holodoxa's review against another edition
3.0
David French's Divided We Fall is typical replacement-level sociopolitical commentary from a right-of-center but committed "Never Trump" pundit. The diagnosis that the American polity is experiencing rapid partisan hyperpolarization is neither a novel nor surprising insight. Much of French's diagnosis of America's political challenges have been substantiated more persuasively, perspicaciously, or comprehensively in other works (Coming Apart, Political Tribes, or Alienated America for example). Moreover, it is likely that French's perspective on this phenomenon is somewhat overly pessimistic (though not alarmist), and the few solutions he offers are fairly vague and half-baked (though I broadly agree that America should embrace more federalism and pluralism). However, this is an interesting topic of importance, and French's avuncular tone and direct language makes for a brisk, easy read.
Despite the middling commentary, I found the hypothetical futures where French games out hyperpolarization trends that lead to different secession scenarios to be fairly engaging (though often lacking a little believability due to only a superficial engagement with certain legal and economic realities). Some of the scenarios seemingly echoed Ben Shapiro's True Allegiance, which gives you an idea on how they played out (i.e. things declined precipitously in the majority of scenarios). All in all, Divided We Fall is sort of the balding, overweight but amicable dad versions of contemporary political commentaries. It has its charm, and it doesn't demand much of readers and generally its hopeful vision of America is very mainstream and broadly acceptable.
Despite the middling commentary, I found the hypothetical futures where French games out hyperpolarization trends that lead to different secession scenarios to be fairly engaging (though often lacking a little believability due to only a superficial engagement with certain legal and economic realities). Some of the scenarios seemingly echoed Ben Shapiro's True Allegiance, which gives you an idea on how they played out (i.e. things declined precipitously in the majority of scenarios). All in all, Divided We Fall is sort of the balding, overweight but amicable dad versions of contemporary political commentaries. It has its charm, and it doesn't demand much of readers and generally its hopeful vision of America is very mainstream and broadly acceptable.
miguelf's review
3.0
Some credit needs to be given to French in trying to write a good faith conservative take on the right / left divisions that have been amplified since the right wing recognized that they could use Roe v. Wade and other cultural issues as cudgels for voter turnout, which were amplified by Reagan and Gingrich into the culture wars that we all know and loathe today. French is as close to I’ve ever read so far from someone on the right who’s an honest actor in not trying to obfuscate their viewpoint and genuinely seems concerned about the deep divisions that have been sown in the country. At the same time, he can’t seem to back away from tired tropes like equivocating between harms done equally by both sides by repeatedly arguing that left wing violence has been commensurate (example – equating violent groups and actions on the right to the left by using the one example of the non-aligned basket case who fired on the congressional softball match). The second part regarding the hypothetical scenarios of a schism seem a bit fantastical and one of the main concerns on French’s part seems to be the loss of world military dominance. The final analysis of the call for less federalism seems unworkable, requiring some major constitutional overhaul with additional amendments. With a 6-3 conservative court we’ll essentially be getting what French is proposing for years to come.
randyrasa's review against another edition
3.0
Lots of interesting discussions here about the state of political discourse in American society, and where it might lead. Unfortunately, the author has a tendency to mention what must be right-wing radio talking points, obsessions, and grievances, without providing definitions or context, so some of this book is rather hard to follow if you're not part of that media bubble. The entire center section of the book, an imagined future of various secession scenarios, is fascinating and oddly compelling (and realistically terrifying), though it often reads as a Glenn Beck-ish fevered fantasy. Still, there's plenty here to ponder.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
David French's book contains an analysis a political polarization that shares a lot in common with [a:Ezra Klein|4412018|Ezra Klein|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]'s [b:Why We're Polarized|54303152|Why We're Polarized|Ezra Klein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1593355872l/54303152._SY75_.jpg|73552811], a speculative depiction of the United States breaking up in "Calexit" and "Texit", and a proposed solution which is maximum federalism limited only by States not having the right to override the Constitution and especially the First Amendment. This solution is motivated by "toleration," not for those what we celebrate and love but for those that we disagree with in a system with a greater degree of pluralism, viewpoint diversity, and to the degree collective choices are needed they are done closer to the level where people agree on them.
