I do political science things for a living, so I know I'm going to enjoy hate-reading this (if I can find it for free).
UPDATE - 28/06: After the egregious and harmful decision by the conservative SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade, I want to reiterate how problematic this book is, and that when it comes to human rights, there's no "meeting in the middle".
--
It's a year later, and I still do political science (and policy) things for a living. There's all of one copy of this book available in the local libraries near me (fortunately, all things considered), and that's why I'm late to this party.
But first, let's talk about tax reform. You might think I'm joking, but tax reform, and generally funding public policy measures forms such a big part of this story that I genuinely think it's important to discuss tax reform for this review. Without going into too much detail, generally speaking, the two main political parties in the United States have different (to say the least) stances when it comes to who should be taxed, how much they should be taxed, and what these taxes should pay for. I have friends who're fiscally conservative, and I'm still friends with these people. That is not to say that I agree with them, but I guess in theory, I can understand why people think that a trickle-down system would work.
The difference in the approach to public policy in this book, however, is kind of a deal-breaker for me because honestly, the way that it's structured reads a little bit like Republican propaganda. Let's take the issue of tax reform. Our very strong feminist (tm) protagonist Kate has to meet Republican policy-bro Ben to discuss a Child Care Act, and this is sort of the meet-cute setup. The problem honestly starts right from there because Ben immediately disregards the Act, because well, there's the extremely, very important tax reform to work on, and there is no way in hell the Republicans would favour actually spending some money to help people who need it. Especially since they now have an opportunity to undo the good policies from the previous 8 years (Ben's words, not mine). God forbid they do and people forget to lift themselves up by the bootstraps!
The singular idea that the rich are rich because they work hard and thus we should not tax them is very simplistic and egregious. It disregards the hundreds of thousands of people that work for the aforementioned rich, and on whose back the billionaires earn their billions. That's more or less the stance that Ben seems to take anytime Kate says "hey, maybe taxes can be used to help people" - his immediate response is always "but who's going to pay for it?" The notion that we're all a few steps away from being billionaires if only we work hard enough is one that really grinds my gears. It refuses to take into consideration the myriad of social, socio-economic, systemic, historical issues that an overwhelming majority of people will have to overcome to even start thinking about being billionaires. But this dream, I guess, is more important to preserve than the reality of providing universal healthcare.
In the context of this story, in fact, even Kate's mother flippantly remarks that she
"[has] never understood how [the Democrats] became the party of higher taxes"
. An astute observation! The moment is used to show how amazing it is that she can criticise her own party and also for purposes of humour, which I don't seem to get. Honestly, I would have let Ms Daniels get away with this had she allowed for similar criticism from Ben (or his people) about Republican policies, especially under a certain former President. But alas, we don't really get that. We do get to know the fun fact of Ben having attended one of the inaugural balls, and beaming happily in it, so do with that information what you will.
What we do get is that Ben is only a fiscal conservative who could be making millions, but instead, look how noble he is, helping the little man with his tax reform. He doesn't have a problem with "the gays" (quelle surprise), and that *must* mean that he's one of the good Republicans. It isn't that Ben doesn't get learning moments in the story; it's that these a-ha moments are used to show how much smarter he is than those dumb people who believe in higher taxes. There's an instance in the book where Kate takes Ben to a seminar about how taxing the rich can pay for universal healthcare, and because the Republicans are so open-minded, of course Ben agrees to go. But oh no, the democratic socialist is stumped by Ben's simple numbers question because for whatever reason, he didn't prepare for it. Those dumb Democrats!
Before I forget, Ben also mentions that he's sure the Republican President would win the next term as well:
“Careful, Kate. You’re gonna need my help over the next eight years a lot more than I’ll need yours.”
So, you know, considering the reality of what happened, that much has definitely aged like milk.
There's another teaching moment where the Republican senator that Ben works for waxes poetic about the Second Amendment and how it's oh-so-important to own guns. Kate wants to know what Ben thinks about that but he toes the party line (pretty much), and only gives the vaguest of responses when it comes to whether people should be allowed to own automatic weapons, and whether universal background checks should be introduced. We're expected to believe that Ben is a moderate Republican who really cares for the little man because the most "Republican" thing about him is that he owns guns and doesn't believe in taxing the rich. But the thing is, in the timeline that he works in, Republican policies caused some real problems for real people in a way where claiming that you don't just toe the party line and can actually think for yourself is no longer a valid argument. Pretending that you can pick and choose what specific Republican traits you can claim towards your moderate Republicanism so casually is dangerous.
On the other hand, Kate, who claims to be "very progressive" makes moves towards the right side of the political spectrum. She finds herself defending Ben's tax reform law to her progressive friends because
"tax cuts [for the rich] are supposed to help the middle class", or so Ben says.
Spoiler alert, they don't actually help, but that goes against the messaging of this book. Similarly, Kate's "progressive" friends are shown as being in echo chambers, and only favouring relationships with progressive people, whilst Ben and his Republican comrades (heh) are portrayed as VERY OPEN MINDED, and so friendly to those uptight, stuck up Democrats please and thank you.
