Scan barcode
teokajlibroj's review
2.0
Well this was a disappointment. There was a lot of potential and the occasional decent chapter, but most chapters failed to properly engage with the topic, or at least in an interesting way. Too many writers had too narrow of a view, they only considered whether Trump in 2017 was authoritarian, without considering the long term effects of his presidency. Trump may not be a dictator, but will his erosion of democratic norms make it easier for a future authoritarian?
There was no consideration of how dictators do come to power or examples to compare to, which left the discussion without context. The chapter on Napolean III could have done this, except the author concluded by saying it had absolutely no relevance to fascism. Most chapters were drowning in buzzwords and political science jargon without really saying anything. By far the worst was the tedious article that gave the definition of the word "can", then the definition of "it" etc
There was no consideration of how dictators do come to power or examples to compare to, which left the discussion without context. The chapter on Napolean III could have done this, except the author concluded by saying it had absolutely no relevance to fascism. Most chapters were drowning in buzzwords and political science jargon without really saying anything. By far the worst was the tedious article that gave the definition of the word "can", then the definition of "it" etc
zwyrdish's review
4.0
In my ongoing efforts to understand what is happening in the US, how we got in this mess, and what we can do to fix it, I've been doing a lot of reading. Now non-fiction reading is not normally my first choice, but this has been a labor of love for me. Love of country. Love of democracy. Love of the freedoms we enjoy. Love of our uniqueness in the world, the role we play in being a beacon to the politically repressed and love of our history of nurturing democracies elsewhere. Love of our sacred covenant - not to God, as the right would have us believe, but to uphold the social contract on which the American political system was founded - that the state exists only to serve the will of the people, who are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state.
While all of this reading contributes to my overall comprehension of the magnitude of the mess we are in, and even serves to some extent as a window into the events that led us here, I have gained less insight into the steps we can take to fix it.
Until I finished this one. I knew just a few pages in that it was taking a decidedly different approach, one that began to flesh out for me the answer to my most burning question, which is What Makes These People Tick? We keep asking, how can they not see this the way we see it? I've heard "You can't fix stupid." among other disparaging and unproductive observations, but nothing helpful - nothing that gives me hope of a solution. This reading did.
The title "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness, but an eternal dynamic within liberal democracies" is quite a mouthful. It was written after Trump's election in 2016, after the UK voted to leave the EU, and after the French "flirted with" but ultimately rejected Le Front National - all populist movements that drew support in their respective liberal democracies that was both significant and alarming. Karen Stenner's research, on which this essay is based, spans decades.
I was intrigued by her theory of three types of conservatism and found the studies themselves to be fairly convincing, although I am not a social scientist. I also appreciated the reframing of the authoritarian personality in terms of followers rather than leaders.
It was a bit of a slog for me, especially in the middle, where the data and analysis are discussed in a fair amount of detail, for an essay. But I stuck with it, and came away with a much clearer picture of what we are dealing with, how we can begin to heal the wounds of the past, and how we can change our perspective and our policies moving forward to prevent these kinds of crises in the future.
I found this essay so illuminating that I looked online and found the author, Karen Stenner's, website. Links to her published work are provided, including a link to the essay I read. Her website https://www.karenstenner.com/ has a chronological list of her published work, which includes two publications in 2009 . A more recent article - published in 2020, in "HOPE Not Hate" , magazine, since the advent of covid-19 and the race riots - appears to be based on the essay in the book, with less detail of the studies and updated to include observations related to the 2020 pandemic. It is easier reading that is more focused on how her work applies to recent events and speaks a little bit more to the solution than I think the original essay does.
Stenner's work has helped me to understand how such injustice can be set aside and/or interpreted as virtuous by a significant percentage of the population. I am highly curious about her reaction to still more recent events with regard to the 2020 election and the subsequent insurrection in the United States Capitol.
The revelation for me is that this phenomenon of authoritarianism, though exploited by Donald Trump and his ilk, is not created by them. It exists in all countries, all cultures, all governments, worldwide, intrinsic to the population, not its leaders.
When I was convinced of this, and made aware of all its implications, I was initially horrified. How do we "fix" this problem if a third of the population are authoritarian by nature and will never change? But the beauty is that the deep division we presently have in our society CAN be resolved. The solution is counterintuitive, which is why we just keep making things worse. And it won't be easy - change never is - but it is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve any sort of unity and stability.
The good news is - and this is the second time I find myself saying this in recent memory - I sincerely believe that Joe Biden, with his message of unity and healing and his reluctance/refusal to be drawn into contentious pissing matches with other politicians, is the president we need, right now, to help foster this healing. I say that with gratitude, because he was not my choice for the democratic ticket, and I am now thankful he won the nomination.
