Scan barcode
morganevans's review
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
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.
squirrelfish's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting book worth reading for the analysis of the 2016 Republican primaries. I believe it's got some good points - the picture of social infrastructure, personal satisfaction and the failure of the ideas of an Ayn Randian independent individual are all convincing. He writes of the move from volunteer-based community service generally affiliated with churches to government provided services of the same nature as a driver of social disaffection. It's an interesting idea with some strong points but I think he fails to acknowledge that churches can be exclusionary and only available to some members of the community. I'm also interested in how generational mobility and class tie into a lot of the concerns he mentions. Good ideas, worth incorporating into my mental models but not entirely convincing.
Audiobook read through the Libby app and the SF Public Library (in two sessions because I didn't finish it and other people had it on hold).
Audiobook read through the Libby app and the SF Public Library (in two sessions because I didn't finish it and other people had it on hold).
outtoexist's review
3.0
I agree with the broad strokes of this book - one of the major missing pieces of our society today is our lack of community. We live in our own bubbles of information, like-minded & like-identitied people, and shun or are too busy for community organizations like church, PAs, local governance, etc. But I don't think Tim and I'd agree on what that community could look like.... He says church is the answer, and I certainly agree it is ONE answer, but we may not even have a shared definition of church. He carefully explained that his parish (Catholic) as well as several Muslim and Jewish examples were lovingly open to people of different races, socioeconomic statuses, and beliefs. I think that is a rarity in itself, and am stunned by the fact that he mentioned LGBTQIA folx not one single time. Besides this, the book itself repeated itself on a couple of occasions (like, literal sentences word for word repeated) and was less than clear on its arguments. I'm glad I read it, and am walking away with a wonderful reminder of the importance of community, but I can't say I recommend it.
queenvalaska's review
2.0
This book is 2.5. I agree that good community ties helps people thrive, but that doesn’t mean it NEEDS or HAS to be a religious community.
rebeccablomgren's review
2.0
I first picked up Alienated America because I felt I would be able to relate to it. Having grown up in a rural county, I’ve seen the slow decline taking place around my community. Stores and public centers disappearing, homes steadily deteriorating, people leaving one by one. But I can also see that my hometown still has it better than most. I picked up Alienated America to try and understand what’s happening to this country, and why it seems to be splitting at the seams.
Although Carney opens the novel with the “I’m a conservative” disclaimer, his views were not overbearing or overly prominent until, that is, it was time to lay blame. Very similarly to Yuval Levin’s Fractured Republic (which I was unable to finish), Carney’s central thesis is that the breakdown of local communities led to the election of Donald Trump. While affluent, college-educated communities continue to thrive in strong family and community bonds, working middle class whites are suffering from a loss of workforce, a breakdown of family structures, and a rise in opioid use and disability claims. These factors all lead to not only a disconnection from civil society, but a rejection of it as the working class becomes more distrustful of their neighbors and less likely to rely on anyone but themselves (or the government.) Trump’s early rallying cry of “the American Dream is dead” resonated most strongly in these working-class counties, where communities were fraying or nonexistent and where hopelessness and desperation were rampant.
Carney narrowed his research to the GOP primaries to single out Trump’s early and most ardent supporters. His findings were extensive and essentially painted (and re-painted) his foremost conclusion. Communities in America are disappearing, and the working-class whites who find themselves isolated turned to Trump to make it right. Carney offers up multiple factors that contributed to this breakdown, including pocket communities caused by either immigration or like-minded elites who hoard their skills from the rest of society, the sexual revolution leading to accessible birth control and a decline in marriage, a loss of jobs due to automation, and a crowding out of public programs by an overly centralized government. Just to name a few. Many of Carney’s arguments were intriguing and I felt there definitely was basis to his findings. But too often I felt like he was simplifying the problem, presenting it in the most basic terms to fit his explanations. Making broad statements that the government should just step back and let communities handle everything on a local level feels obtuse and an ill-fitting solution to a problem that plagues so much of the country.
But for all of Carney’s arguments and his plethora of research, the whole novel boils down to one thing: church. His true argument is that secularization is the root of all of America’s problems, and until people start believing and going to church again, nothing can change... Hence the 2-star rating. He even goes as far as saying that the government over regulates churches, not allowing them to operate in public spaces and thus shutting religion out of our culture. Carney does this, while easily glossing over the discrimination that comes hand in hand when churches claim to operate “for public” spaces and then use their moral beliefs to turn away people who don’t conform. Nothing could convince me, that in America’s current climate, that the church and state are separate entities. The right to legal abortions and anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ citizens are continuously attacked for no reason other than the religious imposing their views in the name of moral conscious. While yes, churches can act as monumental staples for communities to thrive, Carney barely acknowledges that there are other institutions that can foster the same thing, claiming that they all fall short. This issue is persistent throughout Alienated America , as Carney harps on his points again and again, while almost completely omitting the negative effects of his proposals and findings. After he made his conclusion and then fingered the blame at liberal elites and the non-religious, I checked out. The final chapter is a repetitive mess that jumbled all the well laid out research, and as I was annoyed at the “go to church” remedy Carney offered, I barely made it to the end.
