Alexandar Mihailovic

Not surprising that she endorses this 'theory', given that she's abundantly on record for admiring Apartheid, Jim Crow, and the Confederacy.

4/ one reason for women filing for divorce, and the probable increase of domestic abuse in a state that privileges abusers. The removal of laws against domestic abuse in the Russian Federation, another authoritarian country that Deneen believes is 'misunderstood', speaks for itself.

3/ I'm very glad that Klein held Deneen's feet to the fire, and demanded that he explain what he meant. Another moment, far less amusing, was Deneen's very Franco-era insistence that the administrative state create impediments for no-fault divorce. Not a peep from him about domestic abuse being

2/ But such articles aren't proof of anything of the sort. Law students and some faculty write 'what-if' scholarly essays as a part of their training and refinement of their research and argumentation skills. They're thought experiments. As someone in higher education Deneen undoubtedly knew this.

1/ My personal favorite moment of self-owning and unintended hilarity in that interview was when Klein pressed Deneen for proof of his claim that progressives were "against nature." Deneen fumblingly pointed to the existence of speculative and theoretical articles in law school journals.

Why am I not surprised.

Fun facts: Andrews is an admirer of Putin, and a defender of Apartheid, Jim Crow, and the Confederacy.

Yep!

The logic of abusers.

Fun fact: Andrews is on the record for admiring Jim Crow, Apartheid, the Confederacy, and Putin's Russia.

Andrews is Russian Orthodox.

I thought there was no bottom to Dreher's foolishness and illiteracy about political history, but this article proves me wrong.

Oh, Rod Dreher suddenly comes to the sunburst revelation that antisemitism is a constituent belief of the nativist movements and white christian nationalists whom he supports. He is shocked--just shocked!

Oh, Rod Dreher suddenly comes to the sunburst revelation that antisemitism is a constituent part of the nativist movements and white christian nationalists that he supports. He is shocked--just shocked!

3/ His level of illiteracy about 20th-century history is just appalling. But this trait is endemic to the 'post-liberal' intelligentsia, and is fully manifest in Vance, Deneen, and others.

2/ Orthodox Church in the pogroms, and the friendly interactions, prior to the US entering WW2, between white evangelical Protestantism, the KKK, the 'America First' movement and the American Nazi Party?

1/ Fraud Brayer, as I call him. Seriously, though, the man is so poorly read that he is shocked--shocked!--to find out about the pre-history of anti-semitism in the right-wing movements that he idolizes. Has he never picked up a book about the Spanish Civil War, the complicity of the Russian

2/ Oh, and Ukraine richly deserves to be overrun by the Russian Federation.

1/ Fun fact: Andrews is also an admirer of the Confederacy , Apartheid, Vladimir Putin, the GDR, and the USSR (gist being, 'daily life in those two countries was pretty darn good, and dissidents were sad ghosts who didn't know what they were talking about').

is demographically, a far more devout country than the Russian Federation, with 37% of its population attending church services more than once a month. And how many people do likewise in Russia, that supposed bastion of genuine 'un-woke' Christianity, as Deneen has argued? only 6%.

decriminalization of domestic violence, which is now fully enacted in the criminal code there. His animus against Ukraine for defending its territorial sovereignty is a moral grotesquerie all its own, especially given his blather about the 'loss of religious' leading to immorality. Ukraine

once referencing domestic abuse, and how the perpetrators of it would be emboldened in their behavior by Deneen's wish for the return of 'traditional' family structures? In making such arguments, Deneen is coming damn close to those being made in the Russian Federation for the complete

I know exactly what you mean. Perhaps I was being unduly harsh about this blog of his. I must say that Ezra Klein in that interview with Deneen did a terrific job of gently but clearly countering his absurd and inflammatory generalizations. How can you talk about divorce, as Deneen does, without

fails in the task of mounting a social critique, and in outlining a coherent moral philosophy.

glosses on those whom he loathes, such as John Dewey and John Stuart Mill, are replete with howlers and blatant distortions that would be immediately visible to anyone who knows their writing. Laura K. Field does a terrific job of dismantling his nonsense. She is absolutely right to point that he

uses the history of ideas, which as a matter of course usually doesn't need empirical evidence, to explain how a social reality developed. That's frankly preposterous. Deneen's *Why Liberalism Failed* teems with straw-man arguments that would be laughed out of an undergraduate seminar room, and his

I too refuse to hand anything to Hanania. Every word he writes, including the ones in this blog, smacks of bad faith. But there is a genuine problem with Deneen's writing. Deneen makes assertions empirical reality ('atomization' of young men, despair wrought from the loss of religious faith), and

Deneen probably knows that what he is writes is derivative right-wing flapdoodle dressed up in academic garb. Was he as much a pompous gasbag and bad-faith thinker in the classroom as he is on the page? There are parts of *Why Liberalism Failed* that would get laughed out of an undergrad seminar.

Seriously, though, this statement by Deneen is absolutely appalling. Why do so many people in the supposedly 'oh-so-very-woke' American academe treat this charlatan's writing with kid gloves, and why in tarnation did Yale U. Press publish his Falangist farrago *Why Liberalism Failed*?

In other words, impeccably aristo-populist knob heads such as Deneen himself.