Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart – Again

by Robert Kagan

A chilling and clear-eyed warning about the threats to our democracy posed by the increasing radicalization of the Republican Party, from a leading historian and intellectual

The 2024 election could be the last free election held in a unified America. So warns Robert Kagan in this brilliant and terrifying analysis of the perilous state of democracy in the United States today. If Donald Trump loses the upcoming election, as he did in 2020, but refuses to accept the result, as he also did in the last election, he is likely to call on his millions of followers to repudiate the election results. It will be a short step from there to Republican-dominated states rejecting the legitimacy of the federal government and effectively seceding. The United States at that point will cease to be united, with grave consequences for both Americans and the world.

In Rebellion, Kagan dives deeper than the op-eds and think pieces to explore the historical forces that have brought us to this moment—in particular the long history of opposition to liberalism, and to government, that has shaped America’s character from the time of the Revolution to today. Trump’s unique capacity to tap into that tradition of dissent and circumvent the American system has brought us to the edge of dissolution—not for the first time in our history but possibly the last. This is an elegant and deeply informed synthesis of history, contemporary politics, and ideas that sheds light on this crucial moment.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, Political Science, Current Affairs, United States

258 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 30, 2024

About the author

Robert Kagan is an American historian and foreign policy commentator. Robert Kagan is the son of Yale classical historian and author, Donald Kagan. He is married to Victoria Nuland, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, and has two children. He is the brother of political commentator Frederick Kagan.

Kagan is a columnist for the Washington Post and is syndicated by the New York Times Syndicate. He is a contributing editor at both The New Republic and the Weekly Standard, and has also written for the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, World Affairs, and Policy Review.

Reviews

[CoachJim · Rating 5 out of 5]

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Sinclair Lewis

The election eight years ago and now the reelection of Donald Trump
as the President of the United States has left many people wondering how that happened. Robert Kagan in this book frames that as a battle between the liberal and the anti-liberal factions in this country. He begins by explaining what is meant by liberalism and its many connotations over the years from the role of government in social affairs to the neoliberalism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He also traces the roots of the anti-liberal faction to the actions of the slaveholders who wanted adequate representation in the government to preserve their “property”.

He explains and follows the ebb and flow of this battle throughout the history of this country. This battle was most apparent during the Civil War. It continued during the post-Reconstruction, in the 1920s with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, in the 1940s with the Dixiecrats, in the 1950s with Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, to the Christian nationalist movement and the Republican Party of today.

A dramatic shift in the battle between the liberal and anti-liberal factions occurred in 1954 with the Brown vs. The Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court. Prior to this a common view of liberals was that given enough time the South would conform to the integration of Black Americans into society. But many Americans were shocked at how white Southerners still believed preserving white supremacy was important to their way of life. This betrayed the idea of an inevitability of liberalism.

In the mid-century the anti-liberal conservatives lacked a powerful national’s leader. Southerners were joined by religious Protestants who were also unhappy with the liberal onslaught, especially after the Supreme Court ruled against school prayer. In 1980 anti-liberal conservatives cheered the arrival of the Reagan Revolution returning anti-liberal conservatives to positions of power for the first time since the 1920s.

The anti-liberal forces began drifting into the Republican Party. The GOP would become the party of the South led by members like Newt Gingrich. The members of the Democratic Party which had once been identified as the party of slaveholders and Jim Crow migrated to the Republican Party. The GOP which had once been the party of Lincoln was now the “party of white males eager to hold on to their primacy in American society.” (Page 162).

A major turning point for the Republican Party occurred in 2008 with the election of the first Black president. The Tea Party movement brought together the many factions of the anti-liberals. The white supremacy aspect united this movement. Racism was now visible in the party. Whereas moderate republicans pushed for a more pro-immigration policy, in 2012 the more conservative House of Representatives killed an immigration bill. An anti-immigration pledge became the ticket to power in the GOP.

The author explains the presence of the Christian Nationalist element in the Republican Party. Like the election of a Black American as president of the United States, the Supreme Court rulings outlawing school prayer, legalizing abortion and allowing same-sex marriages energized this element to exert an unholy influence.

The title of this book is Rebellion and in a chapter with the same title Kagan explains how although white Americans, Christian Nationalists, and white supremacists are becoming a dwindling percentage of our nations population, they have become a dominant majority of the Republican Party. He explains how they saw (or see) the 2024 election as an opportunity to overthrow our government and eradicate liberalism. Although he does not refer to the Project 2025 document republicans have written to describe their goals, he does describe many of its objectives. Now that the republicans control all the levers of power in government, the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court they will be able to implement their government based on the “common good”. Kagan does point out the difficulty they will have defining that based on centuries of history of conflicts among different religions and different nationalities. In the meantime Donald Trump with his unique charisma and uncanny ability to appeal to a certain type of voter as the leading spokesman and defender of white Christian supremacy will Make America Great Again which means restoring white cultural and political primacy.

Election Post Mortem

Since the election last Tuesday scores of pundits have written hundreds of articles about how Kamala Harrie lost this election. In everything I have read I failed to find an adequate explanation for the fact that a resounding majority of my fellow Americans chose a dark, demonic, old man instead of a strong, capable, intelligent woman to be their next President of the United States. Perhaps they didn’t hear his speeches filled with lies, bigotry and threats, or listen to her speak of tax credits for young families, affordable housing and an “opportunity economy”. Her campaign slogans of “We Are Not Going Back’ and “Turn the Page” should have resonated with anyone that remembers the first Trump presidency. There is no perfect candidate and Kamala Harris and her campaign certainly had their flaws, but they pale in comparison to the threat represented by Donald Trump. The only explanation for this is one that includes misogyny or racism.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an interview with a New York Times book review editor who asked why he gave the book this particular title, Kagan said, "That’s what the Trump movement is: a rebellion against the America that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other founders envisioned. It’s not the first anti-liberal rebellion and won’t be the last." A short answer, one that serves well as a distillation of what "Rebellion" is about.

