Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation
- Downloads：3828
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-08 14:55:10
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：David A. French
- ISBN：1250201977
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
David French warns of the potential dangers to the country--and the world--if we don't summon the courage to reconcile our political differences。
Two decades into the 21st Century， the U。S。 is less united than at any time in our history since the Civil War。 We are more diverse in our beliefs and culture than ever before。 But red and blue states， secular and religious groups， liberal and conservative idealists， and Republican and Democratic representatives all have one thing in common: each believes their distinct cultures and liberties are being threatened by an escalating violent opposition。 This polarized tribalism， espoused by the loudest， angriest fringe extremists on both the left and the right， dismisses dialogue as appeasement; if left unchecked， it could very well lead to secession。
An engaging mix of cutting edge research and fair-minded analysis， Divided We Fall is an unblinking look at the true dimensions and dangers of this widening ideological gap， and what could happen if we don't take steps toward bridging it。 French reveals chilling， plausible scenarios of how the United States could fracture into regions that will not only weaken the country but destabilize the world。
But our future is not written in stone。 By implementing James Madison's vision of pluralism--that all people have the right to form communities representing their personal values--we can prevent oppressive factions from seizing absolute power and instead maintain everyone's beliefs and identities across all fifty states。
Reestablishing national unity will require the bravery to commit ourselves to embracing qualities of kindness， decency， and grace towards those we disagree with ideologically。 French calls on all of us to demonstrate true tolerance so we can heal the American divide。 If we want to remain united， we must learn to stand together again。
Two decades into the 21st Century， the U。S。 is less united than at any time in our history since the Civil War。 We are more diverse in our beliefs and culture than ever before。 But red and blue states， secular and religious groups， liberal and conservative idealists， and Republican and Democratic representatives all have one thing in common: each believes their distinct cultures and liberties are being threatened by an escalating violent opposition。 This polarized tribalism， espoused by the loudest， angriest fringe extremists on both the left and the right， dismisses dialogue as appeasement; if left unchecked， it could very well lead to secession。
An engaging mix of cutting edge research and fair-minded analysis， Divided We Fall is an unblinking look at the true dimensions and dangers of this widening ideological gap， and what could happen if we don't take steps toward bridging it。 French reveals chilling， plausible scenarios of how the United States could fracture into regions that will not only weaken the country but destabilize the world。
But our future is not written in stone。 By implementing James Madison's vision of pluralism--that all people have the right to form communities representing their personal values--we can prevent oppressive factions from seizing absolute power and instead maintain everyone's beliefs and identities across all fifty states。
Reestablishing national unity will require the bravery to commit ourselves to embracing qualities of kindness， decency， and grace towards those we disagree with ideologically。 French calls on all of us to demonstrate true tolerance so we can heal the American divide。 If we want to remain united， we must learn to stand together again。
Reviews
Heidi
，
4。5 stars。 To begin with， I appreciate David French’s voice。 He’s not dramatic or alarmist; he is most definitely a conservative， but does not demonize his political opponents。 Other reviewers of this book have said they are more Left than Right， but feel that French gives an honest portrayal of both sides， their weaknesses and strengths。 That’s why I picked up this book to begin with。 Which makes his dire warnings even more persuasive and daunting 。 He sees our nation as being in a very dangero 4。5 stars。 To begin with， I appreciate David French’s voice。 He’s not dramatic or alarmist; he is most definitely a conservative， but does not demonize his political opponents。 Other reviewers of this book have said they are more Left than Right， but feel that French gives an honest portrayal of both sides， their weaknesses and strengths。 That’s why I picked up this book to begin with。 Which makes his dire warnings even more persuasive and daunting 。 He sees our nation as being in a very dangerous place， with increasing polarization of culture and politics， an unwillingness to hear the other side - even to the point of trying to limit freedom of speech （particularly in academia）。 The level of intolerance， and the homogeneity in academic circles， media “cocoons” and even geographic regions， he sees as leading toward potential secession。 In fact， he gives two fictional - and fascinating - accounts of what could lead conservative Texas and progressive California to secede from the nation。 What other alternative is there， short of a miracle where we all grow more kind and open to hearing the views of our opponents， willing to treat them with respect instead of rejecting their humanity？ French’s answer is Federalism。 He traces political power trends throughout our county’s history， and looks at where our culture wars are straining our national unity to the breaking point。 But if the incredible power of the federal government and the presidency （which has grown immensely in power over the past century） was shifted so that states could have more say in their state’s governance - all the while abiding by the national standards such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution - then， as he puts it “we could let California be California and let Tennessee be Tennessee。” He sees a shift to more power in state and local government as to a solution for the desperately negative polarization that characterizes public discourse， politics and the media today。 However， he admits we may be too far gone for such a reasonable approach。 His arguments are careful and complex， far too much to enumerate here， but winsome and thought-provoking。 I will be rereading this book soon， because so much of it was new and challenging to me that I will need to read it twice to digest it better。 Thank you， Mr French。 。。。more
