For decades now, American voters have been convinced to support public policies that only benefit those in power. But how do the powerful extract consent from citizens whose own self-interest and collective well-being are constantly denied? And why do so many Americans seem to have given up on quality public education, on safe food and safe streets, on living wages—even on democracy itself? Kill It to Save It lays bare the hypocrisy of contemporary US political discourse, documenting the historical and theoretical trajectory of capitalism’s triumph over democracy.
Tackling the interconnected issues of globalization, neoliberalism, and declining public institutions, Corey Dolgon argues that American citizens now accept reform policies that destroy the public sector (seemingly in the public interest) and a political culture that embraces what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”—a willingness to agree to arguments that feel right “in the gut” regardless of fancy science or messy facts. In a narrative that stretches from the post?Vietnam War era to the present parade of political reality TV and debates over Black Lives Matter, Dolgon dismantles US common-sense cultural discourse. His original, alternative account reveals that this ongoing crisis in US policy will not cease until a critical mass of American citizens recognize what has been lost, and in whose interest.
Corey’s thoroughly researched and extensively annotated exposition of how the pursuit of profit and power have compromised American systems of education, health, economic security, and justice is all the more impressive for having been written before the election of Donald Trump. Howard Zinn would have been proud.
Essentially a book about the evils of neoliberalism and how it undermined democracy over the decades in the US context. While this is an important topic, this book is terribly written, and not worth anyone's time. Materials seem assembled in haste, and while the book has a lengthy bibliography, it doesn't feel the book has academic rigour. Often, cases or examples used are irrelevant, and it's written in an angry journalistic - and second-rate journalism at that - language. Ultimately, I could not complete reading it, and do not recommend anyone to spend time on this.