Much of the polarization story in this book has been told before but French tells it well and does it with almost complete even-handed sympathy for both sides in the culture and broader wars. One could debate whether both sides deserve even hands (e.g., French rightly says that both sides pick the worst of the other side and claim it is an exemplar, but a progressive picking Donald Trump as an exemplar of conservatives is not exactly cherry picking). But French is good at serving up some of his own's sides hypocrisies and inconsistencies too, for example pointing that while conservatives love to talk about the importance of free speech in the face of cancel culture it was a Republican President and the NFL that cancelled Colin Kaepernick. What makes French's analysis so distinctive--and also potentially a bit off--is how much he emphasizes geographical sorting, something that is also a key to motivating his analysis of the problem and the solution. Of course there is substantial sorting into "red" and "blue" America but it is not all along regional lines. Most everywhere cities are blue, even in the reddest states. And most everywhere rural areas are red, even in the bluest states. People with a graduate degree tend to be blue regardless of where they live and the converse for a high school degree or less. French is right that you can live in Brooklyn and never meet a Republican, but you don't have to travel to North Carolina to remedy this deficiency--you just need to go two counties over to Orange County which voted for Trump in 2016.
The regional divides lead to three enjoyable chapters imaging what a dissolution of the United States might look like. The first scenario is a gun massacre in California, they pass unconstitutional legislation, a series of conflicts between federal and state authorities lead them to want to succeed, and an embattled Republican President realizes he can cement his party's power if he lets them go. All is peaceful and relatively happy domestically. The second scenario is a clash over abortion that leads to a virtual economic embargo of the South by major corporations, a packing of the Supreme Court, and them leaving the union--enabled by the many military bases and assets they control, devolving in a Cold War situation as the competing nations face off. French follows these two chapters with one that follows from both depicting what a world with a U.S. power vacuum could look like, with an emboldened China trying to take over Taiwan, Russia expanding out, Germany and Japan remilitarizing, etc., all of which is a chilling reminder of what might happen if U.S. power wanes (see [a:Matthew Yglesias|1062188|Matthew Yglesias|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]'s [b:One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger|50165554|One Billion Americans The Case for Thinking Bigger|Matthew Yglesias|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1585632778l/50165554._SY75_.jpg|75108993]).
In the final part of the book French makes an eloquent plea for "tolerance" which he defines as living with those you find disagreeable and repugnant, which is very different from the current liberal approach to "tolerance" of different groups that you actually like and celebrate (which is why, in fact, progressives have generally moved away from the word "tolerance"). Because he argues most differences are geographic he thinks that federalism is a solution. Let California take the money it currently channels to the federal government to set up a single payer health system. Let other states limit abortions. Keep things closer to what local people want and making national elections less important and Presidents much less important. French is very consistent in his advocacy (and in fact remarkably consistent throughout the book), he clearly is not using the "federalism" label to achieve whatever more fundamental goals he has. But I was not fully persuaded by this as a solution since there is still a lot of polarization within states, I have less of a belief in the limitations of the federal government, and a sneaking suspicion that as even handed as French is trying to be the limits on federal power are putting a thumb on the scale of more conservative solutions. That said, he made me take the idea more seriously and is better than the opportunists on both sides who inconsistently invoke their support or opposition to federalism as it best suits in the moment.
Overall, the U.S. political debate is lucky to have French's voice giving a sympathetic rendering to a large group of Americans that are ignored or marginalized in much progressive political analysis but without doing it in the combative and incoherent manner one too often sees in Fox News commentators and their ilk.
Much of the polarization story in this book has been told before but French tells it well and does it with almost complete even-handed sympathy for both sides in the culture and broader wars. One could debate whether both sides deserve even hands (e.g., French rightly says that both sides pick the worst of the other side and claim it is an exemplar, but a progressive picking Donald Trump as an exemplar of conservatives is not exactly cherry picking). But French is good at serving up some of his own's sides hypocrisies and inconsistencies too, for example pointing that while conservatives love to talk about the importance of free speech in the face of cancel culture it was a Republican President and the NFL that cancelled Colin Kaepernick. What makes French's analysis so distinctive--and also potentially a bit off--is how much he emphasizes geographical sorting, something that is also a key to motivating his analysis of the problem and the solution. Of course there is substantial sorting into "red" and "blue" America but it is not all along regional lines. Most everywhere cities are blue, even in the reddest states. And most everywhere rural areas are red, even in the bluest states. People with a graduate degree tend to be blue regardless of where they live and the converse for a high school degree or less. French is right that you can live in Brooklyn and never meet a Republican, but you don't have to travel to North Carolina to remedy this deficiency--you just need to go two counties over to Orange County which voted for Trump in 2016.