Andrew Wolgemuth
，
A grounded， sober look at the challenges Americans face as a nation， the difficulty in truly addressing them， and the consequences if we don't。 A grounded， sober look at the challenges Americans face as a nation， the difficulty in truly addressing them， and the consequences if we don't。 。。。more
Ben Oberholtzer
，
David French is a clear writer and clear values。 I appreciate how he brings attention to important issues that are seen differently by the left and the right， but ultimately am not sure what the reader "does" as a result of this book。 He calls for more tolerance （the real definition， not what many in our culture see it as today， but ultimately feels somewhat rambling by the end of the book and doesn't give the reader a clear idea of what this looks like or means。 While maybe a fun thought experi David French is a clear writer and clear values。 I appreciate how he brings attention to important issues that are seen differently by the left and the right， but ultimately am not sure what the reader "does" as a result of this book。 He calls for more tolerance （the real definition， not what many in our culture see it as today， but ultimately feels somewhat rambling by the end of the book and doesn't give the reader a clear idea of what this looks like or means。 While maybe a fun thought experiment for him to play out， I didn't much enjoy the chapters on potential futures where Texas or California breaks away from the US。 I understand the purpose he was trying to accomplish （he was very detailed！）， but took way too much time and space away from discussing more helpful concerns。 Finally， while he is known for his political writings， I wish he had looked at divisions in more than just political issues。 To summarize， the content of the book was good but I feel it could have been better served as a long blog or more succinct book。 。。。more
Susan
，
I really debated between four and five stars; I think I need some additional time to process some of the ideas， but the book is fair-handed， very thought-provoking， and timely。
Christopher Greeley
，
As a center-left it is refreshing to read some thoughtful conservative writing that is clear-eyed about the current state of the Conservative party （MAGA-world）。 Very thought provoking
Henry McKenzie
，
This would have been four stars， because I think French is closer to the mark than Ezra Klien in his similar book Why We're Polarized ， but French gets so colorful and pulp-fiction-ish in his hypothetical scenarios that it makes his more serious diagnoses a bit harder to take seriously。 This would have been four stars， because I think French is closer to the mark than Ezra Klien in his similar book Why We're Polarized ， but French gets so colorful and pulp-fiction-ish in his hypothetical scenarios that it makes his more serious diagnoses a bit harder to take seriously。 。。。more
Dale
，
A Review of the AudiobookPublished in September of 2020 by Macmillan Audio。Read by Sean Patrick Hopkins and David French。Duration; 7 hours， 18 minutes。Unabridged。David French is， like me， a Never Trump Republican， which means he is a man without a party right now。 French starts his book with some observations that rang very true to me。 For example， he noted that while he was still a part of the two party system， he didn't really think about the automatic intensely negative reaction both sides ha A Review of the AudiobookPublished in September of 2020 by Macmillan Audio。Read by Sean Patrick Hopkins and David French。Duration; 7 hours， 18 minutes。Unabridged。David French is， like me， a Never Trump Republican， which means he is a man without a party right now。 French starts his book with some observations that rang very true to me。 For example， he noted that while he was still a part of the two party system， he didn't really think about the automatic intensely negative reaction both sides have to the other side's proposals。 The other side isn't just misinformed， they are evil。 They are not just mistaken， they are trying to overthrow America and all of its institutions。 They want to murder us in our sleep by taking away our rights。 They HATE us。It doesn't matter which side is the "they" and which side is the "us" - it is the same argument， it is a dangerous pattern and it threatens to tear the country apart as we self-segregate into communities that tend to think alike and sometimes literally don't know someone from the other party。 The middle part of the book consists of possible scenarios that could cause a secession crisis。 They are not meant to be literal predictions。 Rather， they are possible futures in which one region becomes so disenchanted that it attempts to secede and what that means for national politics， the national 。 This section was valuable but it was stretched out way too long。His answer to the problem。。。 。。。more
Charles Wendt
，
