mamamia's review against another edition
4.0
Um, I have some reservations about rating this book as highly as I did because I really didn't appreciate the tone of his writing in the first half, but this complaint is the exception rather than the rule; his tone, while bothersome at times, did not dissuade me from his central argument. Carney does not attempt to hide his conservative political bent in this novel, but he backs up his argument with notably bipartisan research sources. His writing authoritatively conveys the importance of connected American citizen life by peppering individual stories, citations to historical political philosophers, and analysis of differing civic life across the states with hard research about the effects of concentrated religiously affiliated philanthropy, nuclear family life, and community social solutions. This book offered me the best argument I've ever encountered for pause when thinking about government social intervention. Like other reviewers, I dislike the moments where it becomes more obvious that Carney wants to push a certain solution of robust rebuilding of American Christianity. While I personally would welcome this in my own communities, there are other solutions to be considered, as one reviewer mentioned, including walkable cities and robust library programs. I'm not sure religiosity can be as necessarily strongly linked to community revitalization as he claims. I'll be chewing on this book's findings for a long while. I highly recommend to my similarly progressive peers.
marisbest2's review against another edition
5.0
This book follows in a line of books that place the blame for our current cultural and political climate on the breakdown of the traditional community. (See Hillbilly Elegy, Our Kids, Bowling Alone, and to a certain extent The Benedict Option) It is a Conservative work, and a Catholic-inclined work, so there is the obvious "church is the solution" aspects. But there were a number of things I felt he did really well here
1- He explicitly grapples with the fact that "traditional communities" are built on principles that create an exclusionary atmosphere for people who cant get in line. He doesn't *really* spend enough time on this, but he makes a few good points. He tells of his Latinx neighbor in a predominantly upper class white suburb who plays loud music on some Sundays and acknowledges how that can seem like its changing the nature of the community. He talks about the struggles of getting to know a neighbor who doesnt drink alcohol (or soda, or seltzer) because of differing religious beliefs. And he actually grapples with this. Things that would be easy to view as negative (decrease in family structure for example) he points out are actually net positive because of gains in other areas (ie women have rights and respect).
2- He explicitly acknowledges his privilege and the privilege of the elites and the reasons that self-sorting happens and is detrimental. He explicitly advocates against moralizing "why cant the working class be more like the rich".
3- He explores religious sub-communities (Mormons, sure, but also Dutch Reformed and Orthodox Jews) in a way that felt fresh and new.
4- He explicitly deals with the question "why do civic institutions need to revolve around the church" and answers that it doesnt, except that the church is an institution that exists in the present and that combining civics with morality may have multiplier effects.
5- He HATES Bernie Sanders, but he respects what he's built and talks about Sanders as the community-forming equivalent of Trump which is interesting
Overall theres alot to like.
Things to dislike:
- This is an advocacy of intentional community. There are negative side effects for people who cant or wont fit in. He doesnt deal with how to leave and reform other such communities.
- Theres a whole load of "centralization in government is bad" that combine arguments against regulation and arguments against safety nets with arguments that government is an engine of secularization and anti-religious attitude.
- The whole Bernie thing is a bit absurd
- Theres a whole thing about Hobby Lobby and Christian Hospitals and the cake shop, etc. He's not really willing/able to differentiate between the cases even though his analysis yields an obvious differentiation between massive non-local company, clear and obvious public good/service and relatively small shop with alternatives. Those arguments may not resonate for all kinds of reasons, but he should get into them
Theres probably more too add but I'll stop here.
As an aside, he frequently quotes Charles Murray, which in a liberal context would be a big no-no. In this context he just gets away with it which is interesting
1- He explicitly grapples with the fact that "traditional communities" are built on principles that create an exclusionary atmosphere for people who cant get in line. He doesn't *really* spend enough time on this, but he makes a few good points. He tells of his Latinx neighbor in a predominantly upper class white suburb who plays loud music on some Sundays and acknowledges how that can seem like its changing the nature of the community. He talks about the struggles of getting to know a neighbor who doesnt drink alcohol (or soda, or seltzer) because of differing religious beliefs. And he actually grapples with this. Things that would be easy to view as negative (decrease in family structure for example) he points out are actually net positive because of gains in other areas (ie women have rights and respect).
2- He explicitly acknowledges his privilege and the privilege of the elites and the reasons that self-sorting happens and is detrimental. He explicitly advocates against moralizing "why cant the working class be more like the rich".
3- He explores religious sub-communities (Mormons, sure, but also Dutch Reformed and Orthodox Jews) in a way that felt fresh and new.