Although Carney opens the novel with the “I’m a conservative” disclaimer, his views were not overbearing or overly prominent until, that is, it was time to lay blame. Very similarly to Yuval Levin’s Fractured Republic (which I was unable to finish), Carney’s central thesis is that the breakdown of local communities led to the election of Donald Trump. While affluent, college-educated communities continue to thrive in strong family and community bonds, working middle class whites are suffering from a loss of workforce, a breakdown of family structures, and a rise in opioid use and disability claims. These factors all lead to not only a disconnection from civil society, but a rejection of it as the working class becomes more distrustful of their neighbors and less likely to rely on anyone but themselves (or the government.) Trump’s early rallying cry of “the American Dream is dead” resonated most strongly in these working-class counties, where communities were fraying or nonexistent and where hopelessness and desperation were rampant.
Carney narrowed his research to the GOP primaries to single out Trump’s early and most ardent supporters. His findings were extensive and essentially painted (and re-painted) his foremost conclusion. Communities in America are disappearing, and the working-class whites who find themselves isolated turned to Trump to make it right. Carney offers up multiple factors that contributed to this breakdown, including pocket communities caused by either immigration or like-minded elites who hoard their skills from the rest of society, the sexual revolution leading to accessible birth control and a decline in marriage, a loss of jobs due to automation, and a crowding out of public programs by an overly centralized government. Just to name a few. Many of Carney’s arguments were intriguing and I felt there definitely was basis to his findings. But too often I felt like he was simplifying the problem, presenting it in the most basic terms to fit his explanations. Making broad statements that the government should just step back and let communities handle everything on a local level feels obtuse and an ill-fitting solution to a problem that plagues so much of the country.
But for all of Carney’s arguments and his plethora of research, the whole novel boils down to one thing: church. His true argument is that secularization is the root of all of America’s problems, and until people start believing and going to church again, nothing can change... Hence the 2-star rating. He even goes as far as saying that the government over regulates churches, not allowing them to operate in public spaces and thus shutting religion out of our culture. Carney does this, while easily glossing over the discrimination that comes hand in hand when churches claim to operate “for public” spaces and then use their moral beliefs to turn away people who don’t conform. Nothing could convince me, that in America’s current climate, that the church and state are separate entities. The right to legal abortions and anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ citizens are continuously attacked for no reason other than the religious imposing their views in the name of moral conscious. While yes, churches can act as monumental staples for communities to thrive, Carney barely acknowledges that there are other institutions that can foster the same thing, claiming that they all fall short. This issue is persistent throughout Alienated America , as Carney harps on his points again and again, while almost completely omitting the negative effects of his proposals and findings. After he made his conclusion and then fingered the blame at liberal elites and the non-religious, I checked out. The final chapter is a repetitive mess that jumbled all the well laid out research, and as I was annoyed at the “go to church” remedy Carney offered, I barely made it to the end.
kmcivor10's review
4.0
4⭐️.
This book comes on the heels of Hillbilly Elegy. It’s an extension of those themes and issues that are a topic of conversation in America. It’s an interesting book, with a big focus on church & religion. If you care about politics, it’s an interesting read.
This book comes on the heels of Hillbilly Elegy. It’s an extension of those themes and issues that are a topic of conversation in America. It’s an interesting book, with a big focus on church & religion. If you care about politics, it’s an interesting read.
csd17's review
4.0
So good that it's few imperfections are glaring. Some of them I mentioned in my prior notes. Another one that bugged me in the last section was the lack of research on men's quality of life post-divorce. Nor am I fond of the organization of the book. It was unpredictable. I couldn't see the path through the forest.
But let's talk about the good.
Carney asks different questions and tries to do extra digging He also does a good job exploring both sides and his tone is incredibly hopeful. Many books that try to explain the 2016 election are either derogatory, pessimistic, or overly partisan. I feel like he tries to straddle the middle.
He doesn't try to sow distrust either, which, in our incredibly partisan times, is applaudable. Worth reading with Let Them In, Lost Connections, and the works of Arthur and David Brooks.
But let's talk about the good.
Carney asks different questions and tries to do extra digging He also does a good job exploring both sides and his tone is incredibly hopeful. Many books that try to explain the 2016 election are either derogatory, pessimistic, or overly partisan. I feel like he tries to straddle the middle.
He doesn't try to sow distrust either, which, in our incredibly partisan times, is applaudable. Worth reading with Let Them In, Lost Connections, and the works of Arthur and David Brooks.
sdbecque's review against another edition
2.0
So I put this on hold at the library without knowing much more about it than the title. And as someone interested in place and social captial I was interested. So I open up the audiobook, and then like 20 minutes in, I'm like:
And I decide to read the full book description. Whoops. Didn't realize he was a conservative writer. I decided to sally forth and listen to the rest of it. Honestly, that gif of Belle sums up my reaction to the whole book pretty well.
