Scan barcode
cdjdhj's review
4.0
This book is well researched and has a lot of information from statistics and studies about why American Civil Society seems to be collapsing in some parts of our nations. This collapse, according to the author, Timothy P. Carney, a Conservative writer and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, let to the rise of Donald Trump, who promised to "Make America Great Again." Carney rightly points out that no politician can fix what truly ails our nation - the collapse of our institutions of community and civil society - beginning with our churches. Carney sites study after study showing why our religious institutions - churches, mosques and synagogues - are vital to not only a thriving community, but also a thriving society. He also addresses the seeming collapse of the institution of the American family with low marriage and high divorce rates, as well as falling birth rate. Carney shows that the collapse of the family and religion in America, along with so many other problems of our society, are all intertwined. This book is quite fascinating, and the author makes his case. The book is not a quick or easy read and it takes some time and effort to digest the information presented. Overall, this is a book that anyone interested in why our country is so divided, why some places in our country seem to thrive while others have collapsed, and why some Americans are without hope and are putting so much trust in one political personality who promises he can "make America great again" when in reality, it is only we ourselves that can do that.
kayler4's review
4.0
This book has added a lot of perspective to my life on the importance of community in our lives and it’s role in living “the good life.” I felt like it was helpful for me to read a book written by a conservative person, and I appreciated his seemingly well researched claims on debunking assumptions about society being religions or family centric etc. It has made me want to contribute in as many ways as possible to communities and find more diverse communities around me because I’m convinced it’s one of the best ways to change the world we live in.
retroviridae's review
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
4.5
I liked this book, interesting idea that I hadn't considered before
mamamia's review
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
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
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.