"Rebellion" is cousin to Heather Cox Richardson's "Democracy Awakening" in its purpose. Both examine the history of anti-liberalism in American history, from the beginning to the current day. Unlike Richardson, though, Kagan is a neoconservative; his analysis comes from the Right, not the Left. But like Richardson, he sees the dire threat to democracy the nation is -- once again -- facing. As Kagan shows, alongside the liberalism inherent in the Declaration of Independence and other Enlightenment-influenced works there has always been a powerful strain of anti-liberalism in the country. Sometimes its darker impulses recede from view for a while, at other times it reappears.

Kagan is direct in his sobering message: "The idea that all Americans share a commitment to the nation’s founding principles has always been a pleasing myth, or perhaps a noble lie," he writes. "We prefer to believe we all share the same fundamental goals and only disagree on the means of achieving them. But, in fact, large numbers of Americans have always rejected the founders’ claim that all men are created equal... and they have persistently struggled against the imposition of those liberal values on their lives."

I listened to the book rather than reading it, so I am limited in what I can share here. I felt compelled, however, to give an accurate sense of what Kagan is saying and how he says it, so I made a visit to the library, went through a physical copy, and found representative excerpts. One in particular jumped out at me when I first heard it in the audio book. It is, I think, a truth we must be made aware of:

"The inevitability of liberalism is a liberal myth. From a historical perspective, liberalism, freedom, protection of the rights of the individual have been the rare aberration. Since the dawn of humankind, people have been ruled by tyrannies of one form or another. That is the norm."

"Rebellion"isn't a long book, but it covers a lot of historical ground, ranging from colonial times through the years leading to the Civil War, and the numerous post-Reconstruction irruptions of anti-liberalism in the Jim Crow South and the KKK, the McCarthy and John Birch Society years, and on to the Tea Party and MAGA. Kagan's clearly didn't write "Rebellion" as an intellectual exercise. He is deeply concerned about what might lie ahead for the country, and he is explicit in what needs to be done:

The battles that Americans have fought in the past must be fought again and again. Can Americans rise to the occasion again? More specifically, can Republican voters? It really is up to them. Let’s stipulate that there is much about modern American liberalism they don’t like, that many liberal policies don’t work or are ill-advised, that the Democrats on many issues have been too much swayed by a progressive left that is just as opposed to American liberalism as the right. Even if that is true, is it worth overthrowing the entire system, as so many antiliberal conservatives today demand? Is that what the average Republican voters have signed up for? One suspects not, but their indifference to the threat posed by Trump has made the dissolution of American liberal democracy possible. If American democracy explodes this year, it will be because Republican voters let it happen.

"Rebellion" adds weight and gravitas to the alarm expressed in "Democracy Awakening." That it comes from the Right makes it all the more necessary. It's a convincing argument. The real question is, will it penetrate the noise, fury, and distraction of our time?

[Naomi Krokowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is terrifying. The facts are indisputable to me: our United States were founded by visionaries who thoroughly believed in separation of Church and State, but for our entire history and existence many Americans have ignored that belief. I’m bracing myself for the insanity and upheaval that I believe will come in the days after November 5. I’m 60 years old and I doubt the US of A will survive as I’ve grown up knowing it. There have always been racists/bigots/Christian Nationalists who deny the rights of women/minorities/people of color. They’ve succeeded in secession during the Civil War, thwarting Civil Rights and desegregation when I was a baby, and removing and restricting previously protected rights up until today.
This history of the through lines that connect all this struggle and got us the megalomaniac presumptive Republican nominee is helpful in explaining how much is on the line. I’m resigned to minority rule as I’ve experienced it under the current White Supremacy Court our previous president forced on us. Thanks to this book I’m now resigning myself as well to turmoil at the hands of the illiberal MAGA maniacs. We will have their tantrums and fits to deal with no matter how the voting goes.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kagan starts with the dawn of the country and argues that the framers were liberal in their views about what kind of country they envisioned and traced it throughout our history to the present. But he is very clear that even when the Constitution was written, there were anti-liberals in existence (the Anti-Federalists) whose strain also runs throughout our history. Both have been in the ascendency during different periods- the secessions in 1861, those opposed to Reconstruction, "redemption" at the end of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the McCarthy era, those opposed to Civil Rights down to Trump in the present day. Liberal elements have been present during all this time but since the Civil War, we are perhaps in danger of losing the democracy at present.

The book really is a warning to Americans to fight against Trump and his minions to prevent their taking over the country.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Kagan is a distinguished historian and public intellectual on law and politics. His book is a short argument that the antiliberal tendencies apparent in US politics after 2000 and especially with Trump are not unusual or atypical. On the contrary that represent a recent reintroduction of consistent anti liberal trends that have been apparent in America since the Revolution and the Founding Fathers. US liberal democracy should not be taken for granted and has even been consistently supported for long period of US history.

