written and hilarious at the same time. This book serves as a great reminder not to take yourself to seriously and that when the world seems absurd, it’s ok to laugh at it because history will ultimately repeat itself and this moment, too, shall pass.
July 22, 2022
Rothman makes compelling arguments that are also very funny!
June 25, 2024
This is a fairly timely, entertaining, and sometimes alarming book looking at the policing that has started to dominate supposedly 'progressive' politics, mainly in the US, though also beginning to infect the UK and Ireland.
It's plausible to posit that an author who self-identifies as a conservative is likely to hand-pick the most ridiculous and extreme examples of leftist puritanical zeal to poke fun at in a book, and ignore the more moderate or common-sense activism. However, Rothman seems like a fairly reasonable individual on the more temperate end of the conservative spectrum (in so far as the conservative/progressive binary means anything these days). Additionally, having recently read The Coddling of the American Mind with its rather astonishing descriptions of events on some campuses, and academic jobs lost over minor turns of phrase at the behest of student thought police, it seems clear that dealing with the current crop of 20-somethings and their chosen political ideologies is often not for the faint of heart.
The book recounts numerous examples of laughable controversies dramatized over social media, that increasingly thuggish present-day public square where the lowest common denominator in terms of wisdom and common sense seems to rule the day. Examples include bitter accusations of racism in the knitting community, demands that ornithology undertake the re-naming of bird species that are called after the white people who discovered them, and acrimonious conflict over white men's dominion over fly fishing as a pastime. Apart from anything else, such silliness distracts from the more serious manifestations of institutional racism that definitely still exist in the US, playing right into the hands of those who would wish to maintain those structures.
Then there's the sexual morality puritanism, which apparently requires the truly progressive get rid of heteronormative outlooks by promoting transgressive sex. The example Rothman gives for this is from a writer who is wringing her hands over whether or not it's unethical to avoid sexual encounters with someone who is attracted to her, though she doesn't reciprocate, even though that person shares her politics. (The woman's article as quoted seems extremely earnest in tone, so no, the piece is not actually a joke or a satire, sadly, at least not to its writer.) This reminds me of the manufactured, bitter row in the UK over lesbians who say they would not wish to pursue relationships with trans women. I find the idea that anybody should be shamed for not wishing to have sex with anybody else, however they identify, to be one of the major contradictions of today's leftist project. Attraction is not public property to be controlled and regulated by political ideology. It's a personal, private matter between two individuals. (And no, I am not going to make linguistic concessions to placate the polyamory community here, because polyamory is not something I believe should be promoted.)
We then move on to the United Federation of Teachers' Union adopting BLM's outright rejection of the 'Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement'. It passed by a startling 90% vote of the union's delegate assembly. The father-mother-children model of family has been in existence throughout the world from the dawn of civilization. It's not 'Western-prescribed'. It's the tried and tested preference of most cultures the world over. Most Western countries acknowledge and embrace other family structures/models, but the vast majority of families are still classic 'nuclear'. This is true from India, to Europe, to Korea, with only minor variations in history. The fact that marriage sometimes ends in divorce, and these scenarios sometimes evolve into blended family situations is, I'm sure, something all teachers accept by necessity. However, I would understand why people might be upset with public education if a teachers' union was rejecting the very core values related to how they decided to raise their children. It is feasible to be worried about this, as a parent, and I would assume this is why home-schooling is so common in the US.
The polarities of American culture and politics are more extreme than most other places, but that's not to say Europe is immune. Social media magnifies the least intelligent controversies and insights. You could understand how a 20-something who knows how the algorithms reward lack of nuance, which let's face it, equates with lack of intelligence, might enjoy the attention gained from shutting down a restaurant by accusing it of cultural appropriation in its menu. However, the people who are serious and genuine about the common good, and eager to think things through deeply before making pronouncements, are not going around destroying people's businesses and reputations because of trivialities on Twitter/X.
This is an interesting read, and while it's amusing on one level, the picture it paints is a slightly depressing one.
It's plausible to posit that an author who self-identifies as a conservative is likely to hand-pick the most ridiculous and extreme examples of leftist puritanical zeal to poke fun at in a book, and ignore the more moderate or common-sense activism. However, Rothman seems like a fairly reasonable individual on the more temperate end of the conservative spectrum (in so far as the conservative/progressive binary means anything these days). Additionally, having recently read The Coddling of the American Mind with its rather astonishing descriptions of events on some campuses, and academic jobs lost over minor turns of phrase at the behest of student thought police, it seems clear that dealing with the current crop of 20-somethings and their chosen political ideologies is often not for the faint of heart.
