F. H. Buckley

I won't deny that Mr Buckley knows his history - Greek philosophers, Ancient Rome, art, literature, architecture, and more, but his repeated dive into deep details around each of these on almost every page leaves little room for his twelve rules to breathe. The rules themselves are beneficial, but they get lost in the murk of his approach, writing a dissertation rather than a book of guidance.

I also had a big problem once I realized the aim of this treatise was to pin the waning of our collective curiosity on political progressives. When I Googled the author, I discovered he was once a speechwriter for Trump, who has also written a book about how Trump's 2016 victory was "just what we needed". Needless to say, I have a hard time buying an argument that progressives have smothered curiosity when this author served under the least curious president in American history. As I watch the far-right do just as much 'canceling' as the far-left, his whole premise falls through, in my opinion.

Yet, I continued - perhaps out of spite - because this is a book on curiosity, I'm a progressive, and I didn't want to stop being "curious" about this author's point-of-view, despite knowing he was ultimately building to laying blame at my own feet. So, I muscled through, tedious though it was. I can't recommend it, though, unless you are a Trump-supporting intellectual (did I just use that phrase?) who wants to gather up historical anecdotes to toss around at an American Spectator BBQ about why those lining up to support social justice are stifling your freedoms.

It's funny. Given Mr Buckley feels the left is to blame for our incurious culture, I wonder who he bumps into the most at libraries, bookstores, museums, films, etc., where curiosities are most ambitiously met with challenging ideas and inspirations. I bet he's in the minority...which may be what bugs him.… (mer)

A good argument for why secession or other form of breakup is both desirable in many ways and also less negative than at times in the past (Civil War). Does a good job of presenting the pro-breakup arguments (better economic and political freedom, existing cultural splits, and the option for more policy innovation by places like California). Some of these might be strawmen (I assume the author is on the right and doesn't want the kind of innovation California will conduct), but still presented reasonably. The other argument is that some form of breakup won't be violently opposed like the Civil War both because it won't be about something morally odious, and because individual rights, trade, etc. can be protected far better now even in a devolved post-US situation than in the past.

Two things aren't addressed in this argument (and are mentioned in the final chapter of the book, at least the first point). One, the geopolitical risk -- rivalry with China requires the US be at least present size, if not larger, but also of course rivalry with China wouldn't happen if the US were devolved (or if China were devolved somehow...). Two, mass immigration -- it's possible to change the overall demographics of a country through continued immigration, especially with one or two generations of growth after. As a result, any breakup beyond autonomy or increased federalism is probably at odds with the political agendas of both the right and the left, at least of the elites, despite potentially being in the best interest of individuals.… (mer)