This is a helpful account that helps to place what seems unusual in MAGA politics in a broader context that shows it as more understandable if not more acceptable. Kagan’s historical analysis is effective.

[Sid Groeneman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read countless numbers of books and articles dealing with Trump's (and the MAGA movement's) attraction, but this is the best account by far. Conservative author Robert Kagan asserts it’s not just racism, Christian supremacy, immigration, growing economic inequality, or wokeness, although all of those play a part. The answer is inherent in the anti-liberalism that’s always existed in America, going back before the American Revolution. The great insight is that this is not new but has existed throughout our history.

The cold fact that many will have a hard time accepting is that some Americans have never abided the founding principle of equal rights (Locke-ian liberalism) and never will. This is most pointedly illustrated by the resistance exhibited by Southern whites from slavery through Reconstruction and up to the present. But it's not just anti-Black racism; anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and non-Anglo-Saxon immigration have also been prominent during much of American history.

Kagan's enduring explanation of Trump/MAGA is the best because it is accounts for the various causes in the most parsimonious way (check out "Occam's Razor”) and does so through a compelling narrative. Another reason for liking the book is its compact, 218-page overview of American political history. I found the liberalism vs. anti-liberalism construct so powerful that it might replace, or at least supplement, the traditional left-right continuum as a superior explanation of American politics, especially in today’s context.

A third insight is Kagan's implicit debunking of the view that it is only the less educated propelling Trump’s illiberalism by highlighting prominent academics such as Patrick Deneen who unabashedly espouse Christian nationalism. He might have also mentioned recent initiatives by the Heritage Foundation and the Claremont Institute which seek to further the MAGA agenda. Lastly is Kagan's clarifying distinctions among concepts which are commonly misunderstood and sometimes confused such as democracy, liberalism, conservatism, and natural rights.

"Rebellion" warns of the imminent danger of Trump's threat (as I write in Spring, 2024) as well as explaining its source. If he wins re-election, it could be the end of Constitutional liberalism and free elections. However, a brighter picture emerges if he loses this year because changing demographics (further decline in the white population) will increase pressure to sustain liberalism. Kagan finds it highly unlikely that a replacement will emerge with sufficient Trump-like appeal to lead a successful rebellion--at least not in the foreseeable future.

[Alan Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robert Kagan is famous (or infamous) for being one of the foremost neoconservative foreign policy experts of earlier decades. This book, however, has nothing to do with foreign policy or with neoconservatism as is popularly understood. And, although Kagan had been a Republican in his earlier life, he left the Republican Party when it turned to Trumpism in 2016. It is unclear to me the extent, if any, that he still supports the foreign policy neoconservatism that he earlier espoused.

In this book, Kagan addresses the cyclical rise and fall of liberalism throughout American history. By “liberalism” Kagan does not simply mean the left in U.S. political thought and action. He recognizes that that both the far right, currently under the influence of Trump, and portions of the left are “antiliberal” in his sense of the word. He uses the term “liberal” in a scholarly sense as meaning the intellectual and political movement commenced by John Locke, embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, restored by Abraham Lincoln, and dominant in the United States in the decades after World War Two. As he states on pages 13–14 (Kindle edition) of this book:

What do we mean by the word “liberalism”? In the latter half of the twentieth century, the word acquired a great deal of baggage: to be “liberal” came to mean favoring a large government role in alleviating poverty, regulating the economy, and providing a whole panoply of social goods; to some it also had implications for foreign policy. To many, liberalism stood for progress, both moral and material. It was a meliorist liberalism in keeping with the Enlightenment’s belief in progress and the vital relationship between scientific knowledge and morality, in which the gains in the former invariably translated into gains for the latter. To many, liberalism was synonymous with capitalism and free markets, such that the more free-market-oriented policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were labeled “neoliberalism” by their critics.

Yet liberalism as it emerged from the American Revolution was both less and more than both supporters and critics often claim. Its sole function was to protect certain fundamental rights of all individuals against the state and the wider community—rights that John Locke identified as life, liberty, and property, with “liberty” encompassing the right to believe in the gods one chooses, or no god at all, without fear of oppression by the state or one’s neighbors, and to be secure in one’s person from unlawful abuse and seizure. These rights, Locke asserted—and this was what was truly revolutionary—could not be granted by rulers, or even by “the people.” They were inherent in the nature of being human—“natural rights,” as the American founders called them. The purpose of government—the most important purpose—was to protect those rights.

In contrast, “antiliberalism” means, for Kagan, the traditional, theocratic, hierarchical ideology of the colonial Massachusetts Bay theocracy, the slaveholding (and later Jim Crow) South, the typical American political and social mentality between the two world wars in the twentieth century, and the views and actions of such movements as the current authoritarian and theocratic ideology of MAGA Republicans and their scholarly apologists.

This book details the themes and counterthemes of liberalism and antiliberalism throughout American history. It is an excellent and often original analysis and interpretation of this continuing struggle. The book concludes with a warning about the threat to liberalism currently posed by the violent thought and deeds of the American far right.

(edited October 16, 2024)

[Vince · Rating 4 out of 5]

"[Republicans'] indifference to the threat posed by Trump has made the dissolution of American liberal democracy possible."

Een neocon die waarschuwt voor een perfect storm van antiliberalisme, het moet niet gekker worden. Mooie beschouwing over de historische strijd om wie er wel en niet onder 'all men' valt en welke 'rights' er dan 'inalienable' zijn, plus een verrassend helder en kritisch commentaar over racisme als veelvoorkomende reactie op emancipatie.