4- He explicitly deals with the question "why do civic institutions need to revolve around the church" and answers that it doesnt, except that the church is an institution that exists in the present and that combining civics with morality may have multiplier effects.
5- He HATES Bernie Sanders, but he respects what he's built and talks about Sanders as the community-forming equivalent of Trump which is interesting
Overall theres alot to like.
Things to dislike:
- This is an advocacy of intentional community. There are negative side effects for people who cant or wont fit in. He doesnt deal with how to leave and reform other such communities.
- Theres a whole load of "centralization in government is bad" that combine arguments against regulation and arguments against safety nets with arguments that government is an engine of secularization and anti-religious attitude.
- The whole Bernie thing is a bit absurd
- Theres a whole thing about Hobby Lobby and Christian Hospitals and the cake shop, etc. He's not really willing/able to differentiate between the cases even though his analysis yields an obvious differentiation between massive non-local company, clear and obvious public good/service and relatively small shop with alternatives. Those arguments may not resonate for all kinds of reasons, but he should get into them
Theres probably more too add but I'll stop here.
As an aside, he frequently quotes Charles Murray, which in a liberal context would be a big no-no. In this context he just gets away with it which is interesting
kirstynwillis's review against another edition
3.0
Well researched book. However, it’s nearly entirely about church. I learned a lot and I’m glad I read it, although I don’t agree with his solutions around religion.
I also didn’t like how toward the end he blames the “elites” and calls them selfish for not sharing their wisdom around what it takes to be successful basically. He blames the elites for not preaching what they practice but doesn’t say anything about the so called Christians never practicing what they preach. Sovereignty a powerful thing, and it’s up to each and every one of us to educate ourselves and develop our own morale. It’s not the “elites” job to teach the working class anything. It’s our own individual responsibility to find our own moral standing.
I barely made it to the end because his only solution is to attend church. He blames the nonreligious for rural areas and the working class’s downfall, and I just can’t get onboard with that.
Maybe I’d recommend the first half of the book? But certainly not the last. So overall, no, I wouldn’t recommend.
I also didn’t like how toward the end he blames the “elites” and calls them selfish for not sharing their wisdom around what it takes to be successful basically. He blames the elites for not preaching what they practice but doesn’t say anything about the so called Christians never practicing what they preach. Sovereignty a powerful thing, and it’s up to each and every one of us to educate ourselves and develop our own morale. It’s not the “elites” job to teach the working class anything. It’s our own individual responsibility to find our own moral standing.
I barely made it to the end because his only solution is to attend church. He blames the nonreligious for rural areas and the working class’s downfall, and I just can’t get onboard with that.
Maybe I’d recommend the first half of the book? But certainly not the last. So overall, no, I wouldn’t recommend.
maddyb001's review against another edition
3.0
This book was full of interesting conservative politics and thinking. I wish there was less commentary on Trump because by the end it felt very repetitive. I thought this book was a really interesting conversation started. What does happiness look like? What does a fulfilled life look like? What does a thriving community look like? I wish he would have gone more into how to build community, beyond church walls considering a lot of people are not interested in organized religion. I am interested to read some of the books he quoted in here especially "Bowling Alone" to see how much of the concepts of the criticalness of community and social capital were his ideas versus him appealing to give churches a larger role in society.
morganevans's review against another edition
5.0
I enjoyed Hillbilly Elegy immensely and Carney's book reminds me of an updated or newer follow up story while exploring the 2016 presidential election. Is the "American Dream" dead in weaker communities with job loss, drug addictions, fractured families and isolation? Why did Donald Trump do so well in fly over areas such as West Virginia but barely register in strong well formed communities such as Chevy Chase, Maryland? Definitely one of the best thought provoking books I've read in 2021.
ncrabb's review against another edition
4.0
Just how did Donald Trump get through the hurdles of the early Republican primaries? He was up against formidable candidates by any measure, yet he inexorably dispatched them all. How?
That’s the question this author answers in this book. And the answers are fascinating indeed. So who are you blaming? Texans perhaps? No, not so much. Surely those who think like Utah conservatives are responsible. If you buy that, you’ve not read this.
According to this author, Trump did better among people who believe the American dream is indeed dead. He succeeded in communities where churches are closing from disuse and PTA slots go ominously unfilled.
In communities where there are predominantly two-parent in-tact families and where the local church, library or even common ground of the school provide senses of community, Trump did poorly. Carney says wherever communities are bonded with common purposes whether it’s a tight-knit church community or even an active school environment where parents are keenly interested in what the kids are learning, the American dream is not dead, and the Trump message carried less appeal.