Then comes the whole guncident (I am shamelessly borrowing from the infamous GBBO bincident). Kate walks home from work every night, as most of us do, and Ben does not like that. Even in the beginnings of their friendship, he patronisingly presumes to know better about the risks involved in doing that than Kate, a woman who actually walks home every night. Because women who walk home alone every night have never once thought of the risks that walking alone at night would entail. We always have our headphones on and are VERY distracted. So he starts sending her articles about how crime rates in D.C. are high, and also encourages her to pack heat (aka carry a gun).
There is so much to unpack here, but let's start with the D.C. crime rates. Most of these crimes that Ben seems to talk about are committed with … guns. Gun-violence is one of the biggest contributors to this high-crime rate that he talks about. Also, I used to live in D.C. and like most people who live in D.C., I can tell you that there is more nuance to this crime rate/high crime phenomenon. What Ben also fails to mention is that a LOT of these "crimes" are bias-crimes or hate-crimes, mostly directed at LGBTQ+ and non-White residents. I also think that there's an element of racism and classism that comes with making such a blanket statement about crime rates in a city like D.C., but maybe that's overthinking it.
However, what I can say for sure is that carrying a gun isn't really likely to make her life that much safer. There is ample research from around the world that shows that gun control is better for reducing crime and violence as opposed to the lack of it. But, as we've established, all-American boy Ben is pro the Second Amendment, and he himself owns three guns. He takes Kate to a gun range so she can learn how to shoot, and lo and behold, the once vehemently anti-gun Kate begins to think maybe guns are not so bad after all. She has one errant thought of whether he may be trying to "convert" her, but brushes it under the carpet and everything is fine.
But anyway, as the story progresses, we learn that the reason why Ben is so overprotective is because his sister was date-raped when she was in college and he fears for Kate's safety. Which, I guess I understand fearing for the safety of someone you care about but are guns really the solution? I think not. Especially because it's been established that Ben is not only a policy advisor, but a policy advisor with some clout, and so he could have, I don't know, taken the legislative route to women's safety (like re-introducing the Violence Against Women Act with stricter provisions and better recourse)? But oh hey, he only likes showing he cares if he's also able to toe the party line whilst doing that.
We also learn that Kate's Child Care Bill dies in Congress. Look, I get it. Passing legislations in an increasingly partisan world is really hard, and a progressive bill as hers was made out to be, would not have survived a Republican Congress. What irks me is that the way this works out. Turns out that while Kate's bill has failed, Ben's tax reform is a huge Republican success (which only makes me wonder how many people it fucked over). And then, Ben uses his policy-bro clout to get an amended version of Kate's Bill (possibly with some terrible, useless, and terribly useless rider attached) to the Republicans' attention, so it can pass. And then Kate is so. fucking. grateful. There's the obvious white male saviour vibe here, but honestly that's not what pisses me off the most. See, I know policy-bros like Ben here. I've worked with them, and the fact that I have to read about them in works of fiction is the equivalent for me, of nails on a chalkboard. Just, the blatant and constant Republican victories, and the almost worshipful behaviour towards someone who worked for such a dangerous, atrocious administration makes me speechless.
So, to sum up here's how the policy making/working across the aisle issues have been worked out here:
1. There's no real debate or discussion about the really controversial topics, like defunding the police or protecting trans rights or even whether climate change is real. It's assumed that Ben is actually a totally chill dude because he buys into all of this, and really, he's just fiscally conservative.
2. The following topics have been discussed: taxing the billionaires and gun control.
2.a. Kate initially believes in taxing the billionaires to help pay for children's needs but then goes on to defend the Republican tax reform plan, which Ben was an architect of, to her friends.
2.b. Kate, who was anti-gun, after going to a gun range all of once, becomes more open minded about gun-ownership.
3. Where there's an actual possibility of Ben maybe having to change his opinion on something, it is on the same two topics of taxing the rich to pay for healthcare and gun ownership.
3.a. He concludes that the person arguing for taxing the rich to pay for healthcare is unsure about the numbers, and two whole lines are dedicated to this line of argument.
3.b. When questioned about his party's stance on guns, based on a statement his Senator made, he brushes it off by saying that Kate should not want to argue the Second Amendment with him.
This kind of narrative may have actually worked 10 years ago. But, Ms Daniels, baby, please read the room. There has been so much death and destruction caused by the last administration that a sunny, cute, "oh we should all get along" outlook is the last thing anyone wants or needs.
I don't normally get political in my reviews. This is what I for a living, and honestly, for the most part, Goodreads is the one part of my life I like keeping separate and away from all of it. However, the tone and the timing of this book are all wrong, and in this case, it contributes to how I feel about this book. I am, generally speaking, a pacifist, and I believe in bipartisanship. However, this book does not feel like bipartisanship. It feels like a certain agenda is being pushed in the form of a fluffy romance, and that, I am uncomfortable with.
*All of the facts regarding the political and policy issues I've spoken about can be cited, and when I find the time, I'll put up all the links in the comment section.*