Het grote zwakke punt vind ik dat het impliciet alsnog American exceptionalism als uitgangspunt hanteert: weinig woorden over buitenlandse inmenging, de bredere internationale tendens en de rol van lobbyisten en miljardairs (al is het maar als versterkende factor).

[Edward · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

This book came out in 2024 before Donald Trump won his second presidency. It's truly a must-read. It shows that the split between our country began at its inception.

"Trump was not inevitable. What was inevitable was the clash between liberalism and antiliberalism. It was inevitable because it has never ceased."

I highly recommend.

[Jon Marlow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic read

Kagan has distilled the essence of the Founders fears about our republic’s fragility into a cogent argument about the real and urgent threats it currently faces. The histories he expertly outlines jibe with original sources and events in a clear-eyed fashion that can only be ignored by those unwilling to see. Timely and eminently readable.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This unpretentious little book may be the best analysis I’ve read yet of the historical roots of the MAGA movement. Kagan, a never-Trump former Republican, places the cult of Trump in the context of the battle that goes back to America’s founding between those who accept the liberalism (in the classical sense of the word) of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and those who don’t.

In a short romp across American history, he traces the through-line running from slavery to the overthrow of Reconstruction to Jim Crow to the second KKK of the 1920s to the Dixiecrats to McCarthyism to the John Birch Society to the Christian nationalist movement to the New Right and Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party. He argues convincingly that the ultimate triumph of the liberal values enshrined in our founding documents has never been assured and is less so now than at any time since the Civil War.

The assertion that all men are created equal and should be equally protected by their government was truly radical and has never been fully embraced. While one oppressed group after another has used the “rights producing machine” of the founding documents to demand the freedoms promised therein, one anti-liberal movement after another has risen to oppose them. But only rarely have the forces of anti-liberalism been strong enough and determined enough to pose a serious threat to the survival of our constitutional system. As recently as eight years ago, most of us assumed such a time would never come again. Kagan insists (fists shaking us by the lapels) that it has.

Unfortunately, William Faulkner had it right when he said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 1/2 stars. Kagan relates how since the beginning of our country's history a large segment of the population has not bought into the founders declaration that all men are created equal . This sentiment or antiliberalism as Kagan styles it , has lead to periods in our history where the constitutional safeguards have been flouted and taken a backseat to fears and prejudice . Our democracy has rebounded in each instance , but it is not a given that it always will. Kagan believes that Trump poses the greatest threat to the principles this country stands for leading perhaps to the downfall of our liberal traditions as enshrined in the constitution .

[Scott Wood · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads as if Kagan, a smart guy, whipped it out over a weekend.

The fundamental issue is that "liberalism" has been used over the years to mean almost anything under the sun, from a libertarian utopia of virtually no government at all to a communist totalitarian dictatorship. To have any meaning the author is going to have to explain himself, and Kagan doesn't.

At some point the modern day apostles of Jefferson and Madison count as liberals, John Stuart Mill would be a liberal, Woodrow Wilson and the rest of the first era progressives would be liberals despite their deep, abiding fondness for eugenics and scientific racism, and certainly modern progressives count as liberals despite their incessant bleating for ever increasing government control over everything.

The only people who aren't liberals are William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan, despite their fondness for Jefferson and Madison and all things US Constitutional, and, of course, Donald Trump, despite his constant little guy hatred of foreign trade, which makes him a Sherrod Brown-style union man true and true. Kagan writes of liberals and conservatives with all the depth and knowledge of a precocious eighth-grader.

He is a proponent of replacement theory, the idea that all good liberals are supposed to attack for the time being that demographic shift is going to rid us of those pesky white people anyway. ("Meanwhile, the overall long-term prospects for American liberalism are actually bright, if only because the demographic shift is a reality that can't be blinked away."). Which may be true, but I bet it won't manifest itself the way he thinks, if for no other reason that whites are pretty damned liberal and a whole bunch of the replacers are not. Something he apparently doesn't recognize: "...white people may not change their attitudes toward other racil and ethnic groups--after all, they haven't changed in two hundred years". Really, Robert? Do you really think that, say, race relations are exactly the same in 2024 as they were in 1824? Robert Kagan should read some Thomas Sowell on the topic.

Kagan writes "Any sixty-five-year-old white, heterosexual male knows that he grew up using language and thinking about Black people, women, gay people, and other non-white people and nonheterosexuals in ways that today are widely and correctly regarded as unacceptable." I honestly don't know what he's talking about. I AM a sixty-one year old white, heterosexual male and I think about black people, women, gay people, and other non-white people and nonheterosexuals pretty much exactly the way I did forty years ago. And, in case you were wondering, it in a completely acceptable to modern ears way now. I honestly believe that the Kagans of the world just make things up about the past to make themselves feel oh so much better about themselves.

For all of my life I've heard people talk about the not too terribly distant past, but one that I wasn't around for, as somehow unusually horrible for X. I couldn't contradict them because I wasn't there. And I was inclined to assume that they were right. Well, now the not too terribly distant past was the 80's, and I was around then and I can tell you that, no, it wasn't like that. Not at all. They are lying to you. Or, at least, making up a fantasy to make themselves feel oh so better about themselves. Don't believe them. I'm not going to say that the years of Bull Conner were all wonderful. But the years of Ronald Reagan were not full of horrid miscreants. I was there. They weren't.