Carney provides compelling arguments for small government approaches to things, believing that whether you live in Chevy Chase, Maryland or Provo, Utah, you benefit from a sense of community regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on. He points to places where religion genuinely matters to the residents and details the giving habits and service-to-others records of those communities.
This book fascinated and surprised me. He says Trump supporters tend to come from communities that are struggling for reasons that aren’t entirely limited to economics. For example, most of President Trump’s early primary supporters claim that religion is important to them. But dig deeper, and you learn that many of them don’t regularly darken the door of the church house.
The book doesn’t look at the general election; instead, it focuses on those early primaries, and Carney tells us that those early supporters are among those who feel that America isn’t even the country with which they’re familiar anymore.
That’s the question this author answers in this book. And the answers are fascinating indeed. So who are you blaming? Texans perhaps? No, not so much. Surely those who think like Utah conservatives are responsible. If you buy that, you’ve not read this.
According to this author, Trump did better among people who believe the American dream is indeed dead. He succeeded in communities where churches are closing from disuse and PTA slots go ominously unfilled.
In communities where there are predominantly two-parent in-tact families and where the local church, library or even common ground of the school provide senses of community, Trump did poorly. Carney says wherever communities are bonded with common purposes whether it’s a tight-knit church community or even an active school environment where parents are keenly interested in what the kids are learning, the American dream is not dead, and the Trump message carried less appeal.
Carney provides compelling arguments for small government approaches to things, believing that whether you live in Chevy Chase, Maryland or Provo, Utah, you benefit from a sense of community regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on. He points to places where religion genuinely matters to the residents and details the giving habits and service-to-others records of those communities.
This book fascinated and surprised me. He says Trump supporters tend to come from communities that are struggling for reasons that aren’t entirely limited to economics. For example, most of President Trump’s early primary supporters claim that religion is important to them. But dig deeper, and you learn that many of them don’t regularly darken the door of the church house.
The book doesn’t look at the general election; instead, it focuses on those early primaries, and Carney tells us that those early supporters are among those who feel that America isn’t even the country with which they’re familiar anymore.
killedbyfluffy's review against another edition
3.0
This was recommended by my mom and it has an interesting premise: that the first people to support Trump can be identified by finding those places where the American Dream is dead and that today, the American Dream is only alive if you are either economically well off or, if you're not economically stable, attend church regularly. It's also a premise that, if you've been following the cottage industry of essays that have popped up since Trump became President attempting to explain the Trump voter, isn't that original but is more nuanced and a better supported argument about their motivation than most. Carney examines counties where the American Dream is thriving and what he finds is that these communities are fairly homogeneous, have high incomes, and have a thriving public square, like rec teams, volunteering, community groups, religious institutions, etc. He also presents that the American Dream is more likely to be attainable by those who follow a specific pattern: find a job, get married, have kids. Ultimately, his entire argument hinges on the assertion that attending church and having a strong religious community for support is what keeps a community strong and makes people more hopeful about their future and their place in America. Which is true, but, the other argument he somewhat glosses over in his haste to present his main claim, is that people who make up to 75k a year claim an increase in happiness as well. And since, not everyone can make that much, their next best option for happiness and community is the church. Not to get too Marxist here, but why is it automatically assumed that only those with a certain bank balance are capable of supporting the institutions capable of building and maintaining strong communities? And if that is the case, why is that considered default? What is it about our current economic system that makes it so hostile to building community? Isolation and alienation are a constant theme throughout the book and a reason, Carney claims, for the rise of Trump. I agree with him. What I disagree is with his claim that we can somehow pray the alienation away while not addressing the economic system we are slaves to and that actively works to undermine our humanity and ultimately our ability to create meaningful connections with each other.
tobiaswaters's review against another edition
5.0
This is a book that will stay with me for a long time. This book is pitched as an explainer for Trump's victory but I think the best parts of the book cover so much more. It's a deep dive into a loneliness pandemic and a genuinely profound look into the lives of people left behind when important community institutions crumble.
There were certainly parts I disagreed with but I think some of the reviews for this book approach it from an incredibly narrow mindset. Even where views diverged from my own I think it was valuable to consider with an open mind and think about the ways that my world view made me react so strongly to certain ideas.
More than anything, I felt an immense sense of gratitude for the communities I exist in and a renewed passion to be engaged in the places I live.
There were certainly parts I disagreed with but I think some of the reviews for this book approach it from an incredibly narrow mindset. Even where views diverged from my own I think it was valuable to consider with an open mind and think about the ways that my world view made me react so strongly to certain ideas.
More than anything, I felt an immense sense of gratitude for the communities I exist in and a renewed passion to be engaged in the places I live.