The regional divides lead to three enjoyable chapters imaging what a dissolution of the United States might look like. The first scenario is a gun massacre in California, they pass unconstitutional legislation, a series of conflicts between federal and state authorities lead them to want to succeed, and an embattled Republican President realizes he can cement his party's power if he lets them go. All is peaceful and relatively happy domestically. The second scenario is a clash over abortion that leads to a virtual economic embargo of the South by major corporations, a packing of the Supreme Court, and them leaving the union--enabled by the many military bases and assets they control, devolving in a Cold War situation as the competing nations face off. French follows these two chapters with one that follows from both depicting what a world with a U.S. power vacuum could look like, with an emboldened China trying to take over Taiwan, Russia expanding out, Germany and Japan remilitarizing, etc., all of which is a chilling reminder of what might happen if U.S. power wanes (see [a:Matthew Yglesias|1062188|Matthew Yglesias|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]'s [b:One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger|50165554|One Billion Americans The Case for Thinking Bigger|Matthew Yglesias|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1585632778l/50165554._SY75_.jpg|75108993]).
In the final part of the book French makes an eloquent plea for "tolerance" which he defines as living with those you find disagreeable and repugnant, which is very different from the current liberal approach to "tolerance" of different groups that you actually like and celebrate (which is why, in fact, progressives have generally moved away from the word "tolerance"). Because he argues most differences are geographic he thinks that federalism is a solution. Let California take the money it currently channels to the federal government to set up a single payer health system. Let other states limit abortions. Keep things closer to what local people want and making national elections less important and Presidents much less important. French is very consistent in his advocacy (and in fact remarkably consistent throughout the book), he clearly is not using the "federalism" label to achieve whatever more fundamental goals he has. But I was not fully persuaded by this as a solution since there is still a lot of polarization within states, I have less of a belief in the limitations of the federal government, and a sneaking suspicion that as even handed as French is trying to be the limits on federal power are putting a thumb on the scale of more conservative solutions. That said, he made me take the idea more seriously and is better than the opportunists on both sides who inconsistently invoke their support or opposition to federalism as it best suits in the moment.
Overall, the U.S. political debate is lucky to have French's voice giving a sympathetic rendering to a large group of Americans that are ignored or marginalized in much progressive political analysis but without doing it in the combative and incoherent manner one too often sees in Fox News commentators and their ilk.
oldmansimms's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting read. French's solution to our nation's political problems is a little pat (basically, everyone should stop trying to dominate their political opponents and learn to live with differences in belief, without demonizing those who hold contrary positions to one's own) but it's well-expressed and features some cautionary hypotheticals for those who think that splitting off from the US is a solution. I did find fault with his willingness to excuse discrimination against gay or transgender people as a legitimate expression of one's religious beliefs, however.
ivantable's review against another edition
4.0
A plea to return to the Founders’ conception of pluralism. According to French, we need an 18th-century solution to our 21st-century problem—the “us vs. them” loathing that characterizes much of our political discourse. I find French’s analysis always clear and incisive—and I think he models well what he calls for, namely, political and moral courage in our sectarian age. His look at the religious, cultural, political, and social forces dividing us is sobering. Ideally, this is a book to read along with John Inazu’s Confident Pluralism, Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, Ben Sasse’s Them.
zrock's review against another edition
5.0
French is one of the most important and level-headed political voices on the Christian right right now and here offers crucial perspectives on fixing the U.S.‘s predicament similar to what is found in his other insightful writings. By giving numerous (albeit sometimes somewhat imperfect) examples of hypocrisy, self-defeatism, and ideologically-driven folly on both sides, he makes strong, realistic, consistent and fair-minded arguments that ultimately prioritize realistic iterations of tolerance and federalism as our way to a better union. I generally tend to cringe when authors offer hypothetical worst-case scenarios numbering dozens of pages, but in this case he does fine, and the rating here is too low anyway.