And this: "...and not today, when the unwarranted killing of Black people by police inspires for so many white Americans more sympathy for the police than for their victims." The "victims" of the police. When you ask college students the question "How many unarmed black people are killed by the police in a year" and you get a median answer between 1000 and 10000 while the true answer is 6 (and the number for whites is 15), perhaps the police do deserve a little sympathy, too. (Those numbers are made up, but I believe representative).

Finally, I'm not actually going to push too hard on this one, but it is indicative of slap-dash nature of this book that Kagan actually wrote "...conservative law professor at New York University, Richard Epstein, was so slavishly loyal to Trump...." The notoriously anti-Trump Epstein ought to sue Kagan for libel.

Kagan has some good points to make, such as his comment that "(T)he American academy has been badly damaged by rampant ideological intolerance and by the faculties' assaults on liberalism itself as somehow being the cause of the nation's ills rather than the answer." But, overall, it is an embarrassing mishmash of nonsense. I had just finished reading his previous book, 'The Ghost at the Feast', on US Foreign policy from 1900 to 1941, which was genuinely enlightening and illuminating. He should stick to that.

[William Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kagan is very thoughtful, as always, in this book. But he's scared that America will be a dictatorship if Donald Trump wins the election. This fear is misplaced. If Trump wins there will be a lot of problems, to be sure. But there won't be a dictatorship, which is a coherent and recognizable system of government. Instead, if Trump wins, there will be an incoherent, volatile, and unpredictable mix of some government institutions that function democratically and some that don’t.

A dictator dictates the workings of government. Merriam Webster defines a dictator as “one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power.”

This is what Trump will want to achieve. But contrary to Kagan's prognostications, he won't get anywhere near “complete autocratic control” over American government. To be a dictatorship people have to actually do the things the dictator says. If Trump wins in 2024 the resistance to his presidency will be fierce at every level of government.

The one way Trump could actually achieve dictatorship is if he commandeered the military to use force—or its threat—throughout the country on his behalf. But there’s no reason whatsoever to think he could pull that off. Trump has long had strained relations with military leaders, including his Secretaries of Defense John Mattis and Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. As we saw with General Milley—who actively opposed Trump's attempt to reverse the 2020 presidential election results—military leaders won’t just obey Trump’s illegal initiatives. The military doesn’t “take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” Milley recently said. “We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America—and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

Trump 2.0 would have an ironclad grip on some things, like international diplomacy and statehouses dominated by his loyalists. He would have some control in other areas, like executive-branch administrative policies and initiatives. And he’d have little to no control over everything else, like the daily workings of the federal courts and Democrat-run state governments.

Where Trump had control, he would do harm. Where he did not, he would face resistance.

The sum total of this explosive mixture would be very dangerous, especially internationally, where sober and rational American leadership is essential.

So there’s lots to be worried about if Trump wins. To be sure. He would deeply poison the body politic. But Kagan is wrong: he would not be a dictator.

William Cooper, author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t.

[Max Knoll · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy. Shit.

[Anatolii Miroshnychenko · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book goes deep into the history of struggle between liberalism and anti-liberalism in the U.S. As the author persuasively shows, the struggle was always there. Surprisingly for me, the author sees the prospects of liberalism in the U.S. to be bright – if liberalism (and the country itself) survives Donald Trump. The bright future of liberalism, in the opinion of the author, depends on demographic trends – the more multiethnic and multicultural the U.S becomes, the better are (in the opinion of the author) chances of liberalism.
It is hard for me to share this opinion. It seems that anti-liberalism has deep roots in the very human nature – it is always “us vs them”, and people aways find somebody to despise and to hate - Christians, Muslims, black, white, protestant, non-protestant, foreigners, those who cry for another football team and so on.
At the same time liberalism (understood as respect to everybody’s, not only one’s own rights and freedoms) is in fact not only fairer, but also more reasonable for the society as a whole (which the author seems to deny at the beginning and acknowledge at the end of the book). So, society must promote liberalism. Majority rule often fails to do that, which prompts shift to meritocracy – the sooner, the better.

[Alex (inactive) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read as part of the FT best books of 2024 list, politics category. This pairs really well with Anne Applebaum's Autocracy, Inc. For a non-American, this was a very insightful look into the history of American liberalism (and antiliberalism), with a particularly thoughtful interpretation of the Constitution. Even in such a new country as the USA, history repeats itself, and political rhetoric reverberates throughout the centuries.

[Kate Kuisel · Rating 2 out of 5]

The reviews on this book are highly rated, however, as a historian in training, I cannot give this work high praise.

Kagan lacks an understanding of the majority of Americans that are not in his Ivory Tower. His sweeping generalizations of the American South are exactly what perpetuates division in this country. Simply out of touch.

For a book on liberalism and its counter, there lacked a distinct definition of each. This was more of a weak explanation of Trump’s rise to power.

