Scan barcode
blackoxford's review
2.0
The American Contradiction
Everyone is entitled to a view of what constitutes the true, the ideal America. Sarah Churchwell has her version fairly well-defined: “America wasn’t supposed to be an exceptional place because its citizens had dreams, or even because those dreams sometimes were fulfilled. That’s true of everyone. It was supposed to be exceptional in being a place dedicated to the proposition of helping those dreams to be realised...” And she provides enough contextual evidence to make this view plausible. What does such a view imply?
Dreaming is an uncomplicated business. It is imagining without constraints. No resource constraints, no time limitations, no moral inhibitions, perhaps even the absence of physical laws. Dreaming as such can’t be regulated no matter how radical. But the idea of assisting in the realisation of dreams, no matter how mundane or trivial, is another matter altogether, and implies a great deal of regulation indeed. This is where Churchwell goes off the rails - logically, psychologically, and sociologically.
Presumably the assistance in realising one’s dream is meant to come from one’s fellow citizens. This is the opinion shared by that most American of philosophers, Josiah Royce. His idea of the Beloved Community articulates exactly this. Quite appropriately, Royce’s philosophy is a kind of secularised Christianity, an argument for mutual acceptance and loyalty to one another that fits comfortably with Churchwell’s mutual-assistance view of America.
But Churchwell ignores an issue that is central to Royce’s analysis. The Beloved Community can only exist if its members can find and commit to an intention, a purpose, which includes both their own and that of their fellow citizens. Merely accepting that others have different objectives than oneself is inadequate. In fact the diversity of unresolved interests is guaranteed to create a political outcome that no one wants even if all can accept it. We all become constrains on everyone else, thus ensuring that whatever dreams there are can never be realised.
In other words, there is a way, according to Royce, for realising our dreams. But the price necessary to achieve this is a very special sort of constructive politics. This is a politics of inclusion, of the incorporation of individual interests into an increasingly broad collective interest. The only way to eliminate the constraints we impose on each other is to ensure that there are no constraints on who participates in politics and a mechanism through which such ‘higher interests’ can be formulated. This is the implication of Royce’s analysis, and the requirement for Churchwell’s view to be operational.
Unfortunately the political system of the United States was not designed for such a constructive politics. It is a dialectical not a synthetic system. It thrives on immediate differences not potential commonalities. Its standard of success is winning not cooperating. American politics are what economists call a zero-sum game: winners are exactly balanced by losers. Synthetic solutions, that is actions that further purposes which go beyond individual interests but also include those interests, are rarely if ever possible.
So while I can certainly endorse Churchwell’s view as consistent with Royce’s philosophy as well as my own preferences, I have to conclude that it is no more than sentimental splutter. If Churchwell’s opinion were shared by enough Americans, it might provoke a political revolution. But the result would not resemble the America that exists today, or that has existed for the last two centuries. This is an America of the pioneering individualist and of the neo-liberal philosophy of the priority of individual interests. ‘America first’ actually means ‘Me first’ which is patently contradictory within any polity. And it is a very different dream than Churchwell’s, one that seems rapidly turning into a nightmare.
Everyone is entitled to a view of what constitutes the true, the ideal America. Sarah Churchwell has her version fairly well-defined: “America wasn’t supposed to be an exceptional place because its citizens had dreams, or even because those dreams sometimes were fulfilled. That’s true of everyone. It was supposed to be exceptional in being a place dedicated to the proposition of helping those dreams to be realised...” And she provides enough contextual evidence to make this view plausible. What does such a view imply?
Dreaming is an uncomplicated business. It is imagining without constraints. No resource constraints, no time limitations, no moral inhibitions, perhaps even the absence of physical laws. Dreaming as such can’t be regulated no matter how radical. But the idea of assisting in the realisation of dreams, no matter how mundane or trivial, is another matter altogether, and implies a great deal of regulation indeed. This is where Churchwell goes off the rails - logically, psychologically, and sociologically.
