United We Fall: Ending America's Love Affair with the Political Center

by Philip T. Neisser

United We Fall argues that today's harmful levels of polarization in American politics can be ratcheted down only by giving up the twin notions that the center is the sweet spot for political efficiency and that all differences deserve equal weight in the democratic balance. The American people need instead to embrace a political credo of civic engagement, confrontation with open ears, and spirited debate. The commonplace United We Stand must be supplanted by the insight that democracy is strongest where it acknowledges and formalizes real division. But surely bipartisan rancor in America and extremist violence around the world are symptoms of too much disagreement--not too little? No, asserts the author: The root cause of political violence of all stripes is the failure of opposing camps to engage each other openly and persuasively on their genuine and irreconcilable differences.

In making the case for principled disagreement, United We Fall reviews the history of good and bad disagreement practices in American politics, analyzes our mass media through a pro-disagreement lens, and draws on studies of conformist group behavior to expose the manipulative dynamics of contemporary dialog initiatives. Neisser assesses best practices for conducting public debate at all civic levels on the most vexed issues in America today: terrorism, multiculturalism, religion in politics, social and family values, race, the media, education, and the environment.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0313358850
• ISBN13: 9780313358852
• Release Date: June 2008
• Publisher: Praeger
• Length: 248 Pages
• Weight: 1.25 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 6.5" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

A call for disagreement

In this book, United We Fall, Phil Neisser offers an interesting and compelling case for engaging in disagreement, or what he calls cross-border conversations. To make his case, he deftly weaves together the findings from a variety of scholarly disciplines, including political science, history, psychology, and sociology. He also makes use of numerous historical events, and even his own personal experiences, as a means to explain and illustrate the importance of disagreement for American society. Not surprisingly, his argument flies in the face of the recent (and not so recent) calls for national unity and agreement, especially following the events of September 11, 2001. The call to national agreement and consensus has been made by leaders from across the political spectrum, both now and in decades past. Those who dare to disagree with national or local politics have been decried as un-American and unpatriotic. But Neisser begs to differ. He claims that disagreement is a sign of civic engagement, and that the only way to truly understand what others are thinking and feeling is to seek out those with whom we disagree and to engage them in dialogue. Our tendency is to seek out those whose views are similar to ours. This familiarity is comforting and allows us to feel secure in our views. But, by limiting our search for information to like-minded sources, Neisser argues that we are ultimately sabotaging ourselves. Healthy debate and the consideration of contradictory viewpoints are at the heart of good decision making (as opposed to the disastrous outcome of groupthink which may result from habitually considering only one point of view). Although engaging those with whom we disagree is often an uncomfortable and difficult exercise, Neisser argues that the endeavor is usually worthwhile. Even if a mutually satisfying outcome does not result, the process of debate and discussion with others whose points of view differ from our own can still offer a valuable learning experience. I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in political science, psychology, sociology, history or current events. In truth, anyone who is concerned about the future of our society should take the time to read Neisser's book and to put his words into practice.