[Bretski67 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rebellion: How Antiliberalism is Tearing America Apart - Again, Robert Kagan.
'May you live in interesting times.' This is an excellent polemic/summary of the antiliberal forces that have dogged the USA from its founding right up to the present day. There were always those that felt the Declaration was fantasy - that all men were not in fact 'created equal'. As the history of the USA has shown, its Constitution and form of government, although an 'individual rights-protection machine', has always been a tenuous arrangement between individuals, parties, the States and the Federal government. The question is- just whose rights are being protected, and by whom? Kagan takes us through the gamut of antiliberal forces that have existed in the USA (slave-holders, Jim Crow period, Ku Klux Klan, John Birch Society, Tea Party etc.) The liberal/conservative consensus that existed from about 1950-1980 (with the passing of civil rights legislation, pro-immigration policies, government programs, a liberal Supreme Court) has collapsed. The Republican Party, once the liberal conservative party of Lincoln, has increasingly become the party of white male America that holds on to a mistaken belief that the country should be an Anglo-Protestant theocracy. The Democratic Party - once the party of the South and slave-holders, has become the party for Blacks, minorities, women, immigrants and the oppressed. The rise of Trump is partly attributable to demographics (in 2020 the White vote was only 67% [in 2000 it was 81%] and the African American and Hispanic vote rose to 30%), racism and white supremacist theory. What is really scary, is that there are large numbers of people in the USA who don't believe in elections, who believe political violence is acceptable, and are willing to use whatever force is necessary (legal or extra-legal) to take and hold on to power. Paraphrasing Kagan, if Trump loses narrowly he will claim the election was rigged (as he did in 2020 and even 2016), and weaponed-up supporters may prevent any kind of government being formed. A pro-Trump confederacy of States could even secede. And if Trump wins, will Democrat governors and state legislatures in some of the wealthiest and most populous states idly sit by as Trump dismantles the institutions and laws that protect their freedoms? I found this an excellent read and invaluable in understanding USA politics and the phenomenon of Trump. Highly recommended.

[Richard Marney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kagan is a distinguished scholar and acute commentator on American politics. This book is a useful read, although painting a dismal portrait of the life and times of contemporary America.

The author’s central argument is that the United States was founded on a radically liberal political tradition. This liberalism, established by the Revolutionary generation, champions individual rights and a constitutional order designed to protect them. However, he contends an equally potent anti-liberal tradition has existed since the beginning, periodically rising to challenge these founding principles.

[Erik Lysén · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to understand America, read this book! It’s a masterpiece showing the historical roots of the antiliberal forces - the Trump movement - that have taken over the country and which may destroy its democratic institutions and principles.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is such an important book for American voters to read, especially before the upcoming election.

[Esther · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rolling coup. Precisely! This book was worth every bit of effort just for the sake of "rolling coup." How has that term evaded my radar all these years?

I now see that Robert Kagan did not coin the term. Mehdi Hasan used it on his MSNBC October 10, 2021 Mehdi Hasan Show, and Jennifer Rubin quoted him next day in the Washington Post, but I missed this reference to a rolling coup both times.

That is what Donald Trump has been directing since before the 2016 election. When he won that election, fair and square, courtesy of our Electoral College, he set his prospective coup on the back burner till 2020, since which date Trump's rolling coup has been ongoing.

"We are in the midst of a rolling coup," Mehdi Hasan said in 2021 on his show. "Almost every day, Republicans pass more voter suppression laws. They purge more and more election officials and they entrench the big lie that the election was stolen.... Republicans want to unilaterally decide who runs this country.... It's all about election subversion now. Mark my words: If Donald Trump is the 2024 Republican presidential nominee and the Republicans control the House of Representatives, they will not certify a Democratic victory in 2024."

How about that.

Back to Robert Kagan and Rebellion. Just a few notable quotes from the book:

pp. 64-65: The three-fifths clause, which counted enslaved people as part of the Southern states' populations for the purposes of apportioning representatives in the federal Congress, gave slaveholding states a distinct boost in power relative to the non-slaveholding states.... The Electoral College, though established for other purposes, was also a compromise between the slave and non-slave states that granted the former a representation greater than their voting population warranted.... ¶In order to provide the guarantees that Southern slaveholders demanded, the Constitution implicitly accentuated states' rights and established an important precedent that has echoed through the nation's history ever since.... It was not until 1860 that a Northern antislavery party was able to put its nominee in the White House, at which point the South seceded.

pp. 71-72: The invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s drove up the demand for slaves to work in the cotton fields that proliferated actoss the South, including in the territories of the Louisiana Purchase west of the Mississippi. In 1790, the United States produced just 3,000 bales of cotton a year. By 1810, annual production had risen to 178,000 bales, and would rise to more than 4 million bales a year by the eve of the Civil War.

p. 91: ...the common assumption about the inevitability of liberalism has led to constant underestimation of the power of antiliberal sentiments in America. We simply assume that, with time, people become enlightened. Yet the views of white Southerners did not change: not in the 1870s, when they fought against Black equality; not in the 1920s, when the second Klan spread across the South like wildfire; not in the 1960s, when George Wallace spoke for millions when he declared "secregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And not today, when the unwarranted killing of Black people by police inspires for so many white Americans more sympathy for the police than for their victims."

pp. 161-162: The antiliberal forces were nevertheless growing in the Republican Party, not because the absolute number of antiliberals in the country was growing--it may even have been diminishing--but because by the 2000s the Republican Party pretty much had them all.... The core antiliberal constituencies were declining in absolute numbers in the country at large, but as a percentage of Republicans, they were growing in both numbers and influence. ¶...As late as the REagan years, there had still been a substantial Southern white constituency in the Democratic Party, but over the course of the 1990s and into the 2000s, many Southern Democrats migrated to the Republican Party, leaving the Democratic Party all but purged of antiliberal racist elements. ....the more the Republican Party became the party of the South, the more it tended to drive liberals, moderates, and even other conservatives from other regions out of the party.... The modern Democratic Party, once the party of slaveholders and Jim Crow, became increasingly the party of minorities, women, and other groups who wanted to see rights expanded, and the Republican Party, once the party of Lincoln, increasingly became the party of white males, eager to hold on to their primacy in American society.