I think French provides a detailed and balanced analysis of the social forces which are polarizing the nation， and how this isn't homogenous but rather geographically concentrated。 In the end he gives a couple of scenarios of how the United States fragments without a civil war happening。 He does such a good job that I now think such a breakup may be more likely than not。 His public service announcement of what people can do to counteract these polarizing forces strikes me as impudent even if wel I think French provides a detailed and balanced analysis of the social forces which are polarizing the nation， and how this isn't homogenous but rather geographically concentrated。 In the end he gives a couple of scenarios of how the United States fragments without a civil war happening。 He does such a good job that I now think such a breakup may be more likely than not。 His public service announcement of what people can do to counteract these polarizing forces strikes me as impudent even if well intended。THE BOTTOM LINE: Very thought provoking and well supported presentation。 I "read" an audible version and it was superbly narrated。 。。。more
gloandreadabook
，
Divided We Fall by David A。 French*****In this book， David A。 French takes a sharp look at the political and cultural divisions in America right now and points to an alarming trend: a powerful combination of affective polarization and geographic sorting。 After describing and analyzing these two factors， French conjures up various secession scenarios， some seeming somewhat far-fetched and others eerily imaginable。 He goes on to outline possible “exit strategies，” embracing James Madison’s plurali Divided We Fall by David A。 French*****In this book， David A。 French takes a sharp look at the political and cultural divisions in America right now and points to an alarming trend: a powerful combination of affective polarization and geographic sorting。 After describing and analyzing these two factors， French conjures up various secession scenarios， some seeming somewhat far-fetched and others eerily imaginable。 He goes on to outline possible “exit strategies，” embracing James Madison’s pluralism as a potential solution for tribalism and increasing hostility between current political coalitions。 The thing I liked the most about this book was French’s talent for calling out both sides。 Rather than the biased opinion pieces that seem to pop up every other day to lay the blame of American political chaos at the feet of the other side， French’s analysis is clear-eyed and level-headed。 Refreshingly， he pulls no punches in calling out both sides for their hypocrisy。 Something I also found interesting was the way in which French wove in his own personal background and anecdotes。 French doesn’t just stand on a soapbox and preach things for readers to follow。 He leads by example as he charts his own political development。 In many ways， his example is a model of humility as he lays down his arms and admits the thing that many of us are so afraid to even consider: maybe we’re not always right， maybe the other side is coming from a valid place， maybe there is room for conversation， cooperation， and coexistence。 If there has been one book I’ve read the past year that I think everyone could gain something valuable from， it would be this one。 I would recommend it particularly to anyone interested in current events or political science; personally， I found it tied in well with my American Party Politics class that I took at the same time。 （2/9-2/27） 。。。more
Neal Roberts
，
Great analysis of the current divisive climate in the U。S。 and excellent theory of a path back to sanity （a return to Federalism）。 The only reason for the less than 5 star rating was the three chapters painting possible scenarios of secession。 These chapters seemed to me to be overly dramatic， somewhat unrealistic and almost apocalyptic。 While these scenarios were interesting， they detracted somewhat from the seriousness of the rest of the book。 Definitely worth reading to provide a well-balance Great analysis of the current divisive climate in the U。S。 and excellent theory of a path back to sanity （a return to Federalism）。 The only reason for the less than 5 star rating was the three chapters painting possible scenarios of secession。 These chapters seemed to me to be overly dramatic， somewhat unrealistic and almost apocalyptic。 While these scenarios were interesting， they detracted somewhat from the seriousness of the rest of the book。 Definitely worth reading to provide a well-balanced review of our current cultural and political situation。 。。。more
Beth
，
There is a lot to think about in here， and most of it depressed me。 Will we ever return to civil discourse？ Mr。 French is not so optimistic 。 The general tone of the book did not leave me hopeful that our country can change course and prevent further polarization。 Unless enough of us take it seriously and vow to listen to people on the other aide of an issue， and then we decide to give them room for their own way of thinking and speaking when we do not agree with them。 Sounds simple enough， but There is a lot to think about in here， and most of it depressed me。 Will we ever return to civil discourse？ Mr。 French is not so optimistic 。 The general tone of the book did not leave me hopeful that our country can change course and prevent further polarization。 Unless enough of us take it seriously and vow to listen to people on the other aide of an issue， and then we decide to give them room for their own way of thinking and speaking when we do not agree with them。 Sounds simple enough， but instead we choose to prove we are right。 。。。sigh 。。。more
Curtis
，