The book recounts numerous examples of laughable controversies dramatized over social media, that increasingly thuggish present-day public square where the lowest common denominator in terms of wisdom and common sense seems to rule the day. Examples include bitter accusations of racism in the knitting community, demands that ornithology undertake the re-naming of bird species that are called after the white people who discovered them, and acrimonious conflict over white men's dominion over fly fishing as a pastime. Apart from anything else, such silliness distracts from the more serious manifestations of institutional racism that definitely still exist in the US, playing right into the hands of those who would wish to maintain those structures.
Then there's the sexual morality puritanism, which apparently requires the truly progressive get rid of heteronormative outlooks by promoting transgressive sex. The example Rothman gives for this is from a writer who is wringing her hands over whether or not it's unethical to avoid sexual encounters with someone who is attracted to her, though she doesn't reciprocate, even though that person shares her politics. (The woman's article as quoted seems extremely earnest in tone, so no, the piece is not actually a joke or a satire, sadly, at least not to its writer.) This reminds me of the manufactured, bitter row in the UK over lesbians who say they would not wish to pursue relationships with trans women. I find the idea that anybody should be shamed for not wishing to have sex with anybody else, however they identify, to be one of the major contradictions of today's leftist project. Attraction is not public property to be controlled and regulated by political ideology. It's a personal, private matter between two individuals. (And no, I am not going to make linguistic concessions to placate the polyamory community here, because polyamory is not something I believe should be promoted.)
We then move on to the United Federation of Teachers' Union adopting BLM's outright rejection of the 'Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement'. It passed by a startling 90% vote of the union's delegate assembly. The father-mother-children model of family has been in existence throughout the world from the dawn of civilization. It's not 'Western-prescribed'. It's the tried and tested preference of most cultures the world over. Most Western countries acknowledge and embrace other family structures/models, but the vast majority of families are still classic 'nuclear'. This is true from India, to Europe, to Korea, with only minor variations in history. The fact that marriage sometimes ends in divorce, and these scenarios sometimes evolve into blended family situations is, I'm sure, something all teachers accept by necessity. However, I would understand why people might be upset with public education if a teachers' union was rejecting the very core values related to how they decided to raise their children. It is feasible to be worried about this, as a parent, and I would assume this is why home-schooling is so common in the US.
The polarities of American culture and politics are more extreme than most other places, but that's not to say Europe is immune. Social media magnifies the least intelligent controversies and insights. You could understand how a 20-something who knows how the algorithms reward lack of nuance, which let's face it, equates with lack of intelligence, might enjoy the attention gained from shutting down a restaurant by accusing it of cultural appropriation in its menu. However, the people who are serious and genuine about the common good, and eager to think things through deeply before making pronouncements, are not going around destroying people's businesses and reputations because of trivialities on Twitter/X.
This is an interesting read, and while it's amusing on one level, the picture it paints is a slightly depressing one.
July 14, 2024
The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives’ War on Fun is a timely, important book in the era of Woke and its accompanying cancel culture.
Rothman draws parallels between modern progressives and their historical Puritan forebears while recognising modern progressives would vehemently reject the comparison. He reflects on a progressive movement where everything is politicised and stripped of context and intent.
I know where he’s coming from. For example, as a person of Whiteness I must be constantly aware of my inherent racism and should I object to such character assassination it is only because of my, um, inherent racism. [Note: I cannot refer to myself as “Caucasian” because that would be appropriating the word “asian” and subordinating it to my Whiteness.]
As a woman I suppose I am spared from being labelled a misogynist but retain the capacity to be guilty of homophobia, transphobia, cultural appropriation and a myriad of other social crimes.
In addition, as a heterosexual, some feminist activists regard my intimate relationships as rape because, you know, I am too oppressed and powerless to give meaningful consent. Sigh! It sucks to vacillate between being a perpetrator because I’m White and being a victim because I’m a woman. If only I were a White male so I could get on with the business of being unadulterated evil!
