i do want to point out that she starts the book by talking about how liberals don't understand power, which i think is a kind of a red herring, but, more importantly, that she then neither cites foucault nor angela davis even once.

how do you write a book about activists not understanding power in 2016 and manage to not even cite foucault once? i mean, you'd think you'd at least tear him down, which is what i would do. how can you completely ignore him? he's the source for understanding power on the left.

unless i've answered my own question, right?

i should read it first, but i suspect that this is going to essentially be a regurgitation of foucault, and that's why you start your book off like that. "you've never read foucault. let me sell his ideas to you.".

that's a hypothesis, not an accusation. let's see how accurate it is.