Book discussion: It Can’t Happen Here Recently updated !
Sinclair Lewis’s novel of an American dictatorship, It Can’t Happen Here, seems even more timely today than when it was published in 1935. It tells of the election of Buzz Windrip as president, his seizure of absolute power, and how it affects people.
Windrip is so Trump-like you might think Lewis had a crystal ball looking into our present. He aims for total control while posturing as an ordinary, unassuming person. His platform is incoherent, laced with bigotry while appealing to the “Forgotten Man.” His Cabinet selections are based on personal loyalty. He has a personal police force, the “Minute Men,” to intimidate his critics. He even has an advisor who is smarter and more ruthless than he is.
What make’s Windrip’s success possible is the complacency and indifference of the American people. As he plainly says he’s going to reduce Congress to an advisory capacity, people think he’s just going to fix the country up. The novel’s main focus isn’t on the centers of power but on Doremus Jessup, the publisher of a small Vermont newspaper who’s trying to make sense of it all. This lets Lewis show how people react to Windrip before and after his takeover. Once he’s in office, he immediately suppresses the legislative and judicial branches, which give him no further trouble.
Lewis had seen what had happened in twentieth-century Russia, Germany, and Italy. He knew the USA wasn’t immune. Reading the novel gives a better understanding of what’s happening — and what could happen — today.
The cover art looks like jigsaw pieces that don’t obviously fit together, which could also describe the book. It’s a series of loosely connected essays. The second one is the text of a speech, which with a little editing would have fitted better into the book. Some of the sections are quite good. “Zora Neale Hurston, Undefeated” makes me want to learn more about that author. On the other hand, “Anarchy, State, and Zombie Dystopia,” a discussion of The Walking Dead, left me confused because he assumes the reader is already familiar with it. Someone not as obsessively familiar as me with Star Trek might say the same of “Navigating by Fixed Stars: The Moral Trajectory of Star Trek.”
Cancel culture is a prominent, ugly feature of public discourse today, yet many claim it doesn’t exist. They say there are only “consequences,” which amounts to saying that if you’re subjected to abuse because you said something controversial, what else did you expect?