Rothman explores historical and contemporary moral panics without condemning them all as controversial and objectionable. I think we can agree sane reasonable people have differing opinions about things like sexual promiscuity, violent video games, vaping and excessive alcohol consumption. A person who condemns them is not necessarily a bad person or a fanatic or zealot.
However, Rothman makes his most compelling arguments when he shines a light on the absurd and bat-shit crazy. I bet you never knew seemingly innocuous activities like knitting, gardening and bird-watching are a hotbed of racism. No, me either.
Nor was I aware being raised in a nuclear family is akin to being raised by wolves. I forfeited any chance of becoming a progressive member of society when I was born into a traditional family unit rather than a community of carers. Damn it, why didn’t I discover this before my mother’s death so I could bludgeon her into guilty submission: “Mum, you failed me when you insisted upon raising me yourself. How dare you hinder my social and moral development?”.
I am shamed too by my appropriation of other cultures, particularly relating to cuisine and fashion. I was deceived to think my enjoyment of Mexican and Indian food was some sort of compliment about the deliciousness of those ethnic cuisines. Now I clearly see my palate betrayed me. Speaking of which, my occasional consumption of steak is also hateful and wrong. If I harbour any concern for the sustainability of the planet, I must derive my protein from bugs. Mmm, yum yum; a grasshopper patty on a sesame seed bun. Would I like fries with that? Would I!
Then there’s fashion. In the 1980s I was misguided to have plaits woven into my hair. In my defence I could claim I was simply mimicking Boy George from Culture Club but who am I kidding? Clearly I was appropriating African American culture. Shame on me!
Rothman has enlightened me about my long and winding road to perdition. He has forced me to confront my troublesome subconscious with its propensity to lead me to crimes and misdemeanours against humanity. Nevertheless, I am uncertain if I possess the requisite hypocrisy, self-righteousness and desire for self-flagellation which befits a New Puritan.
Fortunately, Rothman offers an alternative to self-cancellation:
“The alternative to policing moral conformity is as simple as not doing that. This not only renders you marginally less annoying but has the advantage of making fewer demands on your time. It doesn’t require you to filter your experience of the world through a rigid political framework. It doesn’t force you into a defensive crouch. And it doesn’t lead you into a hopeless state of gloominess over the inexorable decline to which we’ve consigned our children. It allows you to become a little less political and, as an inevitable consequence, more joyful. What’s not to love?”
What, indeed! So, how to approach these New Puritans:
“The New Puritans have made themselves into comic figures. They are the very portrait of fastidious busybodies. The consequences of their actions may be deadly serious, but these are not serious people. They are worthy of mockery. Mock them.”
Oh, and, READ THIS BOOK!
Rothman draws parallels between modern progressives and their historical Puritan forebears while recognising modern progressives would vehemently reject the comparison. He reflects on a progressive movement where everything is politicised and stripped of context and intent.
I know where he’s coming from. For example, as a person of Whiteness I must be constantly aware of my inherent racism and should I object to such character assassination it is only because of my, um, inherent racism. [Note: I cannot refer to myself as “Caucasian” because that would be appropriating the word “asian” and subordinating it to my Whiteness.]
As a woman I suppose I am spared from being labelled a misogynist but retain the capacity to be guilty of homophobia, transphobia, cultural appropriation and a myriad of other social crimes.
In addition, as a heterosexual, some feminist activists regard my intimate relationships as rape because, you know, I am too oppressed and powerless to give meaningful consent. Sigh! It sucks to vacillate between being a perpetrator because I’m White and being a victim because I’m a woman. If only I were a White male so I could get on with the business of being unadulterated evil!
Rothman explores historical and contemporary moral panics without condemning them all as controversial and objectionable. I think we can agree sane reasonable people have differing opinions about things like sexual promiscuity, violent video games, vaping and excessive alcohol consumption. A person who condemns them is not necessarily a bad person or a fanatic or zealot.
However, Rothman makes his most compelling arguments when he shines a light on the absurd and bat-shit crazy. I bet you never knew seemingly innocuous activities like knitting, gardening and bird-watching are a hotbed of racism. No, me either.
Nor was I aware being raised in a nuclear family is akin to being raised by wolves. I forfeited any chance of becoming a progressive member of society when I was born into a traditional family unit rather than a community of carers. Damn it, why didn’t I discover this before my mother’s death so I could bludgeon her into guilty submission: “Mum, you failed me when you insisted upon raising me yourself. How dare you hinder my social and moral development?”.
