If you are a citizen of a country that grants voting rights, you should be cognizant of this book and perhaps peruse a synopsis.

Although the level of reading enjoyment may not reach the top three stars, it remains a significant work of literature.

This book likely delves into various aspects related to the democratic process and the importance of exercising one's voting rights.

It could explore the history, significance, and potential pitfalls of voting, as well as the impact it can have on society and individuals.

By reading this book or at least its synopsis, you can gain a better understanding of your civic responsibilities and the power that lies within your vote.

It may also inspire you to become more actively involved in the political process and make informed decisions when it comes time to cast your ballot.

So, don't overlook this book just because it may not offer the highest level of entertainment.

Give it a chance and discover the valuable insights it has to offer.

Out of all the dystopian novels I've perused, It Can't Happen Here, penned during the Great Depression when fascism was on the rise in Europe, was undoubtedly the most disturbingly prescient of them all.

The protagonist, Doremus Jessup, a journalist, opposes and contends with the new regime of Buzz Windrip, a charming and distinctively American populist elected as President of the United States after a campaign centered on fear-mongering. The parallels between Buzz Windrip's and Trump's rise to power were eerie in numerous ways, constantly astonishing me. This review will largely focus on highlighting these similarities, with quotes to illustrate them.

Buzz is elected due to his promise of radical economic and social reforms, which appeal to the poorer, struggling masses dissatisfied with the status quo. They voted for him perhaps not out of belief in all he stood for, but because they saw him as a necessary step to "drain the swamp" and "Make America Great Again."

The book begins with some rather dense chapters filled with references to American public figures from the 30s that were completely beyond my comprehension, but it's worth persevering through; they diminish as the story progresses, and I don't feel I missed anything crucial to my understanding. It's a semi-satirical novel, and I'm sure many characters are based on actual political figures from that era.

After ascending to power, Windrip wastes no time. Patriotism and traditional values are promoted, minorities are demonized, complete control of all branches of government is achieved, and a paramilitary force effectively enforces his totalitarian rule. Within two years of the election, he controls all media, and labor and concentration camps are not uncommon.

Lewis was such a perceptive observer of politics and society, and everything he wrote rings true and seemingly transcends time in the most terrifying way. The accuracy is so uncanny that it's almost as if the century separating us never occurred. His words feel truer and closer to life than anything in 1984.

Synchronicity had it that I finished the book on the night of the midterm elections, which were less of the threatened/promised blue tsunami than one might have hoped. If more people read this book, perhaps things would be different. The takeaway from this 80+-year-old novel is that these things can happen, and they are happening. Once established, a tyranny may be difficult to overthrow, but it's up to the courage and conviction of individuals to clean up the mess the masses allowed to occur due to their apathy. Despite its age, it's an incredibly topical read, closer to reality than any other classic speculative fiction novel I've read, and all the more extraordinary, frightening, and important because of it.

4.5 Stars

This product or service has received an outstanding rating of 4.5 stars. It clearly stands out from the competition due to its high quality and excellent performance. Customers have been extremely satisfied with its features and functionality. The attention to detail and the commitment to providing a great user experience are evident. Whether it's a physical item or a service, it has managed to exceed expectations. The 4.5-star rating is a testament to its reliability and value for money. It has become a popular choice among consumers who are looking for something that is both top-notch and affordable. With such a high rating, it's no wonder that this product or service has gained a loyal following. If you're in the market for something similar, you can't go wrong with this highly recommended option.

Friends and connoisseurs of the United States of America have been eagerly and frequently debating since the beginning of the 20th century whether this country - born as a democratic dream of a white Europe, built on great injustice and under the attempted annihilation of two races - would ever drift along the path of the venerable European countries towards totalitarianisms of the left or the right. Is American society vulnerable to fascist structures? The fear of a communist revolution made men like Edgar G. Hoover - for decades the head of the FBI - experience sleepless nights and resort to extremely questionable methods, which in the 1940s and 1950s led to the rule of Senator Joe McCarthy, into a pre-fascist era, in which denunciation, guilt by association, and family liability suddenly became socially acceptable. That the USA may always have been, are, and will be a pre-fascist society, this judgment was made by many of its intellectuals. The fear of left-wing, communist infiltration increasingly brought fascist behaviors and patterns to the surface.

American novelists have also been dealing with this political possibility since the 1930s. To this day, one can find works - be it those of Robert Penn Warren, Robert Stone, or Philip Roth - that play with it. One, if not the first of these works, was Sinclair Lewis' 1935 novel IT CAN`T HAPPEN HERE, which, like Warren's ALL THE KING`S MEN from 1946, was created under the impression of the rise and fall and the machinations of the governor of Louisiana, Huey Long, who was a radical populist and was able to establish a quasi-dictatorship in the southern state for a few years before he became the victim of an assassination attempt in Baton Rouge on September 10, 1935. Lewis exemplarily shows how in the USA a takeover of power by an independent, yet democratic party-offering populist comes about and what measures he takes to secure and consolidate his power, shows the developments that mostly result from the (false) promises and open lies of these people and also exemplarily tells of the resistance against such a regime.

The populist demagogue "Buzz" Windrip comes to power with the help of his devoted assistant Lee Saranson as an independent presidential candidate. He has made the most pompous promises to his voters: work, an immediate payment of five thousand dollars to every family in the country, a pushback of foreign investments, control of the financial markets and thus (indirectly) hostility towards Jewish fellow citizens, a new segregation of people of color and the exclusion of black people from offices and different careers. However, he leaves little doubt about his intentions, which are by no means compatible with democratic and legal ideas. Hardly in office, Windrip attacks the independent judiciary, restricts freedom of opinion, has labor camps built, in which the unemployed, whom he has largely driven into poverty with his first measures, are rounded up and exploited for starvation wages, and has his private army, the so-called "Minute Men", quickly build concentration camps that are supposed to house those who are disliked by the regime. Those companions - especially close political friends and allies and the representatives of the various churches - whom he absolutely needed for his rise, but who could now also become dangerous because of their possible independence, Windrip quickly makes disappear, arrests, secretly shoots, sometimes publicly executes, always with outrageously fabricated accusations and reproaches. And of course he attacks the press and massively restricts its freedom until it is completely coordinated. This step affects especially Doremus Jessup, the editor of a small, not entirely insignificant provincial newspaper, who, as a liberal conservative, perhaps also a conservative liberal, vaguely inclines towards Roosevelt's general policy, even if his preferred candidates would be others. However, Lewis portrays him as a passionate admirer of the "New Deal".

It is the view of this man and his family from which the events and developments are described. The rebellion, the slowly creeping fear, also the arrogance and ignorance of the person who feels intellectually superior - Lewis skillfully interweaves political, social, and psychological effects and makes the reader really shiver, for he succeeds in lulling the reader into a sense of security for a long time with that style that once gave the world literature BABBITT and ELMER GANTRY, only to shock him all the more violently then. With sometimes slightly flirting irony, sometimes quite thickly applied sarcasm, one can quite often be of the opinion during the reading that one is dealing with a didactic piece that ultimately understands that it cannot depict reality and is therefore content with being a farce. What speaks for this - and this is perhaps the one great weakness of the book - is that Lewis never bothers to explain the technical details of this "takeover of power" to the reader. As the clumsy governance of the current President Trump proves, it is not so easy to undermine or circumvent the American "checks and balances" - an essential part of the democratic control of the country. Not even by decree etc. But in the last third, Lewis then noticeably tightens the dramaturgical screws, generates enormous tension and emphasis with the fates of the people he describes. However, Lewis does not shy away from cruelties and the description of atrocities and thus casts a serious and above all honest look at arbitrariness and violence, which all authoritarian regimes inevitably bring with them. He succeeds in creating scenarios of such可怕的 impressiveness in some places as has really only been achieved by a few writers who have not themselves become victims of torture and suffering and had to rely on the power of their imagination.