TLDR; Fabulous book！ Five stars。 Would recommend to everyone。This was a jarring book。 I knew I would like the book because I’ve enjoyed David’s writing on politics and culture （I am a paying subscriber to The Dispatch）。 I see the polarization going on all around me。 The culture wars between right and left have only intensified in the past year with the worldwide pandemic。 Despite the fact I was well aware of the facts this book analyzed， I still learned much from the data and analysis presented TLDR; Fabulous book！ Five stars。 Would recommend to everyone。This was a jarring book。 I knew I would like the book because I’ve enjoyed David’s writing on politics and culture （I am a paying subscriber to The Dispatch）。 I see the polarization going on all around me。 The culture wars between right and left have only intensified in the past year with the worldwide pandemic。 Despite the fact I was well aware of the facts this book analyzed， I still learned much from the data and analysis presented in this book。Particularly jarring were the two chapters where David crafts fictional narratives of “Calexit” and “Texit” secession scenarios。 While the narratives were not based on real events， reading this book after January 6th made both scenarios seem all too real。 As I was listening to this book while exercising （I own both a Kindle and Audible version of it）， I actually had to stop multiple times and remind myself that the stories being told were not based on real events。 The scenarios bore an eerie familiarity in light of recent events that made the threat of secession sem all too real。Finally， while I guess I know there are no easy answers to the predicament we are in， I was a bit shaken by the relative pessimism of David French at the conclusion of the book。 We are in a tough spot。 I firmly believe that pluralism is the way forward， and I really enjoyed David’s exposition on how the Federalism enshrined in our Constitution fosters a healthy， vibrant pluralism。 But to hear him express a fairly pessimistic assessment of the path ahead left me somewhat disheartened。 That said， his suggested remedies make a lot of sense。 They are remedies taught often in Judeo-Christian religions: showing unfailing grace and mercy towards others， while maintaining a healthy sense of humility。 I can think of no greater concepts that can help bring people together than those。 。。。more
Mary Conway
，
Published before January 6， that day's events proved how wrong he is to give the right a pass on tolerance。 This was recommended by someone， and it's pretty worthless。 I was continually troubled by his narrative that sees so many ills emanating from the left， but is silent on police brutality of blacks， the privilege of white males， the utter absence of any meaningful confrontation of the brutal power of dark money in politics。 His fake horror about Hillary Clinton （not always using her husband' Published before January 6， that day's events proved how wrong he is to give the right a pass on tolerance。 This was recommended by someone， and it's pretty worthless。 I was continually troubled by his narrative that sees so many ills emanating from the left， but is silent on police brutality of blacks， the privilege of white males， the utter absence of any meaningful confrontation of the brutal power of dark money in politics。 His fake horror about Hillary Clinton （not always using her husband's name and not baking cookies） compared to the porn model who recently held the role of First Lady really tells you all you need to know。 Disappointing for those of us who really want to chart a path forward。 。。。more
Mich
，
David French， a conservative， has provided an extremely thought provoking book in which he evaluates the reasons for the divide in America， where it could lead， and possible， though not probable， hopes for the future。 He lays out the case as to how the United States has become geographically polarized。 He provides lots of evidence based upon differences in religious practice， politics as evidenced by voting patterns particularly on a state level， and cultural and social attitudes。 He suggests t David French， a conservative， has provided an extremely thought provoking book in which he evaluates the reasons for the divide in America， where it could lead， and possible， though not probable， hopes for the future。 He lays out the case as to how the United States has become geographically polarized。 He provides lots of evidence based upon differences in religious practice， politics as evidenced by voting patterns particularly on a state level， and cultural and social attitudes。 He suggests that this polarization could possibly lead to a secession based on California and neighboring Washington and Oregon being one bloc， NY/New England another bloc， and Texas/The South a third。 Within groups， people tend to agree with each other in the same manner teenagers feel social pressures to conform and even become more extreme。 He cites Cass Sunstein’s research that supports this view。 The more a polarized group deliberates on its views， the more extreme the consensus。Among the factors defining a group， political affiliation is even trumping religious identity。 Political identity is so strong that people minimize those parts of their identities （race， religion， sexual orientation） that put them on the edge of the group’s borders。 We define ourselves by opposition to other groups and are united by our loathing of them。 He states that there is no excuse for anti white racism due to non white powerlessness。 The violent racism against blacks is categorically different from the anti white racism that exists in parts of academia or American media。 For angry activists， speech is a sword as are censorship and shame campaigns。 The goal is domination not through discussion and certainly not through coexistence。The author then begins to construct two fanciful scenarios， one in which California and its neighbors under progressive influences secede from the union which is dominated by a right wing Federal government。 In an alternate scenario Texas and other bloc states under right wing extremist religious conservative pressure secede from the union dominated by a left wing Federal government。 