Lilla argues that the Democratic Party went down a blind alley after Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980. American liberals enjoyed about 40 years of success following a political vision articulated by Franklin Roosevelt. The idea of America presented by FDR and his successors, such as Kennedy and Johnson, was one of all American citizens working together to overcome adversity. This vision perfectly suited the Great Depression and World War II, and complemented the Civil Rights Movement. That vision was supplanted by Reagan's libertarian view of an America made up of independent individuals achieving success without help from anyone else. That vision of America better suited a time of economic prosperity and America's brief status as the world's only super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Rather than articulate a new vision of collective action, American liberals perused identity politics. In identity politics the crucial factor is not what unifies people as Americans, it is the uncontrollable factors of birth that make people different from each other. Lilla describes this as the opposite of politics. Identity politics is about marches and rallies that make people feel proud of their unique group. Real politics is about doing the no-fun work of running for county commission seats and school boards and convincing people who are different than you that it is in both your interests to work together for the common good.

One the most appealing ideas of liberalism is the fact that it is about expanding the circle. Through out history liberals have worked to bring more groups into the circle while conservatives work to make the circle smaller. The United States began as a democracy where only land owning adult white males could vote. Over time that circle was expanded to include all white men, then men regardless of race, then all women. The conservative impulse is to exclude, to shrink the circle back down to just white people, just Christians, just men, just my family, and then the ultimate nadir of Trumpism: just me.

Identity politics is about creating new circles within the big circle. The Democratic Party seems like less of a unified party and more like the Women's Party, the African American Party, the Immigrant Party, and the LGBT Party which occasionally caucus together but do not have the same agenda. The obvious counter-argument to this is to argue that the Civil Rights and the Women's Rights movements were identity movements, but they were also about securing equal rights as American citizens.

Many pro-identity politics critics have dismissed Liila's argument because he is a white male and therefore unqualified to speak to issues affecting women and minorities. While that is a correct analysis of Lilla's identity, it assumes the truth of identity politics in order to defend identity politics. I do not believe Lilla is actually saying anything about any group within the world of identity politics, he is saying that all the groups need to get past self absorption and return to collective action for the good of all citizens.

The most optimistic development to come out of the Trump catastrophe is that more liberals are realizing they have to do the hard work of local and state politics to push back against the Republican machine that has allowed unqualified extremist candidates to get elected to local and national office. It is a lot easier to take a day off from work, make a clever sign, and march in a parade, but parades do not win local elections.

John G. Sproat's book offers a critical analysis of the politics and achievements of college-educated independents during the Gilded Age. He identifies these liberal reformers by their shared characteristics: their belief in classical liberalism, a moral code firmly based in their Protestant faith, independence from parties in the political process, moderate reform goals, and their confidence that their intentions made them truly the "best men" in the political process. Those objective was to create a small, technically efficient government run by themselves, which would allow them to reduce taxes, encourage individualism, and curtail public services so as to allow each man regardless of their social origins to use their talents to benefit society without warping natural laws.

Yet for all of their earnestness these reformers more often failed than succeeded in attaining their goals. Sproat attributes their failure to their inability to come to terms with the times in which they lived. In spite of their open-mindedness in terms of social progress, they proved too fixed in their social and moral standards and rigid in their economic and political ideas. Their unwillingness to compromise their ideological purity, along with their elitist rejection of involvement with mass movements, effectively limited their impact by depriving them of the opportunities to gain power that would have allowed them to implement their agenda.

Though published nearly a half-century ago, Sproat's book remains the best work available on this prominent group of Gilded Age activists. Its endurance is in no small measure credited to Sproat's acute analysis, which continues to define how these men are understood today. As such it remains required reading for anyone wishing to better understand Gilded Age politics and the limits of contemporary efforts to reform government.

Starting with the Carter administration this is a look at how the Democratic party pulled away from its working class base and turned toward the people with money.  It gives a history of the change and the affect it had on the middle class and politics up through today.  I got mad as I read it and had to put it down several times.  I understood what was said.  Mr. Frank kept it simple and, at times, humor poked through.  I wish I would have been more politically aware when I was younger and understood what was happening and how it would impact me and my world.  Worth the read!

For the last couple of years, I haven't eaten beef or pork. Part of this was dietary but the larger portion was due to my distaste with the way these animals are dealt with in the food industry. After reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind I have decided to stop eating all meats for good. I'd be quite surprised if others reading this book didn't feel the same way. (This will make sense later.) This book covers exactly what the title says. Yuval Noah Harari touches on almost every aspect of what it means to be human. I can see why this book could be contentious in some circles as he is of the belief that consumerism, imperialism, and communism are religions instead of merely ideologies. He has a no holds barred attitude about the way in which humans have ravaged the planet and taken advantage of others of our species as well as flora and fauna. (Remember the no eating chicken thing?) What was most intriguing about Sapiens were the questions that he raised about the nature of happiness. There have been many books about how to be happy but no research into how happiness is measured and its trends throughout the years. (Maybe he has an upcoming novel in the works.) If you're interested in culture, human evolution, and a unique perspective of the world then you're likely to enjoy this book. I will say that a lot of this was common knowledge and/or already known to me as an Anthropology major. The second half of the book is where it got really interesting. I love a good thought experiment and trying to figure out answers to seemingly unsolvable problems is my idea of a good time. :-) I'd give this book a solid 8/10.

The Argonauts by Maggie Nelson was the May book from the feminist book club on Goodreads called Our Shared Shelf started by Emma Watson. This book was written in a style that I was completely unfamiliar with and which at first really threw me off. It's written almost as a stream of consciousness where there are broken paragraphs that at first seem as if they have no connection to one another. In fact, the first paragraph is a detailed description of the author engaging in anal sex. I guess she likes to shock the reader and/or pull them immediately into her narrative. (Hint: It worked.) This is the story of the author as she begins a relationship with her gender fluid partner (now spouse) and the navigating of that relationship while deciding to have a child together. She also becomes a stepparent to Harry's son from a prior relationship which is completely new territory in and of itself. Since reading The Argonauts, I have embarked on a campaign of knowledge about Nelson because this book is simply a snapshot of a few years of hers and Harry's lives. At the time that she was experiencing the struggles of trying to get pregnant Harry was undergoing changes as well (I don't want to give this away because it's such a powerful part of the book). Her description of her internalized experience as well as the observations of those around her are unique and frankly thrilling to read. Her writing is brash, dynamic, and surprising. She hits back against stereotypes of what it means to be gendered, queer, and in touch with oneself. In short, it's a powerful book that seeks to wake the slumbering activist in all of us. I highly recommend this one.