Unless you are a budding social scientist you can forego the essay from the book, but if the questions I proposed at the beginning of this review have perplexed you as well, or you KNOW people who still support Trump, or his rhetoric, and you just can't figure it out, I strongly encourage you to check out her website and read the article. It is very enlightening.
While all of this reading contributes to my overall comprehension of the magnitude of the mess we are in, and even serves to some extent as a window into the events that led us here, I have gained less insight into the steps we can take to fix it.
Until I finished this one. I knew just a few pages in that it was taking a decidedly different approach, one that began to flesh out for me the answer to my most burning question, which is What Makes These People Tick? We keep asking, how can they not see this the way we see it? I've heard "You can't fix stupid." among other disparaging and unproductive observations, but nothing helpful - nothing that gives me hope of a solution. This reading did.
The title "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness, but an eternal dynamic within liberal democracies" is quite a mouthful. It was written after Trump's election in 2016, after the UK voted to leave the EU, and after the French "flirted with" but ultimately rejected Le Front National - all populist movements that drew support in their respective liberal democracies that was both significant and alarming. Karen Stenner's research, on which this essay is based, spans decades.
I was intrigued by her theory of three types of conservatism and found the studies themselves to be fairly convincing, although I am not a social scientist. I also appreciated the reframing of the authoritarian personality in terms of followers rather than leaders.
It was a bit of a slog for me, especially in the middle, where the data and analysis are discussed in a fair amount of detail, for an essay. But I stuck with it, and came away with a much clearer picture of what we are dealing with, how we can begin to heal the wounds of the past, and how we can change our perspective and our policies moving forward to prevent these kinds of crises in the future.
I found this essay so illuminating that I looked online and found the author, Karen Stenner's, website. Links to her published work are provided, including a link to the essay I read. Her website https://www.karenstenner.com/ has a chronological list of her published work, which includes two publications in 2009 . A more recent article - published in 2020, in "HOPE Not Hate" , magazine, since the advent of covid-19 and the race riots - appears to be based on the essay in the book, with less detail of the studies and updated to include observations related to the 2020 pandemic. It is easier reading that is more focused on how her work applies to recent events and speaks a little bit more to the solution than I think the original essay does.
Stenner's work has helped me to understand how such injustice can be set aside and/or interpreted as virtuous by a significant percentage of the population. I am highly curious about her reaction to still more recent events with regard to the 2020 election and the subsequent insurrection in the United States Capitol.
The revelation for me is that this phenomenon of authoritarianism, though exploited by Donald Trump and his ilk, is not created by them. It exists in all countries, all cultures, all governments, worldwide, intrinsic to the population, not its leaders.
When I was convinced of this, and made aware of all its implications, I was initially horrified. How do we "fix" this problem if a third of the population are authoritarian by nature and will never change? But the beauty is that the deep division we presently have in our society CAN be resolved. The solution is counterintuitive, which is why we just keep making things worse. And it won't be easy - change never is - but it is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve any sort of unity and stability.
The good news is - and this is the second time I find myself saying this in recent memory - I sincerely believe that Joe Biden, with his message of unity and healing and his reluctance/refusal to be drawn into contentious pissing matches with other politicians, is the president we need, right now, to help foster this healing. I say that with gratitude, because he was not my choice for the democratic ticket, and I am now thankful he won the nomination.
Unless you are a budding social scientist you can forego the essay from the book, but if the questions I proposed at the beginning of this review have perplexed you as well, or you KNOW people who still support Trump, or his rhetoric, and you just can't figure it out, I strongly encourage you to check out her website and read the article. It is very enlightening.
robertrivasplata's review
3.0
There's some interesting essays in here but a great many of them are very stupid. The Samantha Power and Jack Goldsmith essays are interesting for their author's perspectives as former government officials. Powers's perspective on foreign disinformation and hacking's impact on the election was interesting because of her former role as a high level diplomat. The Jack Goldsmith essay was a history of domestic intelligence gathering (and dirty tricks) from the perspective of an intelligence community insider. I disagree with Powers and Goldsmith on certain key points, but their perspective as experts made for good essays.
Watt's critique of Common Sense is another outstanding essay, breaking down how "common sense" in political discourse is a code word to differentiate an in-group from "others".
I also enjoyed Elster's essay on Napoleon III's rise to power, even if (by his own admission) the story is of limited relevance to the situation we find ourselves in today.
Other honorable mentions are the essays by Minnow, Strauss, Holmes, & Stone.
