**"It Can't Happen Here": A Satirical Look at Rightwing Populism**

In "It Can't Happen Here," we are presented with a scathing satire of rightwing populism. The story follows a journalist, a self-proclaimed "cynic" who is not a leftwinger but is able to quickly see through the fallacies of rightwing propaganda. The main villain is Senator Windrip, who campaigns on a platform of redistributing wealth while also cozying up to the banks and big business. Once in power, he becomes an absolute ruler, cracking down on dissent and instituting a corporatist, oligarchic policy.
The novel is filled with examples of poorly reasoned rightwing propaganda, such as the idea that labor unions are self-serving and that war might be a good thing. The Windrip platform, with its calls for bank nationalization, limitations on incomes, and restrictions on minorities, sounds eerily familiar in today's political climate. The book also explores the idea of a rightwing populist movement that is able to gain power by appealing to the fears and frustrations of the working class.
While the protagonist is unsympathetic to leftwing ideas, the novel does offer some interesting insights into the nature of political debate and the importance of diversity of opinion. The various communist parties, for example, may be ridiculed for their infighting, but they also represent a diversity of thought and a willingness to engage in debate. Overall, "It Can't Happen Here" is a timely and thought-provoking read that serves as a warning about the dangers of rightwing populism.

Long before The Hunger Games was written, Louis had already achieved greatness by creating an extremely dystopian society. Remarkably, however, he manages to soften its gloom and magnetize the reader with the power and the sharp humor of his pen. This is truly one of the best books I have read lately. It takes the reader on a journey through a world that is both terrifying and fascinating. The characters are well-developed and the plot is full of twists and turns that keep you on the edge of your seat. Despite the dark subject matter, there are also moments of hope and humanity that shine through. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys dystopian fiction or just a good read in general.

This book, written in 1935, is astonishingly prescient when it comes to today's political landscape. As America grows complacent in its assumed global superiority, a corrupt demagogue ascends to power and installs Fascism within our government. Bands of "Minute Men" terrorize the population. Incompetent and ignorant men rise to positions of authority, women's rights are suppressed, and anyone who is "other" or opposes the administration is confined to horrific concentration camps.

Yes, the situation here may not be quite this dire yet, but the seeds of such circumstances have been sown. We are witnessing immigrants, including children, being caged, legal attacks on women's reproductive rights, the trampling of First Amendment rights, and the presence of incompetent and ignorant men in power.

The story is told from the perspective of Doremus Jessup, a newspaper owner in Vermont. In 1936, the Democratic nominee loses the election and has to flee to Canada for his life. A narcissistic demagogue, Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, becomes President and unleashes Fascism on America. He even has a ghost-written book that is quoted at the start of the beginning chapters. Our allies are appalled by what is happening as he undoes everything that has made America honorable in his pursuit of ultimate power. Anti-Semitism and racism are ingrained in his party's governing dogma, and he admires other demagogues like Hitler.

Slowly and cautiously, a subversive underground emerges to attempt to reclaim the country. As tensions escalate, the fates of some familiar characters hang in the balance.

It took me some time to get into this book, partly due to the writing style and partly because I found the lead-up to the main action a bit confusing. The names of the characters are, at best, bizarre and difficult to keep track of. Only a few of the numerous characters are fully developed, while many others seem to be mere fillers. There are times when a run-on sentence takes up half a page, and the colloquialisms can be perplexing.

Nevertheless, this book is an important read and eerily prescient.

Some of the more interesting passages include: "The Senator was vulgar, almost illiterate, a public liar easily detected, and in his 'ideas' almost idiotic, while his celebrated piety was that of a traveling salesman for church furniture, and yet his more celebrated humor the sly cynicism of a country store." "To the veteran reporters it was strange to see the titular Secretary Of State, theoretically a person of such dignity and consequence that he could deal with the representatives of foreign power, acting as press-agent and yes-man for even the President." "Every man is a king as long as he has someone to look down on." "There is no greater compliment to the Jews than the fact that the degree of their unpopularity is always the scientific measure of the cruelty and silliness of the regime under which they live, so that even a commercial-minded money-fondling heavily humorous Jew burgher like Rotenstern is still a sensitive meter of barbarism." "I tell you, an honest man gets sick when he hears the word 'Liberty' today, after what the Republicans did to it!"

An important book, difficult to read during these troubling times, yet a clarion call for those who still believe in the American spirit and ideals.

It CAN Happen Here!

Unbelievably,

I somehow missed reading this classic before now.

The book is as vital and prescient as when it was first published in 1935.

Rather than giving us answers,

Sinclair Lewis forces us to ask the hard questions we don't want to deal with.

It makes us confront the uncomfortable truths about society, about ourselves.

We are pushed to think deeply about the values we hold dear and whether they are truly what we claim them to be.

The characters in the book come alive, their struggles and dilemmas mirroring our own in many ways.

It is a powerful reminder that literature has the ability to make us question, to make us grow, and to make us see the world from a different perspective.

Reading this classic now, I am filled with a sense of wonder and gratitude for the insights it provides.

It is a book that will stay with me for a long time to come.

I give this five stars.

It's not because it is exceptionally well-written, but rather because it is such a crucial book that truly everyone concerned about present-day world affairs should read.

Apparently, before sitting down to pen the book in 1935, which he accomplished in less than five months, Lewis conducted extensive and intense research on how fascism emerges and functions once established.

Parts of the book might seem tiresome to today's reader, as his fictional political characters are nearly all stand-ins for then-real politicians, the majority of whom we are no longer acquainted with.

The main characters are almost caricatures. However, in fact, when you look at our last election, the candidates also seem like caricatures. There is almost a surreal quality, especially about the president-elect.

What chills you to the bone with this book are the parallels you notice if you simply substitute the Republican candidate's name with "Trump" and the Democratic's with "Clinton."

One could accuse Lewis of grossly exaggerating in this book. And yet, if you examine the historical outcome of fascist regimes, then you must admit that he actually predicted a great deal of what was to come.

Lewis does an excellent job of elucidating what fascism is and how it can originate from either the left or the right. He also effectively illustrates the ideology of the then American Communist Party and why large segments of the population became fervent supporters of the authoritarian-cum-fascist leader.

Today, this book would likely be edited to reduce its length by approximately a third. I did engage in quite a bit of speed-reading through certain repetitive or bogged-down parts. But overall, I would say it is a good read with an engaging storyline. "It Can't Happen Here" was also adapted into a theater production. It was slated to be made into a movie but was halted at the last minute because the producers feared a backlash from countries or politicians who might be irked by it.

Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here has seen a resurgence in popularity in recent years. As Americans grapple with Lewis's caution that the United States is not immune to authoritarian rule like any other nation.

Written in 1935, during a time when many feared that demagogues Huey Long and Father Coughlin were the forerunners of an American fascist movement, and shortly after Lewis's wife Dorothy Thompson was expelled from Nazi Germany for her honest reporting on Hitler's dictatorship. The novel imagines the ascent of a bombastic populist demagogue, Buzz Windrip.

Windrip is a verbose, empty-headed populist who proposes a plan to make America great again, which involves corporatist rule, racist laws, institutionalized misogyny, press censorship, and paramilitary violence against the enemies of the State - defined as anyone not completely loyal to Windrip. The protagonist, Doremus Jessup, a liberal journalist (and a stand-in for the author), despises Windrip's movement but does little to prevent it until the dictator has already seized power.

Lewis's book contains moments of spine-tingling prescience in its portrayal of Windrip's rise, the complacency of Americans who are either uninterested or cynical about politics, their sullen acceptance of the establishment of authoritarian rule, and the ease with which democracy can be thwarted. However, as literature, it exhibits the worst traits of a Liberal Position Paper. Lewis lectures the audience with long-winded speeches, demonizes Jessup's grotesque enemies (including fiends named MacGoblin and Itchitt), and generally lacks well-developed characters to evoke sympathy or the dry sarcasm that enlivens his better works.

Philip Roth's The Plot Against America presented a similar scenario with much greater plausibility. Although, to be fair, Roth had the advantage of decades of hindsight that Lewis did not have. But lacking the sharpness of Lewis's classic 1920s novels, It Can't Happen Here is merely bitter bile, albeit directed at a worthy target.

Zum Schluss wurde es dann doch etwas zäh...

Sinclair Lewis' "Das ist bei uns nicht möglich" war schon allein von der Parallelhaftigkeit zum aktuellen Zeitgeschehen ein langgehegter Lesewunsch von mir. Allerdings war ich auch auf die Geschichte an sich gespannt. Tatsächlich lesen sich die ersten Abschnitte bzw. Kapitel wie eine Zusammenfassung der jüngsten amerikanischen Geschichte. Ein "starker Mann", der ungefiltert von sich gibt, was er denkt, und der der Menge verspricht, sich für sie einzusetzen, wird Präsidentschaftskanditat und letztendlich auch gewählt. Insbesondere die "Vergessenen Männer", die später zu den Minute Men, kurz M.M., werden, unterstützen ihn, weil er ihnen viele wunderschöne Dinge verspricht, wie zum Beispiel 5000 Dollar pro Jahr für jede Familie, einen gewaltigen Wirtschaftsaufschwung und Amerika wieder zurück zu Stärke und Stolz. Vor allem die Auszüge der "Biografie" des Präsidentschaftskandidaten an jedem Kapitelanfang wirken, als wären sie direkt von Trump geschrieben worden. Ich habe mich wirklich bemüht, neutral an die Sache heranzugehen.

In einem rauschenden Fest wird also Buzz Windrip zum Präsidenten gekürt. Danach fällt die Geschichte meiner Meinung nach ab. Bereits zu diesem Zeitpunkt befinden sich so viele Charaktere in der Geschichte, und manchmal ist nicht klar, ob sie nun für oder gegen Windrip sind, sodass man schnell durcheinander kommt. Dieser Negativpunkt verstärkt sich im Laufe des Buches noch weiter. Nach einer längeren Lesepause kann man kaum mehr die einzelnen Personen auseinanderhalten. Auch die Geschichte an sich: Lewis will zeigen, wie schnell eine demokratische Gesellschaft in ein wahres Schlachthaus verwandelt werden kann, wenn Menschen, die sich selbst für unterdrückt und benachteiligt halten, in eine Machtposition geraten. Dies zeigt sich schnell an den M.M.s, die ihre Macht rigoros durchsetzen und auskosten. Danach folgt schnell eine Reihe von Bespitzelungen, Denunziationen, Konzentrationslagern, Ermordungen und Säuberungen. Dass dies alles passieren kann und vielleicht sogar gegenwärtig passiert, bestreite ich nicht. Aber Lewis' Versuch, diese Entwicklung zu beschreiben, kam mir teilweise sehr bemüht und effektheischerisch vor. Die schlimmste Seite des Menschen wird herausgekehrt. Doremus Jessup, der Widerstand leistet, und die Gegenbewegung, die sich später bildet, kommen fast zu kurz. Außerdem fügt der Autor unzählige Nebenstränge und Abschweifungen hinzu, die das Lesen zusätzlich anstrengend machen.

Letztendlich ist dieses Buch wohl zur Zeit deshalb so interessant, weil es die jüngsten Ereignisse in den USA - zumindest bis zur Machtergreifung - abbildet. Es war wirklich unheimlich, wie genau Lewis manche Dinge getroffen hat. Zustände und Entwicklungen, wie Lewis sie beschreibt, sind jedoch jederzeit und überall möglich.

The English might do it better, or so I think. However, Sinclair Lewis presents a captivating account of how, even in America, those with an insatiable hunger for power can convince the people that it is their compassion for the people's welfare that drives them to seek votes, which will ultimately grant them the mandate to establish a dictatorship. In Lewis's book, it is fascism, but any ideology can serve the purpose.

"Doremus, perusing the authors he had hidden in the horsehair sofa - the valiant Communist, Karl Billinger, the valiant anti-Communist, Tchernavin, and the valiant neutral, Lorant - began to discern something resembling a biology of dictatorships, all dictatorships. The universal dread, the timorous denials of faith, the identical methods of arrest - the sudden pounding on the door late at night, the squad of police barging in, the blows, the search, the obscene oaths hurled at the frightened women, the third degree administered by young upstart officials, the accompanying blows and then the formal beatings, when the prisoner is compelled to count the strokes until he faints, the leprous beds and the sour stew, the guards playfully shooting rounds around a prisoner who believes he is about to be executed, the waiting in solitude to discover what will transpire, until men go insane and hang themselves -

"This is precisely how things unfolded in Germany, exactly the same in Soviet Russia, in Italy, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Cuba, Japan, and China. It was not very different under the supposed blessings of liberty and fraternity during the French Revolution. All dictators adhered to the same routine of torture, as if they had all studied the same manual of sadistic etiquette. And now, in the humorous, friendly, and carefree land of Mark Twain, Doremus witnessed the homicidal maniacs having just as enjoyable a time as they had in central Europe."

Let us heed this cautionary tale and be vigilant.

Describing a Nazi-fascist government in 1935, the year Lewis wrote this novel, was more than prescient: it was unthinkable. Almost visionary.

Nowadays we take our knowledge for granted. A huge amount of historical evidence, witnesses from both the victims' and the perpetrators' sides, photographs, documentaries, individual as well as collective memories... we know because the events, and the decades that followed those events, allowed us to know; we know because the winners let us know about the defeated.

In 1935 knowledge was hardly conceivable, for several reasons. Italy (the first fascist test lab) was still doing so fine - or rather, the regime was still good at pretending it was - that all the western powers were looking at it as an example of decent, healthy, anti-communist politics. As for Germany, the Nazi government had just started setting up its domestic net of concentration camps and was still warming up with the 'internal enemy': communists, whores, Jehovah's Witnesses, petty thieves... none of the old democracies' business. It was too early for the rest of the world to realise what was really going on in both countries, beyond the thick veil of economical success and inspirational anti-communism.

In short, nobody gave a fuck. Hadn't they started a world war, nobody would have bothered the Nazis and their fascist minions. The champions of democracy would have minded their business and let us sing 'Sole che sorgi' and 'Horst Wessel' as we pleased.

How close did the USA come to following the same path? How close did America come to becoming a dictatorship as harsh and insane as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy? Sinclair Lewis' point is simple: nobody knows how close it actually came to it, but it could have happened. Even the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave gets heavy-handed at times, especially against its worshipping children: the Haymarket Square massacre, the repression of socialists and leftist intellectuals that started long before McCarthy's years, the KKK, the political murders and anti-riot methods come to mind. Like it or not, violence do come in handy once in a while.

As the contemporary setting suggests (1936 ) this novel was not conceived as a dystopia; it was a warning against the present danger rather than a depiction of ills yet to come. With his uncanny foreknowledge of crimes yet to be uncovered in pre-1945 world, Lewis tells the reader about an all-American dictatorship sprung from the big paradox of those years - torn between the Great Depression and an emerging, fierce consumerism.

Although being a perfect depiction of the mid-30s, "It Can't Happen Here" (as we always say before 'it' indeed happens) was also amazingly ahead of its time: what most readers point out, and rightly so, is the disquieting resemblance between Lewis' dictator, clownish parvenu Berzelius Windrip, and the actual tenant of the White House.

By cunningly exploiting the turmoil left by the crisis of 1929, the Bolshevik terror and a deviant notion of patriotism, a dwarfish senator fond of 10-gallon hats and Bible-quoting defeats all his opponents and becomes President of the United States of America, shutting off all welfare and recovery program.

Thus the States take the same road taken by Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933, with a charismatic leader setting off on his personal journey per aspera ad astra while his country is dragged down the opposite road. Militia, censorship, forced labour and concentration camps, summary executions, embezzlement, corruption, suicidal warfare, incompetence... only a few profiteers find themselves actually living in a tailor-made Corporatist Utopia, where political programs become utterly pointless and the only moral compass is their own whimsical greed.

From his small New England hometown, now turned into a star-spangled Sachsenhausen, the editor of a liberal newspaper gets in the meantime increasingly involved in underground activities against the regime, yet another desperate struggle against the Leviathan.

A struggle leading nowhere, as usual. Let's face it: the (most honourable) work of WW2 exiled statesmen, partisans and liberators would have been almost ineffectual against a politically efficient dictatorship. Luckily enough Nazism, Fascism and Communism, eroded as they were by infighting and paranoia, had been destroying themselves long before the disastrous conduct of the war(s). A demented leader and a bunch of treacherous yes-men are quite enough for any regime to crumble, and Windrip's 'Corpoism' is no exception...

All in all, the novel is well-written. The author's psychological analysis of the characters is hardly Dostoevskyan, that's for sure, but it wasn't meant to be so, either.

As for the parallels that can be drawn between Lewis' fictional dictatorship and the current situation of American affairs, that's a topic I'm not willing to discuss, as I don't live in the States and the information I get is not first-hand. I can only guess, but opinions should be based on facts and experience, not on guessing.

To be honest, my interest in politics is biased by my being born in a country traditionally run by senile baboons and illiterate minus habentes, a peculiar combo that makes one long for Pope Innocent III's theocracy. One becomes pragmatic in such conditions.

In 1944 my grandpa was a handsome twenty-two-year old countryboy working as a groom in a German officer's stables. He lived in an occupied villa, witnessed orgies, drinking and cocaine binges; he made money out of being charming, educated and speaking German and English. The following year he was doing exactly the same, only difference he was working for a British officer instead of a Nazi.

Whenever asked about those years, he would light a cigarette and say: "Oh, come on. What was I supposed to do? What were we all supposed to do?" Well, I don't know. This is my only certainty with regards to history and politics: I. Have. No. Idea.

Sinclair Lewis was the first American author to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (1930). However, just before the pre-election period of Mr. Trump, he was unknown to most of us.

With the election of Mr. Trump as the president of the United States, the sales of this book skyrocketed.

Many people say that this book predicted the presidency of Mr. Trump. This couldn't happen here, many said, including myself.

"It's impossible for a guy who I saw getting beaten up by others in the ring at WWE to become president. And yet he did."

The same thing was said by the protagonist of the book, Doremus Jessup: that it's impossible for a populist, demagogue, racist like Berzelius Windrip to become president.

But yet he did.

Read the continuation on my blog Book Alchemies.

This article initially introduces Sinclair Lewis as the first American Nobel laureate in literature but highlights his relative obscurity before Trump's election. It then details how the book's sales soared after Trump's victory, with many claiming it predicted his presidency. The author shares their own disbelief, comparing Trump's unlikely rise to that of the fictional character Berzelius Windrip in the book. The article concludes by directing readers to the blog for the continuation of the discussion.

For the past few weeks, I've been lugging around my tattered, 80-year-old hardback copy of this book.

Pages are falling out, and the binding is coming apart. I can't help but chuckle and reflect on the parallels between the America that Lewis描绘s and the state of my edition.

"It Can't Happen Here" narrates the tale of a populist Senator who defeats FDR in the 1936 presidential election by pledging $5,000 (equivalent to $90,000 in today's dollars) to every US citizen. Depression-era voters are duped by his ruse, and Berzelius Windrip becomes president. Shortly after his inauguration, Windrip introduces laws mirroring those of Nazi Germany, supported by his fanatical militia who hunt down and kill any and all dissenters.

The premise, along with the entire book, is truly chilling and thought-provoking. Remember, this was written before the situation in Europe became extremely dire, yet Lewis almost foresaw what was happening and weaves a terrifying story about the loss of freedom by a very naïve nation.

If I had read this book two years ago, I probably wouldn't have found it as terrifying as I do now. However, with Donald Trump currently leading the polls, I keep thinking and hoping "It Can't Happen Here," even though that battle cry didn't serve the characters in this book very well in the end.

I highly recommend this book to anyone with a political conscience. It's very accessible, featuring genuine heroes and villains.

A charismatic Democratic candidate emerges, whose speeches are more memorable for their style than for the actual content. Hmmm.... There are distinct hints of populism, skillfully employed to win the support of the most naive voters. These voters, unfortunately, believe that the candidate will simply hand them all they need, completely unaware that there is no intention of following through on such promises. Hmmm.... Then there is the matter of bailing out the big companies, not out of genuine concern for their well-being, but rather to gain control over them and, by extension, the entire economy. Hmmm.... And let's not forget the disturbing presence of personality cults. Hmmm....

The idea presented here is eerily prescient, even though it took two parties and two Presidents in real life to fully unfold. I am well aware that I will likely be labeled a "Republican" or a "conservative" (currently the most derogatory epithets) for stating that Barack Obama is a closer match to Berzelius Windrip than George W. Bush. However, this is simply the honest truth. Moreover, I am a free-market populist of my own unique ideology, which I have dubbed "Popular Capitalism", so these labels are clearly incorrect. It is part of Lewis' genius that he recognizes such mislabeling as an essential component of the fascist toolbox.

Nevertheless, the writing in this work is somewhat uneven. In certain parts, it is poetic and engaging, but the vivid imagery fails to connect seamlessly with the rest of the narrative. Towards the end, the chronology becomes rather loose for no apparent reason, causing some readers to wonder if Lewis simply forgot who was killed when. The ending, while ultimately realistic, trails off rather abruptly, as if Lewis simply got tired of writing.

I do not believe, however, that the lack of sympathy for the main character, Doremus Jessup, is a flaw of the book. The whole point is to vividly illustrate that a Fascist dictatorship could potentially occur here. If Jessup had been more sympathetic to us, he would have also been more sympathetic to his fellow citizens and might have become a "hero", garnering enough support to halt or overthrow the regime. Since there are no truly sympathetic characters in the book, it serves as a powerful reminder that such a scenario could indeed happen here.

My overall impression is that Lewis was in a rush to publish this book before the 1936 Presidential campaign. He likely witnessed the voters becoming complacent after Huey Long's assassination, thinking that "it can't happen here". Although I would take issue with Lewis' assessment of Long, which was colored by the virulently anti-Long and anti-populist propaganda of the time, he is undoubtedly correct in highlighting the existence of threats to liberty that did not bear the scapegoated name of "Huey Long". The importance of this message and the need to convey it in 1935, in time for the 1936 elections, was of greater significance to Lewis than producing a literary masterpiece.