Presumably the assistance in realising one’s dream is meant to come from one’s fellow citizens. This is the opinion shared by that most American of philosophers, Josiah Royce. His idea of the Beloved Community articulates exactly this. Quite appropriately, Royce’s philosophy is a kind of secularised Christianity, an argument for mutual acceptance and loyalty to one another that fits comfortably with Churchwell’s mutual-assistance view of America.
But Churchwell ignores an issue that is central to Royce’s analysis. The Beloved Community can only exist if its members can find and commit to an intention, a purpose, which includes both their own and that of their fellow citizens. Merely accepting that others have different objectives than oneself is inadequate. In fact the diversity of unresolved interests is guaranteed to create a political outcome that no one wants even if all can accept it. We all become constrains on everyone else, thus ensuring that whatever dreams there are can never be realised.
In other words, there is a way, according to Royce, for realising our dreams. But the price necessary to achieve this is a very special sort of constructive politics. This is a politics of inclusion, of the incorporation of individual interests into an increasingly broad collective interest. The only way to eliminate the constraints we impose on each other is to ensure that there are no constraints on who participates in politics and a mechanism through which such ‘higher interests’ can be formulated. This is the implication of Royce’s analysis, and the requirement for Churchwell’s view to be operational.
Unfortunately the political system of the United States was not designed for such a constructive politics. It is a dialectical not a synthetic system. It thrives on immediate differences not potential commonalities. Its standard of success is winning not cooperating. American politics are what economists call a zero-sum game: winners are exactly balanced by losers. Synthetic solutions, that is actions that further purposes which go beyond individual interests but also include those interests, are rarely if ever possible.
So while I can certainly endorse Churchwell’s view as consistent with Royce’s philosophy as well as my own preferences, I have to conclude that it is no more than sentimental splutter. If Churchwell’s opinion were shared by enough Americans, it might provoke a political revolution. But the result would not resemble the America that exists today, or that has existed for the last two centuries. This is an America of the pioneering individualist and of the neo-liberal philosophy of the priority of individual interests. ‘America first’ actually means ‘Me first’ which is patently contradictory within any polity. And it is a very different dream than Churchwell’s, one that seems rapidly turning into a nightmare.
daaan's review
5.0
A really quite disturbing history of the phrases "American Dream" and in particular "America First". The sections on the American dream aren't too controversial and on the whole show that the term american dream has held a wide array of different meanings. America First has always and only been a term for nationalists, it's tied up with every major fascist group in American history. The way this book is written, with quote after quote really drives home how sinister the term is. It's also made me appreciate that the terms "hyphenated" and "100 per cent" are also incredibly loaded terms in American history. I'd never really appreciated Nordicism, the mistrust of Catholics, in particular Irish and Italian, until reading this. The ending shows the overall purpose of the book, to act as a platform for explicitly criticising the Trump administration. Everybody should read this, it's scary stuff.
shippinforecast's review
4.0
An interesting and comprehensive look at the origins of the phrases "American Dream" and "America First".
Made me think of the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Made me think of the quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
ssindc's review against another edition
5.0
Another ... depressing, difficult, disconcerting ... but thought-provoking and, most importantly, informative book of our times that is well worth reading. For all of my education and degrees (yes, yes, we are who we are), I never cease to be amazed by how much history I don't know, what we weren't taught (in high school, in college), and ... sadly, but most importantly, what we just didn't want to know or didn't want to hear. So, if you (as I aspire to be) are troubled by current events, but are open to new information and willing to rethink basic assumptions (or challenge things you've taken for granted ... well ... forever), I suggest you add this list to your reading pile.
Sadly, the book grabs the reader by both ears and makes the reader stare reality in the face, forcing the reader to acknowledge the ugly underbelly of American history (and dreams), particularly with regard to widespread (patent and latent) racism and Antisemitism. [Yes, Virginia, reading about the KKK (and fascists and Nazis) and its (their) lengthy history in our nation, is never pretty.] And, sadly, understanding this is so terribly important today .... Along those lines, you should definitely consider reading this if you enjoyed, for example, King's prize-winning Devil in the Grove, Grann's popular Killers of the Flower Moon,, or I dunno, Isabel Wilkerson's monumental/epic Warmth of Other Suns... (that's just to name a few... and a handful of others that come to mind in other contexts are referenced below....)