The rest of the essays were kinda stupid.
Some of the more optimistic essays (such as Sunstein's & Stenner's/Haidt's) seemed to be backed up mostly by selective memory and wishful thinking.
Cowen's essay suggests that the US government is too large and decentralized for fascists to take over, while ignoring other factors, such as the militarization of police throughout the country.
Feldman's essay tried to answer the title question through pedantry. Actually, many of the essays got hung up on inconsequential differences between 1930s-style fascism and the kinds of authoritarianism we are seeing develop throughout the world today.
Kuran's idea that students and activists working to shut down fascists are the real authoritarians is idiotic.
Overall, this book was a little disappointing.
Watt's critique of Common Sense is another outstanding essay, breaking down how "common sense" in political discourse is a code word to differentiate an in-group from "others".
I also enjoyed Elster's essay on Napoleon III's rise to power, even if (by his own admission) the story is of limited relevance to the situation we find ourselves in today.
Other honorable mentions are the essays by Minnow, Strauss, Holmes, & Stone.
The rest of the essays were kinda stupid.
Some of the more optimistic essays (such as Sunstein's & Stenner's/Haidt's) seemed to be backed up mostly by selective memory and wishful thinking.
Cowen's essay suggests that the US government is too large and decentralized for fascists to take over, while ignoring other factors, such as the militarization of police throughout the country.
Feldman's essay tried to answer the title question through pedantry. Actually, many of the essays got hung up on inconsequential differences between 1930s-style fascism and the kinds of authoritarianism we are seeing develop throughout the world today.
Kuran's idea that students and activists working to shut down fascists are the real authoritarians is idiotic.
Overall, this book was a little disappointing.
sondosia's review
3.0
Not all of the essays here were interesting or original, but some really were. My favorite is the aptly-named "Authoritarianism is Not a Momentary Madness, But an Eternal Dynamic Within Liberal Democracies" by Karen Stenner and Jonathan Haidt. Honestly, even if you don't want to read anything else, read this essay because it's meticulously-researched and presents a really clear and sensible framework for understanding what's going on right now.
I also liked "Could Fascism Come to America?" by Tyler Cowen, which makes the point that a sprawling bureaucracy is actually protective against fascism; "Lessons from the American Founding" by Cass R. Sunstein, which is great if you're like me and you've had the Hamilton soundtrack on repeat lately; "Paradoxes of the Deep State" by Jack Goldsmith, which shows how the so-called Deep State can be both helpful and harmful in safeguarding democracy; "The Resistible Rise of Louis Bonaparte" by Jon Elster, which makes the titular analogy and actually taught me more about French history than my entire education; "The Commonsense Presidency" by Duncan J. Watts, which shows how appeals to "common sense" are weaponized by politicians like Trump; "Law and the Slow-Motion Emergency" by David A. Strauss, which discusses the role of the courts; and "'It Can't Happen Here': The Lessons of History" by Geoffrey R. Stone, which links current events with previous suspensions of civil liberties in American history.
I also liked "Could Fascism Come to America?" by Tyler Cowen, which makes the point that a sprawling bureaucracy is actually protective against fascism; "Lessons from the American Founding" by Cass R. Sunstein, which is great if you're like me and you've had the Hamilton soundtrack on repeat lately; "Paradoxes of the Deep State" by Jack Goldsmith, which shows how the so-called Deep State can be both helpful and harmful in safeguarding democracy; "The Resistible Rise of Louis Bonaparte" by Jon Elster, which makes the titular analogy and actually taught me more about French history than my entire education; "The Commonsense Presidency" by Duncan J. Watts, which shows how appeals to "common sense" are weaponized by politicians like Trump; "Law and the Slow-Motion Emergency" by David A. Strauss, which discusses the role of the courts; and "'It Can't Happen Here': The Lessons of History" by Geoffrey R. Stone, which links current events with previous suspensions of civil liberties in American history.
pbokelly's review
4.0
A couple reviews to consider:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/books/review/impeachment-cass-sunstein-can-it-happen-here.html
http://www.thenationalbookreview.com/features/2018/3/15/review-is-trump-bringing-fascism-to-america
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/books/review/impeachment-cass-sunstein-can-it-happen-here.html
http://www.thenationalbookreview.com/features/2018/3/15/review-is-trump-bringing-fascism-to-america
julieputty's review
3.0
Hit or miss essays, with intriguing ideas (the size of the unwieldy bureaucracy shielding the US from authoritarianism) nestled up next to overly optimistic ideas about the role of the media. Worth reading.
More...