Scan barcode
A review by marisbest2
Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse by Timothy P. Carney
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