What follows of course is domestic economic and international chaos with wars breaking out all over the globe。 These two scenarios， while entertaining in the same sense as war game simulations， are unnecessary and distract from the main message。 The conventional wisdom is that America is divided between two competing economic systems， classes and cultures and that one has to win while the other has to lose。 The author believes that thanks to increasing geographic separation and group polarization the fight and win approach to the American divide won’t produce a permanent settlement。 Rather， it will result in more extremism and more division that can lead to dangerous instability。 Madison stated that liberty is essential for political life。 People need the liberty to express different opinions。 Winning has as its quest for uniformity and given different backgrounds this quest is futile。 Madison embraced pluralism and so should we。 To do so we need （1） to defend rights of others to advance ideas and （2） to defend rights of communities to govern themselves provided they don’t violate rights of dissenting members。 It is obvious， but French points out that liberalism and pluralism falter in the face of hatred and intolerance。He likes the definition of tolerance as respect and kindness towards members who are not in your group。 He argues that in progressive corporations conservatives are often held to the highest standard of civility and reason while angry， threatening progressives are merely deemed to be full of righteous indignation。Since progressive control the heights of American culture they have disproportionate power to impose their will。 Progressives want conservatives to shut up and if they don’t， they want them demoted， fired or economically destroyed。 Partisans tend to believe that large majorities of their political opponents have extremist views when in reality extremists are still a minority。One possible solution is to embrace Federalism again。 This would ensure that for many basic civil liberties federal law would dominate but still allow for local customization。 This means that one consents to your ideological opponents in different jurisdictions in enacting policies and practices that you may despise。 As examples he cites California’s non cooperation with federal agents regarding immigration and Arizona’s mandating that state officials cooperate with the Feds。 However the Supreme Court’s ruling denying Arizona would imply that for California， states could not undermine Federal enforcement。 While desirable， a return to Federalism isn’t likely as the drive for domination is still too strong。 At the same time this impasse is too overwhelming such that the hopes for domination can’t endure forever。 I could imagine a scenario similar to a sort of India-Pakistan breakup with population exchanges。 French， using California as a hypothetical， conjures a state rights scenario with California seceding from Federal Health care systems and enacting its own single payer system followed by other states doing the same。 He does this however without examining the principles of insurance- that in spreading and funding risks across sates and communities some pay more than their actual risks and others less。 As a conservative， it is clear where French stands， describing potential or actual state enactments as”going too far” in seceding from the Bill of Rights。 Yet what might be interpreted as covered under the Bill of Rights is clearly up to personal and judicial opinion。 He offers: A nation that protects the rights of individuals will become excessively individualistic fracturing the bonds of community。 Excusing vice in the pursuit of alleged political virtue is toxic to our founding principles。He does a very good job of putting aside his conservative views， although occasionally they do creep in and affect the neutrality of his assessments。 At least he tried！ 。。。more
Tim Gordon
，
Fascinating， and somewhat depressing， book looking at the craziness polarizing our nation。 He truly tries to be non-partisan in his analysis， surely noting topics that would upset both sides with his frankness。 The "hypothetical" situations goes into an amazing amount of depth that seem depressingly plausible。Hopefully none of that happens。 But with the way people are retreating into their partisanship so ferociously， I'm definitely worried。 Fascinating， and somewhat depressing， book looking at the craziness polarizing our nation。 He truly tries to be non-partisan in his analysis， surely noting topics that would upset both sides with his frankness。 The "hypothetical" situations goes into an amazing amount of depth that seem depressingly plausible。Hopefully none of that happens。 But with the way people are retreating into their partisanship so ferociously， I'm definitely worried。 。。。more
Angie
，
I don’t generally read much about politics， but a recommendation for this book caught my eye。 I mostly see the polarization from one side， so appreciated the view of both sides as well as thoughts on how it might be possible to go forward。
Paulieanne
，
Great book。 Would read with Senator Sasse book ， Them， which is more optimistic and hammers same points。 French was fair and open minded to both right and left in examples of reasons America could potentially divide。 Most compelling to me was the "Flight 93" article and discussion; fighting and winning elections， culture， academia etc for the sake of winning at all costs。 At the end of the day he argued that this attitude （not new on right or left） reduces us to see each other as literal opponen Great book。 Would read with Senator Sasse book ， Them， which is more optimistic and hammers same points。 French was fair and open minded to both right and left in examples of reasons America could potentially divide。 Most compelling to me was the "Flight 93" article and discussion; fighting and winning elections， culture， academia etc for the sake of winning at all costs。 At the end of the day he argued that this attitude （not new on right or left） reduces us to see each other as literal opponents， objects of severe hatred and mistrust。 That hatred could and has driven our nation apart。 I always appreciate his call to classical virtues such as true justice， mercy and humilty， but I've always been a French fan， and dont think these virtues should go away in the public sphere。 。。。more
