Michael Brooks’ New Book Hits the Mark

“Brooks argues that, far from this façade of ideological diversity, the IDW is built around a single and deep ideological commitment. This commitment is the preservation of presently established power hierarchies.”

In a world in which conservative and libertarian pundits are practically trampling over each other to write the next takedown of leftist college students and “social justice warriors,” one might rightfully wonder, “Where is the Left’s reply to all of this?” In some ways, Michael Brooks’ upcoming Zero Books monograph Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right is exactly that. By this, I do not mean to say it is analogous but with an opposite ideology. Instead, it is a necessary argument against the industry that thrives on such inane polemics.

Last week, my Merion West colleague Matt McManus published his own review of Against the Web. In it, he gives a detailed analysis of the book’s various chapters with commentary on what he sees as valuable in Brooks’ book, which is the majority of it. McManus also raises a few issues he has with it. Because I think doing the same would add little value—and because I largely agree with McManus’s points—I want to take a different approach to reviewing the book. I have been familiar with Michael Brooks’ work for a few years now, both on The Majority Report, which he co-hosts with Sam Seder, and his own show, The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS). Both shows understandably share many aspects. However, the former leans more towards news and left-wing commentary on day-to-day issues and politics, while the latter tilts more heavily towards theory and commentary on systemic, “big picture” themes. In that sense, I want to give the book a more TMBS treatment and look at its general arguments and the way they are put forward.

The particular subject of Against the Web is the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web” and, more specifically, three of its central figures: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro. Beyond the three of them, there is some discussion of other members and adjacent figures such as Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, and the online magazine Quillette. All of these have been active participants in the aforementioned SJW takedown marathon. What is interesting about this group is the way they see and present themselves. The core argument that Brooks puts forward is that this self-image is a complete fantasy. There are many tropes and clichés in the IDW’s view of themselves: notably, their insistence on being paragons of reason and logic, their need to ask “the hard questions,” and their incessant warnings about “the radical left.” However, these are better understood as tools that allow them to present themselves as a group of public intellectuals brimming with ideological diversity. That is key because being able to present themselves as such a diverse group ideologically allows them to portray their criticisms of the Left (and it is almost always the Left) as somehow fair and balanced. Brooks argues that, far from this façade of ideological diversity, the IDW is built around a single and deep ideological commitment. This commitment is the preservation of presently established power hierarchies.