Making Sense of the Alt-Right

It does exactly what it promises: helps is make sense of the alt-right.

As its title suggests, this book attempts to investigate the foundations, goals, and consequences of a new political movement known as the Alt-Right. This movement captured the attention of the public in the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. election and has since entered into the national conversation. Since then, the mainstream media has, in typical frenzied fashion, made every effort to assail the movement's members and willfully misdirect the public with regards to the Alt-Right's objectives. Following suit, mainstream conservatives have vigorously disavowed and condemned the group; all the while utterly failing to mitigate the Alt-Right's growing influence . This is where Hawley sets himself apart and provides a balanced account of the Alt-Right's ideological underpinnings while addressing the more radical aspects of the movement.The first chapter of this book outlines the Alt-Right's ideological groundings and explores the various, and often factional, elements that exist within it. Hawley's insight regarding the movement's predecessors is of the utmost importance when considering the Alt-Right's worldview. While it may use novel tactics, the Alt-right, ultimately, draws influence from previous movements and brands. These include traditional white nationalism, paleo-conservatism, the European right-wing movements, online neo-reactionary movements and radical libertarianism. While the connections between the Alt-Right and some of these brands may be tenuous, at best, it is important to keep in mind that the movement is not rigidly defined. It houses many diverse political inclinations, and often, these inclinations can be traced back to older movements.The following chapter explores the first wave of the Alt-Right (Taki's Magazine days) and its gradual decline into obscurity. This chapter provides useful information on certain figures, but mostly deals with the origins of the term and how it was set apart from traditional conservatism.The subsequent chapters deal with the more familiar manifestation of the Alt-Right and its relation to the 2016 election and mainstream conservatism. Memes, online transgression, and loosely coordinated attacks on conservatives are described in these chapters and paint an accurate picture of the movement and its members. Hawley recognizes that the Alt-Right has managed to stay afloat due the adeptness of its members in using the Internet, as well as their ability to maintain anonymity.Hawley concludes with a discussion of the Alt-Right and the Alt-Lite. While the dividing line between these two groups tends to become blurred by new-comers, and is completely non-existent to leftist media outlets, Hawley does a good job of maintaining the distinction: The Alt-Right subscribes to white identity politics and the Alt-Lite is characterized by...well...cultural libertarianism? Civic nationalism? Some on the Alt-Right prefer to keep open lines of communication with the Alt-Lite as this serves as a way to recruit new members; a gateway drug, if you will. Regardless of the efficacy of this view, the distinction is important to keep in mind.Overall, "Making Sense of the Alt-Right" is a well-researched and detailed account of the Alt-Right and is of definite value to anyone interested in the movement and what it means for the future of America. The conservative movement's failure in responding to the Alt-Right's presence is evidence of their dwindling influence, especially when purges within American conservatism have been, historically, concomitant of the movement. With the decline, and eventual fall, of the mainstream right, it is only natural to wonder as to what will take its place? The Alt-Right is, perhaps more than any other contemporary movement, a prime candidate for this position.

Solid, well researched book. The most objective take on the AltRight I have seen. Much more informed than Neiwert's 'Alt America' while not attempting to grandstand or posture or falsely analyze and speculate. Remains grounded throughout.In case anyone hasn't noticed, anyone that broaches the topic of the AltRight or White Nationalism must immediately condemn or include a caveat about not agreeing with it nor trying to give it a platform in an attempt to kowtow to the NeoLiberal dogma of modern America.I took a star off because Hawley does the same throughout the book - else he face the wrath of his colleagues, critics, media, and the mainstream Left/Right apparatuses.

Despite the books' title, for me, reading Making Sense of the Alt-Right brought zero clarity to the alt-right movement. I am giving the book two stars, however, because I believe the author really did try to provide an objective overview of the subject, the subject is important (at least in terms of understanding the 2016 Presidential election), and there is little research on the topic. Here are my main problems with the book, listed approximately from most to least serious:1. Lack of quantitative data. Virtually all of the data in the book is anecdotal, being drawn from interviews with a small number of people who claim to be members of the alt-right. Even one meaningful piece of objective data could have improved the book dramatically (e.g., how many people self-identify as alt-right, or what percent of alt-right members identify as white nationalists). Without objective data, I felt like I was floating in a sea of conjecture. Generally, the author treats his facts as true simply because some guy said so. Note that the author is a professor who teaches courses on quantitative methods.2. The author cannot come to grips with the fact that the alt-right is a grassroots movement. Although he acknowledges that the movement lacks a leader and is disparate, he spends a lot of the book implying that one or more individuals are coordinating their activities and leading the group, and he repeatedly uses phrases like "According to the alt-right..." Who is he referring to? He doesn't know, and neither do we. It seems to me that the author, a political science professor, is so accustomed to studying manufactured, top-down grassroots movements that he is completely taken aback by a true grassroots movement.3. Inconsistent approach to racism. As you might expect in an academic book covering a group that has been accused of racism, there are frequent assurances that the author is not a racist. At one point, though, the author tries to decide whether Steven Miller (Trump's advisor) is a member of the alt-right, and therefore racist. Hawley concludes that Steven Miller cannot possibly be a member of the alt-right because he is a Jew! Obviously, addressing racism today is complicated, and I very much doubt that Hawley is a racist. But I wish he would have a similarly charitable attitude toward his subjects; while he cannot define the borders of the alt-right movement, he seems absolutely certain that the group's members are racists. In a moment of clarity, he notes at one point that liberals have made charges of racism so frequently in the past few years that the charges have lost their sting.4. Hawley repeats the false claim that Milo Yiannopoulos advocated for pedophiles. Please listen to the Milo interview in question and read Milo's explanation before coming to such a damning conclusion about someone who was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Better yet, read Milo's book, which provides a meaningful perspective on the alt-right ( Dangerous ).5. Betraying his own liberal leanings, Hawley at one point refers to Mother Jones as an example of a mainstream media source. Interestingly, I noted this exact same red flag of liberal bias in my review of  Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win .To his credit, Hawley does not compare the alt-right to the Nazi party, and he does not claim that Russia colluded to create the alt-right.Here is a suggestion for future research for Professor Hawley: To the extent that the alt-right is racist, is it simply a grassroots reaction to the inherent racism in the modern left's identity politics? I suspect it is, but I would love to see some data on that.

A good overview of the so called alt-right but it does not go as deep as others. Of coarse it is bias. No real hard core interviews with any alt right people. Also as I recall nothing on how much of the alt-right is down right FAKE.

Good book if you're new to trying to understand the alt-right and why/how it's taken off. It's interesting and the author does a good job of balancing the presentation of both the really radical elements and the less radical elements to give a full spectrum view.

Better than nothing, but not enough for anyone wanting more than a quick summary of the movement.