The descriptive part of the book is the best - recounting what has happened when countries descended into civil war, and what the contributing factors were. The prescriptive part is more wishful (and, I suspect, urged upon the author by her editors). Her remedies aren't likely to happen. And her suggestion about regulating social media might very well create more problems than it would solve. (I'm a fairly rigid First Amendment guy.) I picked up the book expecting to be able to dismiss it as fear-mongering. A civil war like the 1860s just isn't going to happen, not least because there is no clear geographic line dividing the country today. But Walter points out that civil wars these days are often different. They are insurgencies supported by sizable parts of the population, reflecting a conviction that the political system has lost its legitimacy. At a moment when the Republican party still denies that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and increasingly dismisses the violent attempt to overturn the results as a harmless free-speech protest, I'd say the legitimacy of the American system is in real jeopardy. The Democratic party has contributed to all this through the relentless identity politics of the party's left wing. That's another key element of Walter's analysis: when people identify first with racial or ethnic or religious groups, and only afterward with the nation, that nation is in trouble. I fear that's where America is today. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm not seeing the evidence.
I have not read the book but from your review, the question "What's a democrat to do?" seems to be left somewhat twisting in the wind. Efficient, effective government action to address significant national needs? Federal action to protect the vote, or curtail partisan gerrymandering and unaccountable campaign cash? Eliminate the Electoral College? Whether one thinks these are worthy or execrable goals, these are among the many things that current U.S. democracy seems utterly unable to accomplish.
I'm not sure how possible this would even be. People need to just give up on eliminating the Electoral College. That would require a Constitutional Amendment and neither side has a large enough following to make this happen. I don't see how Congress has the authority to take over redistricting as that belongs to the state. Finally, I get very nervous when I hear people talking about "regulating social media" because they always seem to think that they will be the ones regulating it and they will only do good things. Let's not forget that Iran and China also regulate the internet. If we worry that our government might be moving toward autocracy it seems that the last thing we want to do is to give that autocracy the power to silence opposition.
I agree with a good bit of what you've excerpted from Walter's book, except that without Obama, there wouldn't have been Trump. Obama was quite the ethnic entrepreneur himself. Instead of using his presidency to further unite a country that had elected a black man president, he did everything he could to stoke the fires of division. I despise everything about Trump, but to ignore his predecessor seems suspect.
Ms Walter simply wants full government control of society. Obviously she believes only the enlightened can govern properly. Trashing a constitution that has served the country well for generations is not the road to enlightenment. Personal freedom to exercise ones own priorities is to be subjugated to the enlightened for the greater good of society. What claptrap! What ever happened to the option of just saying no to things like social media. Most of us vote with our feet and our wallets and do not require enlightened overseers in our decision making. Nice try Ms Walters but your motives are totally transparent.
The descriptive part of the book is the best - recounting what has happened when countries descended into civil war, and what the contributing factors were. The prescriptive part is more wishful (and, I suspect, urged upon the author by her editors). Her remedies aren't likely to happen. And her suggestion about regulating social media might very well create more problems than it would solve. (I'm a fairly rigid First Amendment guy.) I picked up the book expecting to be able to dismiss it as fear-mongering. A civil war like the 1860s just isn't going to happen, not least because there is no clear geographic line dividing the country today. But Walter points out that civil wars these days are often different. They are insurgencies supported by sizable parts of the population, reflecting a conviction that the political system has lost its legitimacy. At a moment when the Republican party still denies that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and increasingly dismisses the violent attempt to overturn the results as a harmless free-speech protest, I'd say the legitimacy of the American system is in real jeopardy. The Democratic party has contributed to all this through the relentless identity politics of the party's left wing. That's another key element of Walter's analysis: when people identify first with racial or ethnic or religious groups, and only afterward with the nation, that nation is in trouble. I fear that's where America is today. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm not seeing the evidence.
I have not read the book but from your review, the question "What's a democrat to do?" seems to be left somewhat twisting in the wind. Efficient, effective government action to address significant national needs? Federal action to protect the vote, or curtail partisan gerrymandering and unaccountable campaign cash? Eliminate the Electoral College? Whether one thinks these are worthy or execrable goals, these are among the many things that current U.S. democracy seems utterly unable to accomplish.
I'm not sure how possible this would even be. People need to just give up on eliminating the Electoral College. That would require a Constitutional Amendment and neither side has a large enough following to make this happen. I don't see how Congress has the authority to take over redistricting as that belongs to the state. Finally, I get very nervous when I hear people talking about "regulating social media" because they always seem to think that they will be the ones regulating it and they will only do good things. Let's not forget that Iran and China also regulate the internet. If we worry that our government might be moving toward autocracy it seems that the last thing we want to do is to give that autocracy the power to silence opposition.
I agree with a good bit of what you've excerpted from Walter's book, except that without Obama, there wouldn't have been Trump. Obama was quite the ethnic entrepreneur himself. Instead of using his presidency to further unite a country that had elected a black man president, he did everything he could to stoke the fires of division. I despise everything about Trump, but to ignore his predecessor seems suspect.
Ms Walter simply wants full government control of society. Obviously she believes only the enlightened can govern properly. Trashing a constitution that has served the country well for generations is not the road to enlightenment. Personal freedom to exercise ones own priorities is to be subjugated to the enlightened for the greater good of society. What claptrap! What ever happened to the option of just saying no to things like social media. Most of us vote with our feet and our wallets and do not require enlightened overseers in our decision making. Nice try Ms Walters but your motives are totally transparent.
Sounds like an interesting book. Looking forward to checking it out.