A year ago I wrote a review that includes the following:

The chief problem with American Heretics, then, is that it is one long exercise in begging the question. Readers will look in vain for arguments defending or establishing Copulsky’s views. He leaves them mostly unspoken, and only occasionally, through insinuations and ingratiating asides, makes them known. The result is of a piece with recent approaches to political and intellectual history that consist entirely of quotation and paraphrase, the bulk of it introduced with a smirk and capped by a sneer. Call it the passive-aggressive style in Trump-era historiography. The author conspires with readers to ogle and gawk at the strange wrong-thinkers on display without ever finding it within themselves to strike up a conversation or ask an honest question. The one thing they know in advance is that they have nothing to learn from the encounter.

I continue to find this characterization of Trump-era historiography both accurate and useful.