[1]: 18 [2] Robin argues that rather than being about liberty, limited government, resistance to change, or public virtue, conservatism is a "mode of counterrevolutionary practice" to preserve hierarchy and power.

[1]: 62 Robin argues that in the modern era conservatives are often more concerned about preserving power in the private sphere, which finds struggles against causes such as labor movements and feminism.

[3] Mark Lilla criticized Robin's argument, arguing that Robin's definition of conservatism "can be reduced to this: 'those who react against movements of the left' react against movements of the left – which is a tautology, not an argument" and that one needs to "distinguish between conservatism, which is informed by a view of human nature; reaction, which is informed by a view of history; and the right, which is a shifting, engaged ideological family".

Lilla maintains that Robin fails to engage with conservative principles or even accept their existence, instead simply dismissing them as "improvisations" for defending hierarchy and privilege by a vast cast of heterogenous individuals.

Russello thus argues that the book lacks nuance and is reduced to an "anguished cry of a Left that cannot understand how any reasonable person could be conservative and so seeks only the darkest motives.

"[5] Alex Gourevitch praised Robin for attempting to develop a comprehensive understanding of conservatism and for trying to examine conservative ideas rather than dismissing them outright.

Berman concludes that "[Robin] repeatedly characterizes conservative leaders and thinkers as manipulative, repressive, 'enlivened' by violence, and committed to the oppression of the 'subordinate classes' or 'lower orders'".

[9] Christian Gonzalez, writing for the National Review Online, argued Robin's "theory of conservatism is grounded in an interpretation of violent, revolutionary irruptions as 'emancipatory' and of counterrevolutionary thought and practice as 'oppressive.'

Gonzalez argues that there are reasons to reject this thesis, such as the French and Russian revolutions leading to tyranny, as well as leftist apologia for both the crimes of Stalinism during the 1930s and the dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.