pp. 194-195: Trump's hold on the imaginations of millions of Americans is extraordinary. Rarely in American history has a political figure drawn such adoration and complete loyalty while still alive and politically active. Even the revered Reagan was frequently attacked by conservatives for falling short of their expectations. Trump's supporters never criticize him or tolerate criticism of him, even on issues on which they disagree with him.

pp. 196-197: ...tens of millions of Americans will follow Trump wherever he leads, i ncluding to overthrow a system of government that they no longer value and have come to regard as inimical to their interests. ¶People are wisely reluctant to throw words like "fascism" around loosely, but it is hard to find a better word for the relationship between Trump the leader and his devoted following. Fascism is the malady to which modern democracies are particularly susceptible, and in an age of mass politics...various forms of fascism have been the likeliest alternative to democracy. Modern nations are not about to establish monarchies. To have any legitimacy beyond the exercise of brute force, modern leaders must at least appear to speak for the masses. In democracies, they must create mass followings that allow them to win within the democratic system and then transform it into a system they can dominate. Hitler came to power in Germany first by winning democratic elections, by inspiring loyalty among normal middle-class Germans, by offering an alternative to the messy and often gridlocked democracy of Weimar Germany. Only then did he cement his position in power by doing away with democratic forms. ¶Trump's appeal to the masses propelled him into a position of national power that he barely sought. But, once having gained it, he has not been willing to give it up. His narcissism became megalomania, which in turn has made him a would-be tyrant.

p. 198: It took Hitler nine years, from his failed putsch in 1923 to his electoral triumph in 1932, to complete the destruction of German democracy. In that period, his following grew from the thousands to the tens of millions. Trump's assault on American democracy arguably began in 2020, when he refused to accept his defeat at the polls. His rolling coup attempt has continued and grown since, and along with it the determination of millions of his followers to see him returned to power by whatever means necessary.

pp. 198-199: The banal normality of the great majority of Trump's supporters, including those who went to the Capitol on January 6, has befuddled many observers. Although private militia groups and white supremacists played a part in the attack, 90 percent of those arrested or charged had no ties to such groups. The majority were middle-class and middle-aged; 40 percent were business owners or white-collar workers. As one fifty-six-year-old Michigan woman explained: "We weren't there to steal things. We weren't there to do damage. We were just there to overthrow the government." ¶This is the Republican Party. Trump and his supporters have taken over the party and now seek to take over the country by any means necessary and put an end to the experiment in American liberalism.

pp. 199-200: How did an antiliberal movement take full control of a major political party for the first time since the antebellum South controlled the Democratic Party? The Republican Party leadership played a critical role--or rather, refused to play one.... ¶I...Instead of fighting back, establishment Republican leaders either got out of the way or joined the antiliberal assault.... After resisting Trump at first, before the size of his following within the party became clear, establishment party leaders were happy to ride Trump's coattails if it meant getting paid off with hundreds of conservative court appointments, including three Supreme Court justices, tax cuts, immigration restrictions, and deep reductions in regulations on business.

pp. 202-203: Whatever they thought about Trump, Republican elders disliked Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrats more. Again, this is not so unusual. German conservatives accommodated Adolf Hitler partly because they hated and feared the socialists more than they opposed the Nazis, with whom, after all, they shared many basic prejudices.

pp. 208-209: With the party firmly under his thumb, Trump is now waging his rebellion against the Constitution on spearate fronts. One is normal, legitimate political competition, whereby Trump runs for office and Republicans criticize Biden's policies, feed and fight the culture wars, and in general behave like a typical hostile opposition. The other front is outside the bounds of constitutional and democratic competition and in the realm of illegal or extralegal efforts to undermine the electoral process. The two are intimately related, because the Republican Party has used its institutional power in the political sphere to shield Trump and his followers from the consequences of their illegal and extralegal activities in the lead-up to January 6. Party leaders have run interference for the Trump movement in the sphere of legitimate politics, using the power of Congress to undermine faith in the justice system and American government more generally, while cheering on the January 6 perpetrators, turning them into martyrs and heroes, and thereby greatly encouraging illegal acts in the future. ¶Trump...is the one who commands the allegiance of his millions and millions of supporters. ...his followers have shoen that they are prepared to do whatever it may take to help him (reclaim the White House), and neither the Republican Party leadership nor the 50 percent of the party not entirely in the thrall of Trump shows any inclination to prevent it.

p. 215: Though it may have been shocking to see normal, decent Americans condoning a violent assault on the Capitol, that event demonstrated that Americans as a people are not as exceptional as their founding principles and institutions. Europeans wh joined fascist movements in the 1920s and '30s were also from the middle classes. No doubt many of them were good parents and neighbors, too. People do things as part of a mass movement that they would not do as individuals, especially if they are convinced that others are out to destroy their way of life.

[Edward · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great short book on the history of the United States.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think the author correctly identifies the schism in American politics as being between, as he defines it, Liberals: people who believe in Lockian Natural Rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and Antiliberals: people who don't, and makes the case that this has been true since the founding of the Constitution. I have to ding him for going soft on Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes because they paid lip service to liberal values and ignoring how they explicitly appealed to antiliberals to get elected, and appointed some of the worse antiliberal judges in history.

