As mentioned in a previous post, while I appreciate the overarching themes of Reno’s ideas, there are crucial points where he falls short.

First and foremost, Reno acknowledges the banishment of the strong gods for valid reasons, responding to genuine horrors. However, he appears too nonchalant about the potential return of these horrors. He downplays the significance of past problems, suggesting they are no longer relevant:

Our societies are not gathering themselves into masses marching in lockstep. Central planners do not clog our economies. There is no longer an overbearing bourgeois culture bent on “exclusion.” Bull Conner isn’t commissioner of public safety in Birmingham.

Later in his book, Reno reiterates his stance that these concerns are exaggerated or misplaced:

But we are not living in 1945. Our societies are not threatened by paramilitary organizations devoted to powerful ideologies. We do not face a totalitarian adversary with world-conquering ambitions.

While Reno penned these words in 2019, recent events have shown that the threat of totalitarian governments and authoritarianism is far from eradicated. His dismissal of these risks reminds me of a cautionary tale shared by Matt Yglesias, emphasizing the danger of overlooking dormant problems until they resurface.

Reno’s argument that social disunity poses a greater threat than authoritarianism lacks substantial evidence to support this claim. While he delves into the causes of social fragmentation, he falls short in establishing why it outweighs the risk of authoritarian rule.

Readers may find agreement with Reno on the issue of social fragmentation without necessarily accepting his prioritization of this threat over authoritarianism. His argument fails to convincingly justify this hierarchy of risks.

Furthermore, Reno’s discussion of economics and economists’ ideas reveals several shortcomings. These issues will be explored in detail in the subsequent post.