MixedThe Washington PostReaders who agree with Lind’s perspective will find much ammunition here. Indeed, some of his claims are immediately compelling ... Other claims, however, fall flat ... A tendency toward bare assertion infects much of the book and some of its main themes. For instance, Lind’s treatment of immigration badly lacks evidentiary support ... The book’s biggest problem cuts even deeper. The New Class War lacks a theory of its own. Lind lays out facts but scarcely interprets their social meanings or identifies the causes that connect them. He does not explain why the mid-century power-sharing regime broke down just when it did or why managers in particular have taken over. He never explains why the managerial elite assumed economic, cultural and political power all at the same time, or how power in each sphere shores up power in the others. And he does not explain why the political reaction against these hierarchies takes on the peculiarly populist character that it has almost everywhere ... Lind’s book will surely resonate with those who are already persuaded, but it will do little to enlighten those who are not. This is a shame. Books like Lind’s are being written and read because populism is as disorienting as it is disruptive. The political whirlwind makes it difficult to know what is happening, even as it only increases the desire to understand.