Due primarily to my interest/background in defense/military aviation and weapons production, my general familiarity with Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford as celebrity and industrialist American Firsters (or Nazi sympathizers or anti-Semites ... you decide for yourself) was typically consumed in the context of their (Lindbergh and Ford's) otherwise impressive (often extraordinary) and laudable achievements. While there are innumerable biographies of both, they're brought together in AJ Baime's (informative, but, frankly, strangely constructed), The Arsenal of Democracy: FDR, Detroit, and an Epic Quest to Arm America at War, which I review at some length here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19729884-the-arsenal-of-democracy ... Obviously, this is a more fulsome, organized, and thoughtful exposition on America First (and, of course, the American Dream).
Among other things, the book did a splendid job convincing me I need to read more by (and more about) Dorothy Thompson, whose words ... in 1941 ... seem spot on, if not prescient, today. Sadly, the book also presents one of the most compelling the apple doesn't fall far from the tree explanations of Donald Trump's instincts, biases, blind spots, actions, and behaviors, including everything from racism and dog-whistling to disinformation.
Reader's nit: The book isn't necessarily an easy or a quick read, and ... given how much of the meat of the story is about words, phrases, and minor tweaks and modifications to definitions and usage and interpretation, the book requires more concentration that is required in, say, serial detective fiction (which, obviously, this isn't). I expect for many readers, this could become a slog (but I didn't find it to be so; indeed, I plowed through it rather quickly). By way of comparison, since it might appeal to a similar readership, I found the pages turned much (much) more quickly in, say, Frum's Trumpocracy, or Snyder's (slim but elegant and extremely worthwhile) On Tyranny than they did here. All I mean to say is that it's a serious book on a serious topic and, accordingly, it requires serious attention to appreciate it.
Also, I haven't read Churchwell before, and my sense is that this book (project, and research) isn't necessarily in the center of her wheelhouse.... And, periodically, I felt it was a strange book ... and I wasn't even sure what I was reading or where it was going (although I got over that relatively quickly) ... because, in some ways, it was more history of language and usage than history, but that's not quite right. Because it is history, and the overall endeavor represents a staggering amount ... and a unique brand ... of research, with extensive identification and description of speeches, books, essays, radio shows, reporting, op-eds, and ... well, you get the idea. And this isn't modest history ... no, rather, it embraces a lengthy period of time, but pulls it all together and presents the research in a cohesive, and, more importantly, compelling manner.
I strongly recommend it (and applaud the author). Well done.
Sadly, the book grabs the reader by both ears and makes the reader stare reality in the face, forcing the reader to acknowledge the ugly underbelly of American history (and dreams), particularly with regard to widespread (patent and latent) racism and Antisemitism. [Yes, Virginia, reading about the KKK (and fascists and Nazis) and its (their) lengthy history in our nation, is never pretty.] And, sadly, understanding this is so terribly important today .... Along those lines, you should definitely consider reading this if you enjoyed, for example, King's prize-winning Devil in the Grove, Grann's popular Killers of the Flower Moon,, or I dunno, Isabel Wilkerson's monumental/epic Warmth of Other Suns... (that's just to name a few... and a handful of others that come to mind in other contexts are referenced below....)
Due primarily to my interest/background in defense/military aviation and weapons production, my general familiarity with Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford as celebrity and industrialist American Firsters (or Nazi sympathizers or anti-Semites ... you decide for yourself) was typically consumed in the context of their (Lindbergh and Ford's) otherwise impressive (often extraordinary) and laudable achievements. While there are innumerable biographies of both, they're brought together in AJ Baime's (informative, but, frankly, strangely constructed), The Arsenal of Democracy: FDR, Detroit, and an Epic Quest to Arm America at War, which I review at some length here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19729884-the-arsenal-of-democracy ... Obviously, this is a more fulsome, organized, and thoughtful exposition on America First (and, of course, the American Dream).