Janelle
，
I think I like to listen to David French more than I like his writing style。
John J。
，
Well written， good perspectives。 Loved the “Secession Scenario”。 I would highly recommend this book to those that truly seek an intellectual discourse on modern politics， especially the widening gap between blue and red points of view。 He does recognize the media’s thirst for the extremists to make their point， while not reporting the beliefs of that huge population in the middle。 It is boring， after all。 My major objection is that， like so many pundits， they have the ability to remove themselve Well written， good perspectives。 Loved the “Secession Scenario”。 I would highly recommend this book to those that truly seek an intellectual discourse on modern politics， especially the widening gap between blue and red points of view。 He does recognize the media’s thirst for the extremists to make their point， while not reporting the beliefs of that huge population in the middle。 It is boring， after all。 My major objection is that， like so many pundits， they have the ability to remove themselves from the dilemma facing the majority of voters。 That dilemma is that in order to get our important agenda items to move forward， we have to choose between 2 candidates that are not the 2 most qualified people in the country。 Not by a long shot。 What’s worse is that the election ads attack the candidates， not the issues。 In 2016 a lot of people did not vote for Trump， they voted against Hillary。 Likewise， 2020 saw a lot of anti-Trump ballots。 Overall， a good read。 。。。more
Sarah
，
Good。 Fascinating look at American politics and culture。
Chris Rohde
，
Highly recommend。 This rating shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me。 I am a big fan of David French and his writing。 David tackles the issue of our deep negative partisanship， which has only gotten worse since he published the book， talks about how it could legitimately lead to a break-up of the nation， and then argues for a return to the founding principles of pluralism， free speech， and a robust federalism。 For example， he argues that if California wants to put a single-payer hea Highly recommend。 This rating shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me。 I am a big fan of David French and his writing。 David tackles the issue of our deep negative partisanship， which has only gotten worse since he published the book， talks about how it could legitimately lead to a break-up of the nation， and then argues for a return to the founding principles of pluralism， free speech， and a robust federalism。 For example， he argues that if California wants to put a single-payer health care system in and effectively pull our of our national health care framework， then they should be allowed to do so， but if a red state wants to keep their public/private mix then they should be able to do that。 Is his solution idealistic？ It currently looks like it。 But if more of us would push back against the negative partisanship that has enveloped our country and pushed for more local control we might actually see the temperature decrease instead constantly ratcheting up。 Count me in for that。 。。。more
Digne
，
Maybe 3。5 starsThis is a book that is difficult to rate。 On the one hand I think the author makes several really important points very well: the consequences of continuing this road of polarization and the best solutions to it being unpalatable to many。 I liked how it was written in such a way that it made the case of each side in a sympathetic manner。 I found it insightful in the parallels the author found to 19th century regional sorting。 But on the other hand， I think the author’s view is on Maybe 3。5 starsThis is a book that is difficult to rate。 On the one hand I think the author makes several really important points very well: the consequences of continuing this road of polarization and the best solutions to it being unpalatable to many。 I liked how it was written in such a way that it made the case of each side in a sympathetic manner。 I found it insightful in the parallels the author found to 19th century regional sorting。 But on the other hand， I think the author’s view is on some topics is just far too simplistic。 I had a lot of disagreements with him on issues of race and a couple other things。 My verdict would be that this is still a book worth reading because there’s a lot that’s worth discussing。 But this recommendation is not a full endorsement of the views in this book。 。。。more
Jacob Michael
，
I found a lot of wisdom and encouragement in French’s writings throughout the chaos of 2020。 This book was no different。 “Divided We Fall” is a thoroughly researched， thoughtfully written and reasonably argued manifesto for the depolarization of the United States。 French’s accessible writing style and cautious optimism were also pleasant surprises to behold。If you’re feeling wearied or even hopeless looking at our current political climate， I highly recommend this book。
Nils
，
