In the important Journal of Economic Literature, Marshall I. Steinbaum and Bernard A. Weisberger write (gated, unless you are a member of the American Economics Association),

Motivated history is not good history. And the approach the book takes is particularly unlikely to yield fruitful insight: sweeping statements about what “the progressives” believed, festooned with cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context examples, without much of a hearing for either their opponents or for debate and disagreement among themselves. The result is a powerful brief arguing that the intellectual movement of that era has a decidedly problematic legacy on eugenics, racism, gender equality, immigration, and in countless other ways that would give pause to anyone looking to elevate their legacy. But all, or at least much, of that history was known—revealed decades ago

The book to which they refer is Illiberal Reformers, which I reviewed here.

In the paragraph above, opening sentences would lead one to believe that Leonard’s account is not accurate, but then the phrase “known–revealed decades ago” would lead one to believe that it is accurate.

I wish that the authors had listed some of the “cherry-picked quotes” and “out-of-context examples.” I finished the review without seeing any.

In my review, I wrote

Leonard also point[s] out that racism was not the exclusive province of Progressives. He notes the Anglo-Saxonism of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and other conservatives

The authors of the JEL review claim instead that Leonard only singles out racists on the Progressive side.

I think my review better reflects the contents of the book. But as academic economics proceeds along its road toward left-wing sociology, it hardly surprises me to see the Journal of Economic Literature publish essays that are uncharitable to those on the right.