The title of this book might be off-putting to some, which is a shame, because I think it could be of interest to readers who wouldn't think they have much in common with Goldberg. Those who do read Goldberg on a weekly basis won't find anything drastically new, but it's a pretty good recapitulation of his thought over the past two years.

The book works on the assumption that nothing's foreordained. There is no "right side of history." Democracy, capitalism, and human rights are things we stumbled into as a society. Historically speaking, all this has emerged in the blink of an eye. The challenge today is coping with that abundance. Maintaining a civilization takes constant work, and if we're not grateful for what we've received, we're on a fast track to corruption. I found this theme of ingratitude to be slightly uneven throughout, and the mix of history, pop culture, and analysis felt almost too ambitious at times; however, I agree with Goldberg's overall thesis, that without an understanding of where we've come from, we'll cease to defend the ideals of the founders, seizing on shortcuts more and more (see tribalism and Trump).

Some significant points I noted throughout:

Goldberg gives an abbreviated history of the emergence of states and capitalism. The American project was a result of English cultural oddities that got written down, a "glorious accident."

Tribalism is our natural state. Romanticism is "a brilliant intellectual updating of the tribal instinct" that sees the modern world as alienating and wants to revert to finding meaning primarily in and through the tribe.

Governments are based on natural rights that the state has no right, under ordinary circumstances, to violate; states provisionally grant rights, and, according to the French Enlightenment view of the state, take an active role in the guidance of society. Under 20th century progressivism, the administrative state emerged--experts shaping society--"the state taking its own counsel on what society needed." It is revolutionary in this respect and operates outside of the constitutional framework and of democratic transparency. It is basically a new form of aristocracy.

The more complex government makes society, the more it rewards those (i.e., the upper class) with the resources to deal with that complexity, and the more it punishes those who do not. The children of the affluent are educated in how to maneuver in this system—and in the process, they’re learning “a profound and sophisticated ingratitude towards the country they grew up in.” The administrative state is deeply invested in the above. As it succeeds, elitism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If you start from the assumption that the people are too stupid to understand what’s in their interest and then proceed to make society a byzantine maze of hurdles, the more likely it is you’ll be able to claim you’re right.”

Trump has profoundly changed our civilizational conversation by reverting to tribalism in many ways.

Increasingly, American life has been reduced to either the individual or the state, flattening civil society (mediating institutions--see [b:The Fractured Republic: Renewing America's Social Contract in the Age of Individualism|26240786|The Fractured Republic Renewing America's Social Contract in the Age of Individualism|Yuval Levin|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1463043125s/26240786.jpg|46232990]). When the state begins to occupy the place of civil society, it becomes toxic. The erosion of civil society has caused many Americans to flock to partisanship (and virtual communities) to find meaning. Adherence to political parties didn't always look like this.

When the president or the party in power is invested with so much meaning and significance, the “outs” feel like strangers in their own land. Then it’s payback when the other side gets power. “The only solution is to break the cycle by making the state less important and letting the dying reefs of civil society grow back to health.” ( )

Good subject. the Miracle, which equals the birth of capitalism and classical liberalism, and its tension with nationalism, populism and tribalism. The end message is how people are down on capitalism without recalling that they are likely to be alive and able to read in large part because or the Miracle (of which capitalism is one half).

Generally good writing if a bit too glib at times and deep in anecdotes but not in a discussion of the source material. I had just finished reading describing a person's theory that societies have formed around their energy source and kept expecting to see it mentioned, or the concept at least, but didn't. Jonah G stated that his editor cut quite a lot (1/3rd I think), but definitely could have cut even more. 3 1/2 starts for the content, 4 because the author weaved all of the content together into a story throughout, even it he took too many pages to do that. ( )

I saw Jonah Goldberg speak in Chicago when he was at the Printers Row Lit Fest. He is a staunch libertarian, who, along with Deirdre McCloskey has influenced my thinking greatly. Suicide of the West is a disquieting book to read as we have clearly drifted from our Founders. Goldberg is more anti-Trump than I am as he sees him as an outgrowth of the fundamental fissures and decline in our nation. I see him more as a transitional, populist figure that we get from time to time. Regardless of views, Goldberg's book is an important read and correctly identifies many of the difficult issues that we face. ( )

Despite it's grim title, this is essentially an optimistic book, only because Goldberg makes a good case for saving American Democracy. And he does it with equal amounts of philosophy, political argument, and humor. It's a great read. ( )

Jonah Goldberg is a columnist for the National Review whose delightful and thought provoking writing makes the magazine worth reading. I therefore had high expectations for his latest book of political and economic philosophy, but found that it did not satisfy. He seems to say a lot in his book but without really saying anything.

His main thesis is that the tremendous material and political progress experienced by the world since 1700 is the result of what he calls the miracle of capitalism and Lockean political philosophy. In repeating his reference to "the miracle" he eventually sounds like a Pangloss telling us that this is the best of all possible worlds. I did not find him at all persuasive.

The one great virtue of the book is that it is one of those books you keep arguing with as you are reading it. ( )