David French is a principled conservative （and therefore widely excoriated by the federal swampists as a surrender-monkey worthy of his own sneering -ism， DavidFrenchism） who argues here that a renewed commitment to deeper federal decentralization， by “lowering the stakes of national politics” （237）， is the only way out of the growing partisan polarization of American politics。 He calls for all Americans to stand down from the ambition of “defeating the ideological enemy” and instead to focus on David French is a principled conservative （and therefore widely excoriated by the federal swampists as a surrender-monkey worthy of his own sneering -ism， DavidFrenchism） who argues here that a renewed commitment to deeper federal decentralization， by “lowering the stakes of national politics” （237）， is the only way out of the growing partisan polarization of American politics。 He calls for all Americans to stand down from the ambition of “defeating the ideological enemy” and instead to focus on “building a local or state community that embodies and advances your own political value。” On the basic legal policy thrust of the book， I am in wholehearted agreement。As one would expect from a hardcore evangelical conservative， however， most of his examples of federal overreach are from the liberal side of the aisle， with Obamacare chief among them。 This leads to a running problem with the book， which is that is suffers from a lot of “both sides” silliness。 （For example， hilariously， French wonders， “Is it a coincidence that this moment [the passage of Obamacare on a party line vote] marked the beginning of a sharp escalation in conservative polarization against Democrats？” — which conveniently ignores that “conservative polarization” was in fact an explicit political strategy that dates back precisely to Newt Gingrich’s acension to the Speaker of the House in 1995。 While he does defend the right of California to refuse to put state resources into enforcing federal law （regarding immigration enforcement）， his examples in general tend to focus on the peeves of religious conservatives。With that said， I think French is basically right to suggest that in a country as big and diverse as the United States， the only way to social peace （or at least detente） is to provide more ambit for state and local communities to build the sorts of institutions they prefer。 If people really hate the community they are in， they can vote with their feet。 French is also correct that the main downside to this approach is that “the rebirth of federalism necessitates the death of very particular dreams — the dream of dominance and the dream of utopia。。。 standing by and consenting to your ideological opponents in different jurisdictions enacting policies and practices you may despise and consider unwise or unjust。 It requires us to consent to political defeats inflicted on our ideological allies who are minorities in different jurisdictions。” （215）French is of course well aware that the arguments for federalism were long the basis for perpetuating the nation’s original and abiding sin and stain， namely slavery and de jure Apartheid in the Jim Crow South for the century after the Civil War。 The concern that federalism would enable the continued entrenchment of similar racism he dismisses with a hand wave: “Have you been to Mississippi lately？” That’s not a compelling argument。The book also contains two lurid secessionist scenarios， one involving Texas and the other involving California， that are posed as the threat of what could happen if we continue to insist on centralization （on the one hand） or if the move to greater federalism is taken as a license to encroach on the Bill of Rights （specifically， the second amendment）。 These scenarios don’t really do the work （at least not for this reader） that I think French hopes they will。 。。。more
Renee Reynolds
，
Very helpful， very prescient。 David French knows the symptoms， identifies the illness， and provides solutions to our present polarization。 Uniquely positioned as an experienced First Amendment lawyer， a US military veteran， a strong Christian believer， and long-term resident of both blue and red states， French unpacks our founding documents to show the concern our nation's founders had about factions and their corresponding solution—pluralism。 He diagnoses the four ingredients present in the 186 Very helpful， very prescient。 David French knows the symptoms， identifies the illness， and provides solutions to our present polarization。 Uniquely positioned as an experienced First Amendment lawyer， a US military veteran， a strong Christian believer， and long-term resident of both blue and red states， French unpacks our founding documents to show the concern our nation's founders had about factions and their corresponding solution—pluralism。 He diagnoses the four ingredients present in the 1860 secession and shows that 3 out of 4 conditions are already present in American right now。 He unpacks "The Law of Group Polarization，" which as advertised， is the most helpful tidbit one can takeaway from the book: 1999 research by Cass Sunstein revealed that， contrary to the conventional wisdom that group deliberation leads to better outcomes， in fact， deliberation among likeminded people moves them toward more extreme positions than originally held。 This 100% explains why algorithm-fed news and media scrolls form more radicalized， less wise， less moderate citizens。He shows how， absent all other community glue like families， economic stability， churches and civic institutions， Americans have turned to politics to solve their sense of belonging。 In the face of unprecedented loneliness， we are "united by our loathing。" The solution？ Back to Constitutional basics。 Pluralism， which requires that we embrace only two tenets。 "First if you are a citizen of a pluralistic， liberal republic， you need to defend the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself， even when others seek to use those rights to advance ideas you may dislike。" And second， defend the "rights of communities and associations to govern themselves according to their values and their beliefs， as long as they don't violate the fundamental rights of their dissenting members。" "You have to embrace the idea that your fellow citizens—even those who disagree with you—should feel at home in this land。 George Washington was particularly fond of a biblical passage from the book of Micah。。。'Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree， and no one will make them afraid。'"What is required to practice pluralism？ Courage。 French calls for courage over fear from both the left （college professors who are terrified of their liberal students but won't run the risk of speaking out） and the right （GOP politicians who won't take a stand against Trump）。 He maintains that "fear and silence in the face of threats and intimidation are understandable but are ultimately not justifiable。 Maintaining America's constitutional order requires courage。" 。。。more