I am shamed too by my appropriation of other cultures, particularly relating to cuisine and fashion. I was deceived to think my enjoyment of Mexican and Indian food was some sort of compliment about the deliciousness of those ethnic cuisines. Now I clearly see my palate betrayed me. Speaking of which, my occasional consumption of steak is also hateful and wrong. If I harbour any concern for the sustainability of the planet, I must derive my protein from bugs. Mmm, yum yum; a grasshopper patty on a sesame seed bun. Would I like fries with that? Would I!
Then there’s fashion. In the 1980s I was misguided to have plaits woven into my hair. In my defence I could claim I was simply mimicking Boy George from Culture Club but who am I kidding? Clearly I was appropriating African American culture. Shame on me!
Rothman has enlightened me about my long and winding road to perdition. He has forced me to confront my troublesome subconscious with its propensity to lead me to crimes and misdemeanours against humanity. Nevertheless, I am uncertain if I possess the requisite hypocrisy, self-righteousness and desire for self-flagellation which befits a New Puritan.
Fortunately, Rothman offers an alternative to self-cancellation:
“The alternative to policing moral conformity is as simple as not doing that. This not only renders you marginally less annoying but has the advantage of making fewer demands on your time. It doesn’t require you to filter your experience of the world through a rigid political framework. It doesn’t force you into a defensive crouch. And it doesn’t lead you into a hopeless state of gloominess over the inexorable decline to which we’ve consigned our children. It allows you to become a little less political and, as an inevitable consequence, more joyful. What’s not to love?”
What, indeed! So, how to approach these New Puritans:
“The New Puritans have made themselves into comic figures. They are the very portrait of fastidious busybodies. The consequences of their actions may be deadly serious, but these are not serious people. They are worthy of mockery. Mock them.”
Oh, and, READ THIS BOOK!
November 2, 2022
Disclaimer: I have a lot of priors that would lead me to like this book.
Noah Rothman spent the pandemic writing this book, and it was a real pleasure to read. What I most appreciate about Rothman is that he is prepared intellectually to acknowledge much of what is right about the political opposition, while making his case strongly and consistently. This book is full of such acknowledgment, and loaded with intellectual strength and consistency.
The book is centered on the idea that today's woke and identity leaders are similar to the Puritans of New England in the 1600s. And it brilliantly lays out an argument that you can be awfully intolerant in the name of "tolerance" or "progress".
I am a genealogist, and one of my great grandfathers was one of the accusers in the Salem witch trials, so I have read about puritanism at great length. The moral underpinnings of puritanism were of course founded in ideas about decency and society. A kind of crusade against impropriety and all the excesses of Europe at that time. Rothman points out how today's left wing crusaders are no different in so many ways, and I love this argument quite a lot, and I think society broadly agrees with Rothman that identity politics has gone too far.
And where Rothman really takes the argument to the next step in my view is when he argues that all this will come back to bit these crusaders. Within 50 years after the Salem witch trials, New England puritanism was dead and gone as a cultural force. It had gone from dominance to being on the very periphery of society. Rothman says the same will (and is) occurring now with wokism and identity zealotry. And fundamentally, this makes a LOT of sense. I was one of the biggest COVID crusaders, advocating for all kinds of restrictions on humans during COVID. I was a COVID puritan. And while I do not regret that, I do understand that the puritan never makes anyone happy, and that society by and large tends to reject puritanism, broadly and comprehensively.
Personally, I would have loved if Rothman had the courage to draw some parallels into MAGA land as puritanism at the end. I view the MAGAs as basically new woke and identity zealots, there for a specific brand of identity puritanism. You cannot be MAGA enough and you cannot embrace all that identity without being beholden to wokism. Trumpism IS wokism in my view. But this brings in a lot of complexity and really should be a different book, and that was not at all Rothman's point in this particular book. I just would have appreciated his take on that angle, as he has made multiple points about this idea over his career.
It is very realistic to expect that society will reject puritans and move on to a much more normal state of civilization. That is the hope of Rothman's book. This is a very realistic common sense political culture wars book, one without policy recommendations, and one that is fair to the other side. Easily worth reading.