[Mark Mullally · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book explaining the polarization of the American parties today. He examines the intentions of the founding fathers and how, since the very inception of the republic, there has always been a resistance to their vision. The current far-right is the current iteration of that resistance. I highly recommend this book, especially for non-Americans, trying to make sense of the gong show south of the border that inundates our media daily.

[Reading · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I seem to have a bit of an... obsession with these sorts of books this being the 4th about this subject that I've read in 2024. I would rank them as: 
1. Tyranny of the Minority
2. Minority Rule
3. White Rural Rage
4. Rebellion
They are all decent to excellent and in reading all of them I now have a comprehensive overview of how screwed we may be and what contributed. Each book focuses on a particular area and I'd say that  it's really a fairly equal combination of all of the factors, and not just one, which threatens democracy in the US. If I had to pick the gorilla in the room then my money (hee hee) is on inequality.

'Rebellion' covers the role flawed and broken 'representative government' and inequality play in keeping people divided. Media consolidation makes it easy to keep us divided. Certainly there is truth to the divisions that this country was built on bring a significant factor however it feels more like a symptom and less of a cause at this stage.

[Owlseyes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...

[Laurie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I’ve yet read in this genre.

I realize I’m early to this party. It just got released yesterday. I woke up in the middle of the night and doom scrolled till I came to Kagan’s CNN interview. I didn’t know who he was but he said some things about Trump and his followers I usually only hear from myself. Same for his comments about liberalism, though I’m usually using the words “democratic Republic” instead.

I decided I needed to read this book and snatched it off Audible. It’s quite short, but packed with useful information and probably has a formidable bibliography. He doesn’t pull any punches and any time he makes an assertion he’s ready to back it with proof.

He starts off by scratching a (for me) big itch: he provides a succinct, cogent and interesting summary of the American political experiment from founding to present, with an emphasis on liberalism. In doing so, he fills in some blanks — the where, why, who, how of American liberalism can quickly get bogged down in details and contradictions, especially when you’re talking with its detractors. The “yeah buts” can easily knock you off the trail. Well, he cuts through all the BS like a hot knife through butter and does it like telling a story. Which is what it is. Illiberalism is an important part of our history and he weaves the thread of this deftly through. He wants you to understand that each and every time we’ve tried for more fairness, more equality, there have been many Americans who have pushed back.

His remarks about Trump and Trump followers — who he is, who they are, why NOW? — are well worth the wait. He calls out the movement and its adherents and makes no excuses for them. At the same time, he avoids the hyperbole and disgust that has become very common. His analysis is almost scientific in its objectivity and dryness. I am tired of the excuses and the attempts at forgiveness and understanding. At the same time I am tired of my own spleen. He gets right in between and just aims for an accurate description of their attitudes and pinpoints why they are wrong and why they are imperiling the liberal order.

Finally, he speculates on what could go wrong in this upcoming election and why it could all come tumbling down. We may be in the last months of the Republic right now. This is not a drill. We’re in a Constitutional crisis and whether Trump wins or loses there will be a price.

The way he approaches all of the above is unique and I’m not adequate to fully describe why this book is different, but it is. The man has a comprehensive grasp of history and human nature. He’s clear eyed and cold. He’s not writing this book to massage the egos of people on the Left or give anyone good feels about their personal ethics. He’s just presenting the facts and describing the situation up to the present moment as accurately as possible. He’s a former Republican with ties to the federal government and his credentials are impeccable. His past affiliations make this all the more interesting.

Get this book. Read it.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Linda’s review:
This book offers the reader a look into the history and meaning of an ideal that has been with us since the American Revolution. That ideal is Liberalism. The author does not use Liberalism in the same exclusive context that we know it best today: as a principle of the Democratic Party that identifies itself as “liberal”. Liberalism is a broad ideal that is be accepted by both liberals and conservatives. Kagan talks about liberals and anti-liberals and liberal-conservatives and MAGA anti-liberals so it’s important to understand what he means in the historical context of Liberalism which can then be applied to how we use it today.

Liberalism has been with us since the beginning of our country, even before the American Revolution, but it didn’t become sanctioned until the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence which is a liberal document because it stated succinctly that all people are created equally and all people have inalienable rights. These rights are Natural and cannot be taken from us and the role of government, through the Constitution, is to protect our rights, rights that are expressed in the term “life, liberty and property” in addition to the “pursuit of happiness” which safeguards specifically freedom of speech and religious freedom along with other protections. Liberalism embodies the spirit of these Natural rights that allow us certain freedoms and all human beings hold these rights upon their birth. No other government before the US Constitution protected these inalienable rights. Initially many of these rights were denied to people in the US due to the barriers of politics such as patriarchy and slavery.

In contrast, anti-liberal convictions in our past history and today are embodied by values of White Supremacy, patriarchy, hierarchy, monarchy, autocracy, theocracy, Christian Nationalism, segregation, fascism and they were accepted most prominently by American southern slave-holders, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, the TeaParty and today the Republican MAGA movement headed by Donald Trump. Many of these anti-liberal beliefs throughout our nation’s history opposed women/black suffrage, abortion, government regulations, equal rights, Civil Rights legislation, gay marriage, labor unions, environmental protections, immigration, miscegenation, birth control to name a few.

The author warns us about the rise of anti-liberalism in our current situation worldwide, but especially at home. Anti-liberalism has waxed and waned throughout our nation’s history and today is hinged to the hip with MAGA. He believes MAGA, unchecked, could soon destroy our democracy as we know it today.
This is a book people need to read before the November 2024 election.