Jarrett M。 Chapman
，
Read for your kids and grandkidsIf you want the US to be around for your children and grandchildren this book is a must read。 It's time to move beyond the current rhetoric and find a way to make our nation thinkers as and doers again。 Reach across the aisle and be willing to care for your neighbor。 Read for your kids and grandkidsIf you want the US to be around for your children and grandchildren this book is a must read。 It's time to move beyond the current rhetoric and find a way to make our nation thinkers as and doers again。 Reach across the aisle and be willing to care for your neighbor。 。。。more
Sara
，
3。5I always enjoy reading David French's take on things。 I think he's a truly well-intentioned， thoughtful person with integrity and a desire to discern truth and be fair。 This book certainly leans conservative， as it should considering the author， but I think it's a thought provoking read for all shades of the political spectrum。 His imagined secession scenarios were really interesting to me， though I did feel like he glossed over how the very blue and very red areas of Texas and California， re 3。5I always enjoy reading David French's take on things。 I think he's a truly well-intentioned， thoughtful person with integrity and a desire to discern truth and be fair。 This book certainly leans conservative， as it should considering the author， but I think it's a thought provoking read for all shades of the political spectrum。 His imagined secession scenarios were really interesting to me， though I did feel like he glossed over how the very blue and very red areas of Texas and California， respectively， would respond to a secession。 While the rural/urban divide is certainly very real， I do think we sometimes overlook how mingled and purple many states are。 I'm currently reading Ezra Klein's "Why We're Polarized，" so the contrasts and similarities are pretty interesting since they are coming at the same problem from different perspectives。 I unfortunately had to listen to this， which I didn't prefer， but the narration was fine。 I wish French had done the whole book。 。。。more
Dylan Vargas
，
I was disappointed with the analysis of the book。 The book was broke up into three sections with only the second section being worth a read。 The first section tried to explain the political divides in our nation。 However， the entire first section did not reveal anything that I do not think anyone who isn't even peripherally aware of politics， wouldn't already be aware of。 It just failed to add anything to a conversation that is already oversaturated。 I also think that even though the author atte I was disappointed with the analysis of the book。 The book was broke up into three sections with only the second section being worth a read。 The first section tried to explain the political divides in our nation。 However， the entire first section did not reveal anything that I do not think anyone who isn't even peripherally aware of politics， wouldn't already be aware of。 It just failed to add anything to a conversation that is already oversaturated。 I also think that even though the author attempted to be non partisan， which is commendable and difficult， his conservative lean definitely showed through。 He often spent more time explaining what liberals and progressives do wrong then conservatives。 Jumping quickly to the final section for a moment I was often left underwhelmed。 Here he is laying out his thesis for how to fix partisanship and hatred。 I feel the author put too much weight on the writings and philosophies of the founding fathers。 We are over two centuries removed from that time and everything has changed。 I don't feel like he included any modern thought or options。 Even so his solution was trying to seem all deep but it felt like very surface level analysis。 And this as a conclusion section seemed to ignore complete the most interesting part of this book， the second section。 Now the best part of this book was the middle section。 If anyone who is considering picking up this book I really only recommend the middle section。 In this section he posits two scenarios that result in the break up of America into separate countries。 I found this fascinating and very well written and explained。 This was the only section that made me pause， to think， to go "oh wow"， to feel like I learned something。 The examples were so realistic and he made them feel very possible。 I also absolutely loved how he demonstrated the global fallout from the dissolution of America。 Often writers focus solely in domestic implications and ignore the foreign policy effects; but French made sure that he included this。 I genuinely loved this section！！ 。。。more
Troy
，
Fantastic book。 The two secession scenarios he explores really drive home the degree to which the unthinkable is today more plausible。 The only thing I wish he’d done that he didn’t， was to explore more in depth what a renewed federalism might look like in practice。
Tori Samar
，