As a European recipient who grew up with a broad stream of literature and is familiar with that which deals with German and European history, as the heir to a history that brings with it enormous responsibility and also as a resident of a country that, on the one hand, is democratically consolidated, but on the other hand, still seems to succumb again and again to the temptations of the totalitarian, the supposedly easy solutions, as a reader and participant in a discourse that has been going on for a long time, now almost 50 years, of eyewitness accounts and descriptions of what happened on the streets of Germany after January 1933, on the battlefields of Europe from 1939 and of course in the camps of the Nazis already from the early years and then increasing to a frenzy of annihilation in the entire twelve years that the Third Reich was ultimately supposed to last, one is fundamentally skeptical of a fictional description of such a development and thinks one knows better in case of doubt than the author could know in his time. What an arrogant attitude. Sinclair Lewis, married to the journalist Dorothy Thompson, who had lived in Germany for a long time and closely observed the development of the country, knew Europe, especially Germany, and had himself had experiences with the European totalitarianisms as a traveler. So it is above all the oppressive atmosphere that takes hold in the Jessup house, that surrounds the people and seems to paralyze them little by little, that Lewis is able to brilliantly sense and convey. The feeling of paralyzing fear, the hopelessness and the always threatening arbitrariness after the reversal of the prevailing conditions can be continuously felt.

Of course, the first third of the novel - precisely because of the rise of a man like Trump - makes us today shiver. Uncanny how exactly Lewis is able to anticipate what it takes and what type of person it is who embarks on such a path in the USA. It's all there: With Windrip a type who can offer himself as one of the same to the supposedly "little man", but who at the same time maintains a maximum distance to these "little people"; the rude language, the lies and half-truths, the empty and, on closer inspection, so obviously false promises; with Lee Saranson even a guy like Steve Bannon, that often self-portrayed whisperer whom Trump felt obliged to fire after the racist riots in Charlottesville; also the latent violence with which Trump regularly flirted at his election campaign events, Sinclair Lewis understands and knows how to incorporate it into his scenario. Of course, all this condenses into a disturbing dystopia and a warning to his contemporaries that they too are not immune to the whispers of false prophets. Furthermore, he clearly shows that such developments - seemingly controllable forces - often develop dynamics that can no longer be controlled, not even contained. But when it comes to that, the catastrophe has usually already occurred.

That Lewis takes the European fascist movements as a model for this is obvious. It corresponds to his literary genius to design an originally American scenario that is nevertheless realistically convincing. And of course it is his sense for figures and tension building and the dramaturgical finesse that hold the reader captive on the good 430 pages and make him want to follow the psychologically sophisticated figures and their developments. Lewis quite allows himself his little jokes when he develops Doremus as a man who appears quite arrogant and snobbish and who stands in and has to exist in a whole series of dialectical relationships: There is one with his wife Emma and his mistress, who is at the same time Emma's friend, another with his children, who on the male side incline towards the regime and on the female side reject the same, another between him, a communist friend and various gentlemen presenting theories and theses in clubs and circles, from which a cosmos of political ideologies and theories results, in which Doremus (and thus Lewis) can not only initially find and clarify his own position, but also lose and redefine it. Finally, Lewis entangles his hero in a true master-servant relationship with his former household factotum Shad Ledue, towards whom Doremus sees himself in a kind of Pygmalion role, wants to form a human being, a citizen with manners, education, and class from this creature and does not notice that this is not a liberal service to the general public, but merely a highly private joke at the expense of someone who is in every respect beaten by fate. It will take bitter revenge when the conditions under which one understands and represents "master" and "servant" change. Lewis succeeds in the admittedly sometimes woodcut-like portrayal of precisely this relationship in creating an astonishingly precise psychogram of what makes up the fascisticoid character, but also what makes him seductive and - literarily - attractive.

IT CAN`T HAPPEN HERE is a rousing work and at the same time alarming in its publication now 82 years ago, considering how precisely Sinclair Lewis shows the reader the social development that can be observed today in parts. Above all, however, it is still a quite remarkable contribution to the question of whether one of the oldest democracies of modern times is immune to dictatorial tendencies. And it is an exciting book, what one would call a political thriller today. So the reading is worthwhile on very different levels. A great rediscovery, fitting for the current times.

The Nobel laureate Sinclair Lewis wrote in 1935 in great haste and with genuine concern a kind of dystopia that shows the US after the election of a popular candidate who establishes a dictatorship. The book became a bestseller, surely had an impact on its readers and has not lost much of its topicality (in parts of the novel there are parallels to Donald Trump, but in many also to Vladimir Putin). My poor rating stems from the simple principle that "well-intentioned" is not "well-made". Perhaps my judgment is too harsh and is due to the parallel reading of another Nobel laureate and master of language, who could receive the award only one year before Lewis - Thomas Mann. The translation by Hans Meisel, the later private secretary of Mann, written in exile in 1936, is so far the only translation into German, and some inappropriate expressions or clumsy sentences may have their cause here. Even if I consider this possibility, the one-dimensional character portrayal still bothered me - the evil janitor, the cynical lawyer, the dumb wife or the hero who cannot be defeated. A real plot was all too often replaced by explanations, and some things seemed patched together or much too strongly constructed.

Nevertheless, despite all criticism, the portrayal of the development of a totalitarian system and its mechanisms is well done, especially when one considers that Lewis was not yet aware of certain further developments in Germany and the Soviet Union. So the book is quite worth reading if one is looking for a very real dystopia and is not bothered by poor literary quality. As a warning against a departure from democracy, it is very useful.

I had a professor who once told me that this is the distilled version of a middle-class academic's fears regarding what might occur during an American holocaust. More than anything else, they are afraid of the "ignorance" of the working class. Having been oppressed for such a long time, the working class would quickly embrace anyone who promised them any form of redistribution. The lesson here is never to fear the poverty that is the source of social problems, but rather to fear the symptoms.

And you know what? I concur with him. No matter how you look at it, this book is rather classist.

However, setting that aside, the book itself makes for an interesting read. I enjoyed it for the exercise in creativity. As you read the book, you不禁 wonder what it would have been like if it hadn't been FDR, but instead someone who embraced fascism as a means to cure the Great Depression.

I found myself more than once struck by how applicable some of the commentary is to modern times. Words written over 70 years ago could easily have been heard yesterday on Fox News. In many ways, those passages were actually quite frightening, to be honest.

I truly recommend this book. It is thought-provoking and timely. It makes you reflect on the past and consider its implications for the present and future.

**Title: Thoughts on Sinclair Lewis' Work**

In 2020-06-06, I recalled reading about 1/4 - 1/3 of a certain work by Sinclair Lewis around 10 - 15 years ago. I then lost it and hadn't found the time to return to it.

My initial impressions were that Lewis was worried about fascism arriving in the US. His "good" character was a newspaper editor or publisher who battled local fascist-like politicians and the general public mood. While this is generally a positive thing, Lewis' concepts of what fascism truly is and what a good "liberal" society should be were rather confused.

Lewis had uncritically accepted the gradual coercive "progressive" distortion of the term liberal. In the classical sense, liberal meant liberty and was based on a sound understanding of limiting government through clear, concise written constitutions, the rule of law, and property rights. However, the so-called "progressives" in the late 1800s and even some muddled "liberals" gradually undermined the clear thinking of the American founders and other great liberal thinkers like Adam Smith and the classical economists. John Stuart Mill, despite his brilliant defenses of liberty, was also one of the confounders of those clear pro-liberty ideas.

So, at some point, I would like to revisit this book. But there is still unclear thinking regarding the problems and solutions of the ideas that help society prosper peacefully rather than becoming increasingly embroiled in conflict, disharmony, and poverty.

On 2020-10-11, I recently read a reference to Lewis in the book "Stalin's Apologist". It was mentioned that all his friends, including the subject of that book, Walter Duranty, called him Sinclair "Red" Lewis because he was a big fan of communism during his trip to Moscow in the 1920s or early 30s (and also because of his red hair). Well, this makes sense: 1. How many people who have read Lewis' book know he was a communist or at least where his sympathies lay? 2. Certainly, communists were "anti-fascist" as both ideologies/movements were vying for control of the government in countries worldwide. His muddled "anti-fascist liberalism" in this book was not what it seemed at all. This greatly clarifies the situation.

Sempre me inquietou a pouca atenção dada, actualmente, e por aqui, a Sinclair Lewis.

He was a remarkable writer, yet seems to be overlooked in the current literary landscape.

And this edition, which was almost coincident with a certain event (they noticed in time and backed off), exists not just due to an evident editorial opportunism.

