The article is a book review. The book is reviewing Seven Habits. The article is reviewing - criticising, in the sense of expanding and commenting on, if you read the details - the book. So that section is a mix of opinion.
It's unfortunate you missed this rather relevant fact, and chose instead to write a diatribe about how "woke" is very bad and people on HN only ever comment on articles without really reading them.
Of course if you believe that public criticism of books like Seven Habits in obscure journals is somehow corrosively 'un-American' you're going to need to explain why you have that rather exotic view.
I didn't miss anything. The gratuitous complaints about lack of racism and sexism discourse come from Lehmann, not McHugh. And Lehmann spends plenty of time holding forth about Seven Habits from his own point of view, saying that he doesn't even see the spark of good in it that McHugh does.
Feel free to reread the relevant section of the article and my comment if you "missed" any of this.
The rest of your comment is just sloppy, incorrect description and speculation about what I wrote and what you assume I think, so I won't bother responding to that. However, I did note that others were able to grasp that I didn't attack wokeness per se, only articles written from a mindless, robotically woke viewpoint. So you might ask yourself why you didn't grasp this and instead chose to immediately draw tribal lines by speculating about what I think is "un-American".
It's unfortunate you missed this rather relevant fact, and chose instead to write a diatribe about how "woke" is very bad and people on HN only ever comment on articles without really reading them.
Of course if you believe that public criticism of books like Seven Habits in obscure journals is somehow corrosively 'un-American' you're going to need to explain why you have that rather exotic view.