Sign in with Facebook
Patrick Peterson's Reviews > It Can't Happen Here
It Can't Happen Here
by
by
Patrick Peterson's review
bookshelves: fiction, history, journalism, read-some, political, philosophy, sense-of-life, to-read, communism
Jun 06, 2020
bookshelves: fiction, history, journalism, read-some, political, philosophy, sense-of-life, to-read, communism
2020-06-06 - I read about 1/4-1/3 of this about 10-15 years ago, then lost it and have not made time to get back to it.
My impressions were that Sinclair Lewis was concerned about fascism coming to the US so his"good" character was a newspaper editor/publisher(?) who fought the local fascist type politician(s) and general public mood. That is generally a good thing, of course, but Lewis's ideas about what fascism actually is and what a good "liberal" society should be instead were very confused.
Lewis uncritically had accepted the gradual coercive "progressive" pollution of the term liberal.
Liberal, in the classical/original sense meant liberty and was founded in a good understanding of how keeping government (the biggest potential oppressor of liberty) LIMITED via clear, short, written constitutions, rule of law, and property rights. The so-called "progressives" in the late 1800s (and even muddle headed "liberals" gradually destroyed the clear thinking of the American founders and other great liberal thinkers such as Adam Smith, and the other classical economists. John Stuart Mill was one of the biggest con-founders of those clear pro-liberty ideas, despite his brilliant defenses of liberty too.
So, at some point I would like to get back to this book, but the unclear thinking on the problems and solutions of the ideas that help society to prosper peacefully vs. getting more and more enmeshed in conflict, disharmony and poverty.
2020-10-11 - I recently read a reference to Lewis in the book "Stalin's Apologist" where all his friends, including the subject of that book, Walter Duranty, called him Sinclair "Red" Lewis, since he was such a big fan of communism during his trip to Moscow in the 1920s (or early 30s?) (as well as having red hair). Well, that figures: 1. Who of all the people who have read Lewis' book know he was a communist or at least that was where his sympathies lay? 2. Sure communists were "anti-fascist" because both ideologies/movements were fighting for control of the reigns of government in countries around the world. His muddle-headed "anti-fascist liberalism" in this book was no such thing at all. This clarifies matters greatly.
My impressions were that Sinclair Lewis was concerned about fascism coming to the US so his"good" character was a newspaper editor/publisher(?) who fought the local fascist type politician(s) and general public mood. That is generally a good thing, of course, but Lewis's ideas about what fascism actually is and what a good "liberal" society should be instead were very confused.
Lewis uncritically had accepted the gradual coercive "progressive" pollution of the term liberal.
Liberal, in the classical/original sense meant liberty and was founded in a good understanding of how keeping government (the biggest potential oppressor of liberty) LIMITED via clear, short, written constitutions, rule of law, and property rights. The so-called "progressives" in the late 1800s (and even muddle headed "liberals" gradually destroyed the clear thinking of the American founders and other great liberal thinkers such as Adam Smith, and the other classical economists. John Stuart Mill was one of the biggest con-founders of those clear pro-liberty ideas, despite his brilliant defenses of liberty too.
So, at some point I would like to get back to this book, but the unclear thinking on the problems and solutions of the ideas that help society to prosper peacefully vs. getting more and more enmeshed in conflict, disharmony and poverty.
2020-10-11 - I recently read a reference to Lewis in the book "Stalin's Apologist" where all his friends, including the subject of that book, Walter Duranty, called him Sinclair "Red" Lewis, since he was such a big fan of communism during his trip to Moscow in the 1920s (or early 30s?) (as well as having red hair). Well, that figures: 1. Who of all the people who have read Lewis' book know he was a communist or at least that was where his sympathies lay? 2. Sure communists were "anti-fascist" because both ideologies/movements were fighting for control of the reigns of government in countries around the world. His muddle-headed "anti-fascist liberalism" in this book was no such thing at all. This clarifies matters greatly.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
It Can't Happen Here.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
2005
–
Started Reading
2005
–
Finished Reading
May 22, 2017
– Shelved
(Audio Cassette Edition)
May 22, 2017
– Shelved as:
to-read
(Audio Cassette Edition)
November 25, 2019
– Shelved
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
fiction
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
history
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
journalism
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
read-some
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
political
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
philosophy
November 25, 2019
– Shelved as:
sense-of-life
June 6, 2020
– Shelved as:
to-read
August 11, 2020
– Shelved as:
communism
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Grant
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Aug 10, 2020 09:43PM
don't review a book until you finish it.
reply
|
flag
Grant - I have no problem with your stating your opinion. But you have little persuasive ability for me when you give zero reasons why you hold that opinion.I have clearly stated, right up front, how much of the book I have read and when. Readers can easily disregard my comments if they think that disqualifies my review from being valuable.
The reason is simple: how any work of art ends is quite important, and can sometimes change your perspective on the earlier parts. An ending is important.
Good point.For art, the ending can indeed be very important.
But this book is not JUST a work of art.
It is a work of social, economic, and political commentary for his purpose of creating change:
- stopping his perception of fascist ideas/politicians
- promoting his "liberal" (but actually very collectivist/authoritarian/elitist/ and ultimately totalitarian ideas
So, yes, it would be better if I had been able to make time to read the whole book to provide a more complete review - granted. But hopefully the details I was able to glean by reading the portion I was able to, as well as the biographical info I have since added, should help folks considering this book now.
Samuel Pettengill was a Democrat congressman from Indiana.He wrote a book in 1940 called Smokescreen where he gives and supports his view that the New Deal was fascist.
He is not alone in these sentiments.
Grant, I feel better about myself after reading your takes here. Thanks for your input.
PS i only read about a 1/4 of this book, but it's about ideas baby.