Among other things, the book did a splendid job convincing me I need to read more by (and more about) Dorothy Thompson, whose words ... in 1941 ... seem spot on, if not prescient, today. Sadly, the book also presents one of the most compelling the apple doesn't fall far from the tree explanations of Donald Trump's instincts, biases, blind spots, actions, and behaviors, including everything from racism and dog-whistling to disinformation.
Reader's nit: The book isn't necessarily an easy or a quick read, and ... given how much of the meat of the story is about words, phrases, and minor tweaks and modifications to definitions and usage and interpretation, the book requires more concentration that is required in, say, serial detective fiction (which, obviously, this isn't). I expect for many readers, this could become a slog (but I didn't find it to be so; indeed, I plowed through it rather quickly). By way of comparison, since it might appeal to a similar readership, I found the pages turned much (much) more quickly in, say, Frum's Trumpocracy, or Snyder's (slim but elegant and extremely worthwhile) On Tyranny than they did here. All I mean to say is that it's a serious book on a serious topic and, accordingly, it requires serious attention to appreciate it.
Also, I haven't read Churchwell before, and my sense is that this book (project, and research) isn't necessarily in the center of her wheelhouse.... And, periodically, I felt it was a strange book ... and I wasn't even sure what I was reading or where it was going (although I got over that relatively quickly) ... because, in some ways, it was more history of language and usage than history, but that's not quite right. Because it is history, and the overall endeavor represents a staggering amount ... and a unique brand ... of research, with extensive identification and description of speeches, books, essays, radio shows, reporting, op-eds, and ... well, you get the idea. And this isn't modest history ... no, rather, it embraces a lengthy period of time, but pulls it all together and presents the research in a cohesive, and, more importantly, compelling manner.
I strongly recommend it (and applaud the author). Well done.
miguelf's review against another edition
4.0
The phrase “America First” is so loaded now that we forget the long and tainted history that’s associated with it. The author takes us through the background on this saying over the first 40 years of the 20th century stopping along the way to get a peek at some of the unsavory men who championed its use and abuse. She also looks at how other empty phrases such as “The American Dream” and other catchphrases that were also ginned up and planted in the American psyche. Currently those of us watching Roth adaptation of ‘The Plot Against America’ might have a difficult time buying into the “what-if” scenario had a figure like Lindbergh or one of the many other demagogues come to power in the 30’s or 40’s, but Churchwell gives the reader a dose of what the reality was like on the ground, and has photos at the end reminding us of the large rallies showing the Stars & Stripes propped up next to the Swastika. Scary stuff and scarier still to think of the times we’re currently in and the large portion of the country absolutely fine with this.
lavinia_reads's review
5.0
In her enlightening book Behold America, Sarah Churchwell looks into the history of these two phrases and explores how their evolution, both their myths and their truths, had shaped reality in ways that are not yet fully understood. She looks into how did people use these phrases in the past across the U.S., how they emerged, about the same time, a hundred years ago, in 1916, and how they both became part of the American political conversation in different ways, not as ideas but as catchphrases.
The way a phrase evolves and the chains of association that are formed intuitively or unconsciously as one idea, define the political and social realities. It is surprising and instructive to see how these associations explain the situation that the U.S. is now.
In order to fight the danger of resurgence of fascism, you need to know the history. Fascists are masters of political theatre, they feed on peoples’ grievances; they demonize groups of people, and they present themselves as national saviours. They seek to subvert and eliminate liberal institutions. With her book Behold America, Sarah Churchwell remind us of the danger that U.S is facing and presents arguments to fight back against authoritarianism and white nationalist policies.
The way a phrase evolves and the chains of association that are formed intuitively or unconsciously as one idea, define the political and social realities. It is surprising and instructive to see how these associations explain the situation that the U.S. is now.
In order to fight the danger of resurgence of fascism, you need to know the history. Fascists are masters of political theatre, they feed on peoples’ grievances; they demonize groups of people, and they present themselves as national saviours. They seek to subvert and eliminate liberal institutions. With her book Behold America, Sarah Churchwell remind us of the danger that U.S is facing and presents arguments to fight back against authoritarianism and white nationalist policies.
chaotic_wholesome's review
5.0
Stunning, timely, relevant interrogation. Still absolutely reeling. Should go on every civics syllabus.