I guess I don't even really know where to start. I agree that there is a decline in civil society, and I also think it has something to do with community, and it certainly improves your feeling of connectedness if you are participating in that civil society. But I think it's more complicated than Carney would have you believe. Let me tell you what Carney thinks will fix this whole problem: attend church. That's it. That's the whole thing.
He can't even conceive of the question--what then might one do if they don't believe in God?--so there's no room for that here. (I think his answer would be: just go to church anyway). Importantly, the idea that religious people should be asked in certain settings to go without their religious beliefs, say in their job or consumer settings, is an anathema to him, the reverse, that people just hang out at churches without religious beliefs is apparently just fine and not imposing on anyone's beliefs. How does he explain people who are very active in their communities but do not attend church? (Spoiler alert, he doesn't seem to have met such a person, and is not interested in understanding why they might feel motivated to help others beyond a framework of religiosity).
But more importantly, there's no close examination here of why exactly these people, especially the poor and working class, for whom apparently the church was such a strong institution stopped attending those same churches. He throws in a chapter about sex and marriage decline, to imply that it's just because of a shift in cultural norms around pre-marital sex and possibly divorce that lead to people not going to church as much, but that makes very little sense. If so many people are turning away from religious institutions, if we have seen a decline in religiosity and civil society over the last 60 years, then something other than free love is afoot.
Carney wants to argue that there's something more happening here than the economy. But as he talks about life in these small towns, ruined by the loss of jobs, industry, and hit hard by opioids, where there are fewer and fewer opportunities, I just found myself thinking it's the economy, stupid. He tries to argue it's not just the economy by looking at a boomtown, which would be like arguing the early Deadwood settlement was a sign that civilization could never take hold in a place dominated by men, gambling and sex. Things did change, but it took time.
He also skirts around the fact that churches are very segregated, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. There are churches where I might be welcome as a visitor, but not to stay as a member of the community. These segregated churches often belong to and reinforce segregated communities. Carney wants all social help to be provided locally, by people and churches, ignoring that it allows the churches and the people to decide who is worthy of their time and attention and who is not.
It's like this article which I'm going to keep posting until every person on the planet has read it: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-begging-you-stop-donating-canned-goods-to-food-banks - certain kinds of giving "feel better" (like giving canned goods) but are actually less helpful in the long run than just giving cash. This feels like this whole book but in microcosm. It's not that people shouldn't give their time and effort, those things are valuable. But they have to be balanced against the greater good, we can't only look for impacts on the local level.
And I decide to read the full book description. Whoops. Didn't realize he was a conservative writer. I decided to sally forth and listen to the rest of it. Honestly, that gif of Belle sums up my reaction to the whole book pretty well.
I guess I don't even really know where to start. I agree that there is a decline in civil society, and I also think it has something to do with community, and it certainly improves your feeling of connectedness if you are participating in that civil society. But I think it's more complicated than Carney would have you believe. Let me tell you what Carney thinks will fix this whole problem: attend church. That's it. That's the whole thing.
He can't even conceive of the question--what then might one do if they don't believe in God?--so there's no room for that here. (I think his answer would be: just go to church anyway). Importantly, the idea that religious people should be asked in certain settings to go without their religious beliefs, say in their job or consumer settings, is an anathema to him, the reverse, that people just hang out at churches without religious beliefs is apparently just fine and not imposing on anyone's beliefs. How does he explain people who are very active in their communities but do not attend church? (Spoiler alert, he doesn't seem to have met such a person, and is not interested in understanding why they might feel motivated to help others beyond a framework of religiosity).
But more importantly, there's no close examination here of why exactly these people, especially the poor and working class, for whom apparently the church was such a strong institution stopped attending those same churches. He throws in a chapter about sex and marriage decline, to imply that it's just because of a shift in cultural norms around pre-marital sex and possibly divorce that lead to people not going to church as much, but that makes very little sense. If so many people are turning away from religious institutions, if we have seen a decline in religiosity and civil society over the last 60 years, then something other than free love is afoot.
Carney wants to argue that there's something more happening here than the economy. But as he talks about life in these small towns, ruined by the loss of jobs, industry, and hit hard by opioids, where there are fewer and fewer opportunities, I just found myself thinking it's the economy, stupid. He tries to argue it's not just the economy by looking at a boomtown, which would be like arguing the early Deadwood settlement was a sign that civilization could never take hold in a place dominated by men, gambling and sex. Things did change, but it took time.
He also skirts around the fact that churches are very segregated, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. There are churches where I might be welcome as a visitor, but not to stay as a member of the community. These segregated churches often belong to and reinforce segregated communities. Carney wants all social help to be provided locally, by people and churches, ignoring that it allows the churches and the people to decide who is worthy of their time and attention and who is not.
It's like this article which I'm going to keep posting until every person on the planet has read it: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-begging-you-stop-donating-canned-goods-to-food-banks - certain kinds of giving "feel better" (like giving canned goods) but are actually less helpful in the long run than just giving cash. This feels like this whole book but in microcosm. It's not that people shouldn't give their time and effort, those things are valuable. But they have to be balanced against the greater good, we can't only look for impacts on the local level.
More...