Noah Rothman spent the pandemic writing this book, and it was a real pleasure to read. What I most appreciate about Rothman is that he is prepared intellectually to acknowledge much of what is right about the political opposition, while making his case strongly and consistently. This book is full of such acknowledgment, and loaded with intellectual strength and consistency.
The book is centered on the idea that today's woke and identity leaders are similar to the Puritans of New England in the 1600s. And it brilliantly lays out an argument that you can be awfully intolerant in the name of "tolerance" or "progress".
I am a genealogist, and one of my great grandfathers was one of the accusers in the Salem witch trials, so I have read about puritanism at great length. The moral underpinnings of puritanism were of course founded in ideas about decency and society. A kind of crusade against impropriety and all the excesses of Europe at that time. Rothman points out how today's left wing crusaders are no different in so many ways, and I love this argument quite a lot, and I think society broadly agrees with Rothman that identity politics has gone too far.
And where Rothman really takes the argument to the next step in my view is when he argues that all this will come back to bit these crusaders. Within 50 years after the Salem witch trials, New England puritanism was dead and gone as a cultural force. It had gone from dominance to being on the very periphery of society. Rothman says the same will (and is) occurring now with wokism and identity zealotry. And fundamentally, this makes a LOT of sense. I was one of the biggest COVID crusaders, advocating for all kinds of restrictions on humans during COVID. I was a COVID puritan. And while I do not regret that, I do understand that the puritan never makes anyone happy, and that society by and large tends to reject puritanism, broadly and comprehensively.
Personally, I would have loved if Rothman had the courage to draw some parallels into MAGA land as puritanism at the end. I view the MAGAs as basically new woke and identity zealots, there for a specific brand of identity puritanism. You cannot be MAGA enough and you cannot embrace all that identity without being beholden to wokism. Trumpism IS wokism in my view. But this brings in a lot of complexity and really should be a different book, and that was not at all Rothman's point in this particular book. I just would have appreciated his take on that angle, as he has made multiple points about this idea over his career.
It is very realistic to expect that society will reject puritans and move on to a much more normal state of civilization. That is the hope of Rothman's book. This is a very realistic common sense political culture wars book, one without policy recommendations, and one that is fair to the other side. Easily worth reading.
September 11, 2023
I'll start out with two quotes from The Rise of the New Puritans: Fighting Back Against Progressives' War on Fun by Noah Rothman:
This book was pretty good, but could have been improved. The premise of the book is new and original; that the modern progressivist movement bears striking similarities to the Puritanism of the late 17th Century. This argument is well supported, suggesting that modern progressives are conducting a dour war on anything that is fun. Mr. Rothman gives worthy examples, such as the war on good food, calling much of it "cultural appropriation." The war on literature is another. Progressives seem to want to dump classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn, as well as much of Shakespeare, off school libraries and maybe even store shelves.
Here are my arguments about the shortcomings. Though he mentions Covid and the lockdowns glancingly, he does not mention lockdown advocates' derision of "mani pedi withdrawal rage" or public postings such as "just gimme a mani pedi and don't tread on my lawn." Well, at least "progressive" Breed London criticized the "fun police" for having some "fun" with her over her flouting her own mask mandate (link).
Similarly totally omitted from being called out were other "progressive" Puritans such as Greta Thunberg, and climate activism. As a result, I am giving this book a "3." The overall problem with these books is that they "preach to the choir" and are unlikely to draw many new people to their cause.
Still, it is an educating read and I recommend it.
From page 35:
Reading and writing might not be everyone's idea of a good time, but we can assume that you find a measure of enjoyment in the consumption of literature. After all, you're doing that right now.
From p 243
They are imbued with an unquestioned belief in their (political progressives') own righteousness. They are confused about where culture ends and politics begins. They are convinced that America's problems are so deeply rooted that only deracinating the whole rotten structure will re solve them. This is a recipe for a totalistic political program, and it busily making totalitarians of those who subscribe to it.
This book was pretty good, but could have been improved. The premise of the book is new and original; that the modern progressivist movement bears striking similarities to the Puritanism of the late 17th Century. This argument is well supported, suggesting that modern progressives are conducting a dour war on anything that is fun. Mr. Rothman gives worthy examples, such as the war on good food, calling much of it "cultural appropriation." The war on literature is another. Progressives seem to want to dump classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn, as well as much of Shakespeare, off school libraries and maybe even store shelves.
