Carlos Lozada is interesting on the intellectual quality of the Trump-era books, not just his ridiculous sycophantic supporters (who don’t deserve a lot of attention, and he doesn’t give it to them), but some of his rather more self-righteous opponents, not a few of whom hoover up a lot of the space of public debate for positions that they have been arguing for for many years before Trump:

just because Trump’s moral compass is broken does not mean yours unerringly points north. The resistance authors call for conversations but limit the speakers; they claim moral leadership but to uncertain ends; they worry endlessly about Trump’s America but betray contempt for Trump’s Americans. 

This seems wise to me as well: 

There is a compulsion among the Trump authors to see in the president the apotheosis of all their fears or the confirmation of all their past arguments. …Yet perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the Trump-era books is that they almost always place Trump at the center of the story, which is precisely where he wants to be.

…

But the books that matter most right now are not necessarily those revealing White House intrigue, scandal or policy battles, no matter how crucial those subjects. They are, instead, the books that enable and ennoble a national reexamination, the books that show how our current conflicts fit into the nation’s story, the books that hold fast to the American tradition of making ourselves anew. 

That is correct.  A "reexamination" is taking place.  I wish I could see more hopefulness in it, but it is taking place.  Maybe that alone is reason for hope.