ajparmentier's review against another edition
1.0
I have four main issues with this book:
1. The entire middle section is essentially three long "what if" scenarios. This is outlined in the book road map in the introduction but then not stated again in the text. So it is incredibly easy to not understand that's what's going on until a ways into the first scenario. The first scenario is written just vaguely enough and close enough to truth that it feels like news stories you might've forgotten. This is entirely the point, but there needed to be another paragraph at the beginning of that section or the end of the previous section that just reiterates "now we're going to talk about some what if scenarios" to avoid confusion. I led a community book discussion on this and it was a major source of confusion to a lot of the attendees.
2. The author claims to be very in the middle with his political beliefs, but as the book goes on you can tell that that's actually not true. I don't care about what beliefs the author holds, but I think if you are going to claim neutrality, you have to actually back it up. I think it's possible to write a book from a place of "I believe in this side's belief, but I can use empathy and talk about what the other side believes", but in order to do that successfully you have to actually be honest. He also was a big fan of holding up two things and making claims of false equivalence about them. Not every single thing has two exactly equal sides. And not every single grievance the political Right and political Left have against each other has an exactly equal grievance on the other side. That's fine. We can talk about each of those grievances/issues separately. But the author didn't want to do that.
3. The author makes quite a lot of claims throughout the book about research studies and such, but never backs up these claims with hard facts or provides enough sources for his facts. He also cites plenty of studies without doing work to establish if the studies/surveys were conducted with acceptable rigorousness. It was very frustrating, because all of the data and stats he cited might be true but he didn't give me enough evidence of his own due diligence in checking out those facts for me to believe him.
4. It's just not well-written. I'm not expecting academic prose at all, because this book is aimed at the general population so it should be written in an accessible and more informal style. But it's just not well-written on a sentence by sentence level. :-( I tried to be nice about it, but it was a hard slog to get through this book.
An absolutely unpleasant read that didn't even make me feel better equipped to have productive political conversations or really understand other parts of the political spectrum.
1. The entire middle section is essentially three long "what if" scenarios. This is outlined in the book road map in the introduction but then not stated again in the text. So it is incredibly easy to not understand that's what's going on until a ways into the first scenario. The first scenario is written just vaguely enough and close enough to truth that it feels like news stories you might've forgotten. This is entirely the point, but there needed to be another paragraph at the beginning of that section or the end of the previous section that just reiterates "now we're going to talk about some what if scenarios" to avoid confusion. I led a community book discussion on this and it was a major source of confusion to a lot of the attendees.
2. The author claims to be very in the middle with his political beliefs, but as the book goes on you can tell that that's actually not true. I don't care about what beliefs the author holds, but I think if you are going to claim neutrality, you have to actually back it up. I think it's possible to write a book from a place of "I believe in this side's belief, but I can use empathy and talk about what the other side believes", but in order to do that successfully you have to actually be honest. He also was a big fan of holding up two things and making claims of false equivalence about them. Not every single thing has two exactly equal sides. And not every single grievance the political Right and political Left have against each other has an exactly equal grievance on the other side. That's fine. We can talk about each of those grievances/issues separately. But the author didn't want to do that.
3. The author makes quite a lot of claims throughout the book about research studies and such, but never backs up these claims with hard facts or provides enough sources for his facts. He also cites plenty of studies without doing work to establish if the studies/surveys were conducted with acceptable rigorousness. It was very frustrating, because all of the data and stats he cited might be true but he didn't give me enough evidence of his own due diligence in checking out those facts for me to believe him.
4. It's just not well-written. I'm not expecting academic prose at all, because this book is aimed at the general population so it should be written in an accessible and more informal style. But it's just not well-written on a sentence by sentence level. :-( I tried to be nice about it, but it was a hard slog to get through this book.
An absolutely unpleasant read that didn't even make me feel better equipped to have productive political conversations or really understand other parts of the political spectrum.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny and Homophobia
Moderate: Transphobia and Racism