Here are my arguments about the shortcomings. Though he mentions Covid and the lockdowns glancingly, he does not mention lockdown advocates' derision of "mani pedi withdrawal rage" or public postings such as "just gimme a mani pedi and don't tread on my lawn." Well, at least "progressive" Breed London criticized the "fun police" for having some "fun" with her over her flouting her own mask mandate (link).
Similarly totally omitted from being called out were other "progressive" Puritans such as Greta Thunberg, and climate activism. As a result, I am giving this book a "3." The overall problem with these books is that they "preach to the choir" and are unlikely to draw many new people to their cause.
Still, it is an educating read and I recommend it.
August 6, 2022
I generally consider myself to be progressive in my political approaches, and over the past few years I've found myself increasingly frustrated with conversations I have with other progressives who exhibit some of the tendencies discussed in Rothman's book. Their reasons for holding progressive ideas have been more emotional than academic, and often they've been unable to elucidate an underlying ethos in defending their position. That I consistently take an academic stance to these discussions has frustrated them. They've then labelled and cancelled me (in some cases, even putting pressure on my wife to leave me).
Unfortunately, my personal experiences couldn't help but colour my reading of the book. With each successive chapter, I felt frustrated, angry and a bit despondent. Cancel culture is pointless, and Rothman is correct to point out that overzealousness may cause progressives to look ridiculous; however, most of the issues activists fight for have an academic basis, and are often misinterpreted and misappropriated as the concept becomes more widespread (i.e., the original definition of 'woke').
Complexity is difficult to boil down into one simple unifying approach, and it is this chaos that currently manifests in progressive circles. Yet, the description as Puritan, while hitting the mark on many of the mistakes progressives make in the techniques used to "do the work," is not how they'd see themselves at all. Yes, cancel culture should be tamed, and progressives should "lift every voice" instead of cannibalising one another in corporate and cultural settings. The question of how this is done is a valid one. Taking note of perspectives like Rothman's may help them understand how they are viewed by others within society, and potentially point them in the direction of rectifying such overzealousness.
3 stars. I don't need to feel this angry when reading a book, but a little righteous indignation from time to time never hurts.
Unfortunately, my personal experiences couldn't help but colour my reading of the book. With each successive chapter, I felt frustrated, angry and a bit despondent. Cancel culture is pointless, and Rothman is correct to point out that overzealousness may cause progressives to look ridiculous; however, most of the issues activists fight for have an academic basis, and are often misinterpreted and misappropriated as the concept becomes more widespread (i.e., the original definition of 'woke').
Complexity is difficult to boil down into one simple unifying approach, and it is this chaos that currently manifests in progressive circles. Yet, the description as Puritan, while hitting the mark on many of the mistakes progressives make in the techniques used to "do the work," is not how they'd see themselves at all. Yes, cancel culture should be tamed, and progressives should "lift every voice" instead of cannibalising one another in corporate and cultural settings. The question of how this is done is a valid one. Taking note of perspectives like Rothman's may help them understand how they are viewed by others within society, and potentially point them in the direction of rectifying such overzealousness.
3 stars. I don't need to feel this angry when reading a book, but a little righteous indignation from time to time never hurts.
July 21, 2022
There are a couple of assumptions made in this book that make it hard for me to give it full marks.
a) In the beginning, the author asserts that the moderate progressive issues we've fought over since the 60s are settled and progressive causes won. He points at abortion, gay rights, and racial injustices as basically being settled in a moderate manner and that now the progressive left, the new puritans are just going into moral panic mode because they have nothing substantial to fight for anymore. Given recent Supreme Court decisions and the presumptive GOP front-runner's crusades in Florida, this strikes me as ignorant and ill-founded. It is the basis of the argument that things are going to far and people should just be happy with their moderate victories, and it is not true.
b) The author points at very real flaws in the actions and rhetoric of people in the progressive movement. I fully agree so much that is being held up for ridicule and I agree with the idea that it is gone too far in some ways. However, the author repeatedly links the idea that the progressive left going overboard to correct social behavior to the stated goal (e.g. racial justice, LGBTQ justice) as being overboard or overreaching on the part of the people with these goals. I do not agree with this chain of reasoning and find it disingenuous.
