Wildland: The Making of America's Fury by Evan Osnos

★★★★½

If you're someone who looks around in utter disbelief at everything broken in America today - mass shootings, income inequality, inaction regarding the climate crisis, rising white nationalism and fascism, eroding democracy, etc., etc., etc. - and the fact that a lying, racist, xenophobic accused rapist and con man actually got elected - then re-elected despite felony convictions - and ask, "How did we get here?!?!!" then this book is for you. It tries to answer that question. More than anything else I've read, this book helped me to better understand Trump voters, even if I will never agree with them.

Evan Osnos provided a clear accounting of American politics spanning the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 - when people across the nation reaffirmed American ideals of diversity and the free exchange of ideas (p. 8) - to the insurrection at the Capitol 20 years later on January 6, 2021 - by which time "the country had spun so far out of balance that it had lost its center of gravity." (p. 13)

The author delved deep into the culture and mindset of 3 communities:

The money-centered elites with stratospheric wealth in Greenwich, CT who made money from money thanks to a lack of government regulations. (p. 30) Any discussion of the uber-wealthy naturally encompasses the seismic level of undue influence campaign mega-donors have on U.S. politics, and, by extension, the author detailed the damage done by the well-funded Mitch McConnell, "who operated on the plain belief that power mattered more than policy or principle." (p. 50)

Clarksburg, WV, where thriving local newspapers were once the cornerstone of democracy and community - until they were decimated by the growth of the internet, where news was scattered among entertainment and disinformation. (p. 67) Once the "Jewel of the Hills" (p. 56), Clarksburg fell victim to outside investors who bought political influence, allowing them to strip the land of valuable minerals, taking profits with them and leaving West Virginians to suffer the environmental harms. (p. 64-65)

The all-American city of Chicago, IL, which saw its African-American population grow to 33% after the Great Migration yet still endured racial segregation because of powerful discriminatory practices like redlining. (p. 78-79) Schools in Black neighborhoods were stunningly underfunded (p. 124), racial inequality was vast (p. 87), gang violence escalated (p. 118), and "nearly one third of Black men... entered the criminal justice system." (p. 131) Against this backdrop, we saw the beginning, and then the meteoric rise, of Barack Obama's political career.

Through intimate portraits of individuals in each community, Osnos illustrated how starkly different one's life can be depending on where you grow up, the color of your skin, and how much money you have. He drew a straight line from the Wall Street subprime mortgage schemes concocted by wealthy white Greenwich financiers to the dire economic plights of poor Black homeowners in Chicago (p. 134), and he compellingly weaved together the threads of a Clarksburg Marine with PTSD, the local community newspaper, and the opioid epidemic.

On a national level, angry conservative commentators (p. 139) and changing demographics that predicted minorities eventually becoming the majority (p. 230-231) fueled racism and the right-wing, white nationalist politics of the Tea Party that gained traction during Obama's administration. (p. 142) White people began to fear for their privilege due to their perception that "white Americans faced imminent demise" (p. 235), which was unsubstantiated by actual statistics. (p. 237) (That these people settled on fighting to maintain social inequity to benefit themselves rather than fighting for social equity so that no one group was privileged over others is, IMHO, disgusting.)

Osnos also discussed the uniquely American cult of "hyperindividualism" at the expense of community, evident in politics through declining influence of labor unions and increasingly regressive taxes. (p. 145) He wrote of how the U.S. was able to engage in 18 years of "the War on Terror" largely without accountability as there was no sense of collective sacrifice, the burden of casualties having fallen on less than 1% of the population (p. 147), and news reaching the others "too muddled by the peek-a-boo distractions of our time." (p. 148)

In a book of eye-opening revelations, most shocking to me was "elite survivalism". The book described Silicon Valley billionaires who have private planes and underground bunkers for the specific purpose of having a safe haven not just for the impending doom of climate change, but also in case angry, unemployed masses break out the pitchforks for the people who brought forth the technological innovations (mostly fears around AI) that took away their jobs. (p. 285-287) (Again, that so many of the tech elite look to protect themselves instead of using their billions to address climate change or social safety nets or ethical use and the consequences of AI is, again, IMHO, obscene.)

Osnos occasionally takes a step back and outlines how some of the factors stirring the pot of unrest began long before September 11, 2001. Capitalism amplified inequality (p. 99), and corporate PACs and lobbyists in the 1980s brought forth a wild swing towards pro-business, anti-consumer policies. (p. 170) Osnos connected the dots between libertarian Reagan Republicans and modern-day Trumpism, both built on "a coalition of conservative elites and the white working class." (p. 172) He further described how pure capitalism led to the growth of the gun industry: as hunting became less popular in the 1970s, among other marketing schemes, gun industry trade publications began targeting elementary school children in efforts to expand their customer base. (p. 263-266)

By the time Osnos addressed the first Trump presidency directly, it was clear the administration's actions were not the result of incompetence but rather, the goal was to actively undermine and dismantle federal agencies that stood in the way of capitalism. (p. 292-293) Steve Bannon, Trump's campaign chief, called it the "deconstruction of the administrative state" (p. 287), but more than that, the Trump administration believed in "empowering it [the federal government] in the name of private interests." (p. 294)

As depressing as the facts are, it was encouraging that Osnos was able to instill a sense of hope by highlighting progressive activists in all 3 locations of Greenwich, Clarksburg, and Chicago.

To close, here are some poignant, insightful quotes that struck me:

Regarding the connection between income inequality and being disenfranchised: "Poverty can be as much about power as it is about possessions; they hadn't felt poor until someone came along and showed them how little power they really had." (p. 189)

A quote by Samuel Popkin, a political scientist, that succinctly explains the appeal of Trump: "The more complicated the problem, the simpler the demands become. When people get frustrated and irritated, they want to cut the Gordian knot." (p. 282)

A warning issued in 1992 by Francis Fukuyama, another political scientist: After the Cold War, people might "struggle for the sake of struggle... out of a certain boredom... And if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, then they will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy." (p. 316)

Chicago community organizer Jahmal Cole in the midst of George Floyd protests in 2020: "We wore a hoodie for Trayvon, we took a knee for Philando, we held our breath for Eric, we walked for Laquan, but we're done. Enough is enough... We're rightly pissed off." (p. 368)

Abraham Lincoln's secretary of state, William Seward, describing the Civil War: "There was always just enough virtue in this republic to save it; sometimes none to spare." (p. 406)

Oh, one last thing. My rating is just short of 5 stars because of a misleading line. Early in the book, there’s a passing reference to "a minor [constitutional] amendment in 1992, to raise congressional salaries." (p. 51) The wording made it sound like the purpose of the amendment was to raise congressional salaries, but what it actually did was require an election before any change in congressional salaries could take effect. It just made me wonder if maybe there might be other ambiguous wording - intentional or not - that I didn't catch.