Applying this romance from the 1930s to the presidency of Donald Trump requires a small effort and a moderate dose of imagination.

Well, be it. If there was an opportunistic move to edit more good books, I didn't really mind that much.

Sinclair Lewis is a solid writer. In some way, I feel that he grabs my arm and shows me.

His writing is angular, dry, and convinced. All of this is confirmed in this book as well.

It is a dystopian exercise written during the interwar period, to show the opposite of what it claims at the beginning.

Overall, it is a very good work that deserves more recognition and appreciation.

In 1935, a book was published that was significant in its time. It presented a scenario where a totalitarian state emerged in the USA. However, the characters and the plot were completely stereotypical. The book is filled with long, almost unbearably didactic passages, accompanied by a staggering number of silly propaganda jingles. It is clearly showing its age.

At best, it can be read as a historical document that was intended to create a mood in favor of Roosevelt and against the populist Huey Long (who was later assassinated).

But as a novel, as literature, it no longer functions today. Just because something is well-intentioned doesn't mean it's good.

******
“Why are you so afraid of the word Fascism? … Just a word – just a word! … [And] not so worse to have a real Strong Man, like Hitler or Mussolini – like Napoleon or Bismarck in the good old days – and have ‘em really run the country and make it efficient and prosperous again.”

This shows the dangerous mindset of those who might be attracted to the idea of a strong, authoritarian leader. They seem to overlook the atrocities and negative consequences that come with such leadership.

“When Buzz gets in, he won’t be having any parade of wounded soldiers. That’ll be bad Fascist psychology. All those poor devils he’ll hide away in institutions, and just bring out the lively young human slaughter cattle in uniforms.”

Here, it reveals how a fascist regime might manipulate the public's perception by hiding the true costs and horrors of war.

“He was on every occasion heard to say, ‘we ought to keep all these foreigners out of the country, and what I mean, the Kikes just as much as the Wops and Hunkies and Chinks.’”

This quote highlights the blatant bigotry and xenophobia that often accompany fascist ideology, targeting specific groups and promoting division.

“We don’t want all the highbrow intellectuality, all this book learning.”

It shows the anti-intellectual stance that can be part of a fascist movement, as they may fear the power of critical thinking and independent ideas.

“[Windrip] would coldly and almost contemptuously jab his crowds with figures and facts – figures and facts that were inescapable even when, as often happened, they were entirely incorrect.”
******

It Can’t Happen Here is a dystopian and satirical novel written by Sinclair Lewis in 1935. It tells the story of Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, a fictional U.S. senator who defeats Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and becomes a dictator.

Lewis was influenced by the real-life populist Huey Long, who had similar plans. Despite being criticized for lacking literary merit, the book is popular. It sold out on Amazon.com after the 2016 election and is seeing a surge again in response to the 2024 election.

The quote “Why America’s the only free nation on earth. Besides! Country’s too big for a revolution. No, no! Couldn’t happen here.” shows the complacency that Lewis was trying to challenge with his book. His response, “The hell it can’t,” serves as a warning that such a dystopian future could indeed occur.

Overall, It Can’t Happen Here remains relevant today as it explores themes of fascism, populism, and the importance of remaining vigilant against the erosion of democracy.

At approximately 50% DNF (Did Not Finish).

The opening scene is magnificent. Many dialogues are excellent.

However, the book contains far too many descriptions and lists, and shows far too little. It overexplains and attempts to put its message in the forefront instead of emphasizing literary merit.

To me, it is far too chatty. I can no longer even laugh at the satire. It gets old too quickly. What a pity. I am extremely annoyed by all the noise.

Too real. It is truly astonishing just how prescient this piece was. Considering that it was penned way back in 1935, it's almost不可思议. The accuracy with which it predicted certain things is remarkable. It makes one wonder how the author could have had such foresight.

Let's hope that it was only prescient once. We don't want the events or circumstances it seemed to anticipate to keep repeating themselves. Maybe it serves as a警示 or a reminder of what could potentially happen if we're not careful. Or perhaps it's just a fluke, a random instance of something being eerily accurate.

Regardless, it's an interesting piece that makes us think about the power of prediction and the role of history in shaping our understanding of the present and future.