Those problems aside, the author does raise many points of basically mob justice gone wrong. Almost all of the things pointed at are some BS found on social media, by people that have no real power without a mob whipped up, but still. I found the connection between social coercion today and in New England during the heights of puritanism to be very interesting.
a) In the beginning, the author asserts that the moderate progressive issues we've fought over since the 60s are settled and progressive causes won. He points at abortion, gay rights, and racial injustices as basically being settled in a moderate manner and that now the progressive left, the new puritans are just going into moral panic mode because they have nothing substantial to fight for anymore. Given recent Supreme Court decisions and the presumptive GOP front-runner's crusades in Florida, this strikes me as ignorant and ill-founded. It is the basis of the argument that things are going to far and people should just be happy with their moderate victories, and it is not true.
b) The author points at very real flaws in the actions and rhetoric of people in the progressive movement. I fully agree so much that is being held up for ridicule and I agree with the idea that it is gone too far in some ways. However, the author repeatedly links the idea that the progressive left going overboard to correct social behavior to the stated goal (e.g. racial justice, LGBTQ justice) as being overboard or overreaching on the part of the people with these goals. I do not agree with this chain of reasoning and find it disingenuous.
Those problems aside, the author does raise many points of basically mob justice gone wrong. Almost all of the things pointed at are some BS found on social media, by people that have no real power without a mob whipped up, but still. I found the connection between social coercion today and in New England during the heights of puritanism to be very interesting.
October 6, 2024
An excellent take-down of a progressive movement that the author made up in his head!
As a self-described progressive, liked a lot of the book and many of the sections about performative activism, public shaming, and virtue signaling rang true and I found the comparison with Puritans compelling.
However—to serve his argument the author is sometimes ill-informed and other times just straight up dishonest. He misrepresents a lot of progressive ideals and oversimplifies a lot of the “discourse” he uses as examples of progressives’ overzealousness…
The bits about feminism and pornography I found half-baked, just because the author has a rudimentary understanding these movements and apparently didn’t feel the need to look any further than his own nose.
Overall it felt like a smug conservative circle-jerk at the end of the day. Would have been a more interesting book if it was written by a well-intentioned progressive instead of right wing dude who got annoyed after he saw one too many sanctimonious teenagers being annoying on Twitter.
As a self-described progressive, liked a lot of the book and many of the sections about performative activism, public shaming, and virtue signaling rang true and I found the comparison with Puritans compelling.
However—to serve his argument the author is sometimes ill-informed and other times just straight up dishonest. He misrepresents a lot of progressive ideals and oversimplifies a lot of the “discourse” he uses as examples of progressives’ overzealousness…
The bits about feminism and pornography I found half-baked, just because the author has a rudimentary understanding these movements and apparently didn’t feel the need to look any further than his own nose.
Overall it felt like a smug conservative circle-jerk at the end of the day. Would have been a more interesting book if it was written by a well-intentioned progressive instead of right wing dude who got annoyed after he saw one too many sanctimonious teenagers being annoying on Twitter.
March 21, 2024
The Rise of the New Puritans is a really good overview of our current cultural moment and the underpinnings behind the social justice movement, and what animates their argumentation styles and cancel culture. It was a joy to read, Noah Rothman is an excellent writer with a great command of the English language, he's concise and witty, making his points in a compelling way. I thought the book was a little heavy on examples and the history of the puritans, which could sometimes feel like detours away from the core ideas of the book. Yes you need examples, but the balance felt off here. I found many of these examples really interesting, but the core ideas could be conveyed in a shorter medium. Some of the later chapters felt a bit weaker. I still would recommend the book because the writing is excellent and it helped me understand a movement that's very influential currently in America. I understand our moment better.
4 Stars
4 Stars
Read
November 26, 2022While I have no qualm with the argument within the text, the choice of this title and the false dichotomy of actual Puritans with today's woke culture is pejorative to Puritans. The Puritan way of thought transformed the culture in the young USA just as the heart is transformed by the love of Jesus. Puritanism changed worship of God from a top down control mechanism within church elites in the old world to a bottom up control mechanism within every human heart, just as Jesus taught. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor as ourself. Our whole government structure was established on the precept that mankind is free and independent and accountable to him/herself and God and would not be successful for a people without such self-constraint. The woke culture is not a New Puritan at all. It is the complete opposite.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews