Endorsements and Reviews of United We Fall (Praeger, 2008)

John Kenneth White, Catholic University of America

Philip Neisser confronts and confounds the conventional wisdom. In a year where a longed-for unity is being promised and celebrated, Neisser argues that disagreement should be celebrated. Whether one agrees with Neisser or not, this provocative and elegantly written book brings much to our civic debate.


Sanford F. Schram, Bryn Mawr College

Phil Neisser's new book is an eloquent contribution to the literature on democratic dialogue, deftly displaying the essential role disagreement plays in promoting a robust democracy. Well situated in the relevant literature, the book practices what it preaches, taking issue with the received wisdom in ways both thoughtful and considerate. This is an important contribution to the scholarship on the subject that provides a model for a better politics.


September 15, 2008; Library Journal

Neisser (Politics, SUNY, Potsdam) here calls for the practice and celebration of political disagreement. What our constitutional democracy needs, he argues, especially in this presidential election year, is more disagreement, not less. According to Neisser, electoral inertia and democratic dyspepsia can be overcome not by endorsing the beguiling notion of nonpartisanship but rather by embracing an ethic of disagreement, what he calls "disagreement democracy." Disagreement is not simply a state of affairs, Neisser contends, but a process, a crucial activity in a country composed of citizens rather than subjects. In the political science tradition of democratic and communitarian theory, Neisser offers a compelling, provocative, and timely critique of American democracy; he rejects such myths as the melting pot and provides instead a vision in which American democracy, as a way of life entailing much more than merely voting or blogging, reclaims its soul through what he calls "cross-border communication," where we move beyond boundaries of race, class, ethnicity, religion, and political party affiliation. Neisser's work is an illuminating contribution to dialogic democratic theory and belongs especially in university libraries and on scholar's shelves. Highly recommended.-Stephen K. Shaw, Northwest Nazarene Univ., Nampa, ID


Review 090408, Choice, Fall 2008

James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that conflict in society was inevitable given differences in individual interests.  However, he argued, individual interests could be channeled in such a way that the Republic could draw strength from difference, that disagreement could ultimately produce the common good.  Uniting the social capital literature with this essential insight (held by Madison and many others) Neisser argues that rather than banish difference in a search for consensus we should embrace our differences as an essential component of our conception of community; in a sense, difference and the ability to deal with difference in a positive way is a sign of increasing social capital.  Neisser’s well written and researched book proceeds nicely through the history of the “disagreement legacy” to discussions of the media, democracy, and the practice of disagreement.  His succinct but useful conclusion provides a roadmap for embracing disagreement.  This book is useful in a variety of classroom settings; students will find it an easy and enjoyable read.  The generalist reader concerned with community-building, deliberative democracy, or the state of our current political and social discourse will also benefit from this book.
       by Sean Kelly


June 22, 2008 The New York Post
     Celebrate partisanship! Celebrate disagreement! Let freedom ring! This is the healthy message of Phil Neisser's new book, "United We Fall." And it couldn't be timelier, in a general-election season where the center is worshipped by both major parties' presidential candidates. Neisser recoils at this kind of kumbaya politics. "The clash of deeply opposed, partisan ideas is itself a blessing; that disagreement, when deployed in the right context, is a valuable, life-enhancing activity; and that personal engagement in nonviolent argument is a central aspect of a well-lived life." Everyone from Mitt Romney and Sean Hannity to Barack Obama says "Washington is broken," but, for Neisser, what's wrong with Washington is not that people there have strong beliefs. It's the whitewashing of differences, the absences of differences and the exit of passionate, principled debates that is cause for concern.
     More relevant to the election, Neisser argues that "the many daunting problems of the world - violence, incivility, exploitation, environmental degradation, terrorism and the like - might seem to call for more unity and moderation. What they actually demand, however, is a turn towards the celebration of disagreement." It is "spirited clash of opposed points of view," you see, which serve to help "form public opinion and shape public policy," Neisser argues. And it's not only true from Neisser's political scientist perspective, it's common sense - if you start from a middle muddle, from the position of compromise, chances are your end product is a dud. No one fights for anything. Who even really cares? That's no way to make policy. "The problem," Neisser explains, "is the failure to talk and listen rather than the existence of deeply opposed views. Differing philosophies and religions, the clash between radicals, liberals and conservatives, the fact of bias and political passion, all are potentially positive; all are sources of ideas and energy; and all can be sources of community as well."
     Academic that he is, Neisser doesn't have many practical examples beyond Midwestern barn raisings 150 years ago. But real-life applications abound. The Great Society is, in fact, liberalism in action, then failed, then rolled back. Take welfare reform. Rick Santorum and Bill Clinton wound up on the same side of that issue 11 years ago, after years of emotional and vehement debates. The result: A much-improved policy. So, bring on the substantive debates between John McCain and Barack Obama. Bring on the debate about talking to Iran's Ahmadinejad - instead of actually doing it. Elections are about issues. Even if the general election comes down to a blurring of differences, there will be real issues to face come January 20, and there will be real consequences to choosing one candidate over the other. Indeed, we'll certainly see those consequences over the long-term on the Supreme Court.
     Neisser does make some mistakes, like arguing that the mainstream media isn't all that liberal and attacking Rush Limbaugh for "crazy" views even as he praises his show. "By creating a genuinely partisan space, Limbaugh helps to license impromptu speaking out . . . extreme views get airtime, even if they are almost all his, and there's nothing like an extreme view to stimulate real thinking, to make people want to respond, whether positively or negatively." Craziness aside, "United We Fall" is a much needed splash of cold water on an electorate falling into a cloud of the politics of nothing. Unless you're ready to ditch our political system for a Seinfeld party, follow Neisser, at least up to the point where you're in the heart of a constructive debate.
      Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist.