Customer Reviews

The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Perhaps the most fascinating part of this book isn't even what's printed on the page - it's HOW its printed on the page. There are no paragraphs. The entire work is an assembly of short declaratory sentences (or less) arranged, spaced, and sized for maximum impact. Charts and graphs abound. It is clear that the author conceived the entire page, not just his words. This probably bothers some people (it certainly did for at least one reviewer on Amazon.com) but I find it not just readable but incredibly informative, cluing the reader in to the author's ideas about what's important and how certain concepts mesh together or can be juxtaposed for power and insight.

If you cannot accept this format (as is the case with a few of the other reviewers) the book will drive you crazy. If you can get past it, though, reading it is a very enjoyable experience.

The book opens with and revolves around the very thought provoking question, "How many stars with the U.S. flag have in 50 years?" Most Americans would respond "fifty, of course" without any thought. Mr. Enriquez spends the remainder of the book providing insightful examples of how other countries have 'untied' (his term for the breakup of a nation into smaller, independent parts) and lines along which and reasons for the U.S. to 'untie.'

He covers portions of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, that could under certain circumstances become 'new stars' for America. He also examines the reasons and trends that my induce portions of the United States to 'untie' - a loss of stars for the United States.

The 'Blue State vs. Red State' divide is examined. The author observes that when populations within a nation become sufficiently self identifying and unintegrated, splits often occur, but not in the way that might seem most likely. Given that The South has already seceded once and makes up a significant part of 'Red America' one would think it most likely for the 'Red States' to secede again. Mr. Enriquez contends that this isn't the case. Most secessions are by the more eoonomically viable portion. When a population or region becomes convinced that the could be richer by themselves, they secede. Knowledge based economies alow smaller nations (cough, cough, South Korea, cough) to easily compete with far larger nations. Shedding regions that don't 'pull their weight' becomes an increasingly attractive option.

Mr. Enriquez does not, however, spend the entire book examining the United States. Italy, Canada, the Balkans, The UK and Russia, among many others, are also used to illustrate concepts.

I highly recommend this book, regardless of your political stripes. It is neither Conservative propoganda nor Progressive talking points. It explores trends that are unfolding all over the world and explains how they will affect us.

See my full review [...]

In this snappy, fast-paced but deeply-thought-out book, Juan Enriquez challenges our assumptions about the future stability of the United States and the entire surrounding region. Will the U.S. flag still have fifty stars fifty years from now? Will some regions secede, or others seek to join the USA and become new states? What trends are tearing this country apart, and what trends in other nearby nations such as Canada, Mexico and certain U.S. protectorates might make them fracture, with parts of what are now sovereign nations throwing in their lot with the United States?

Enriquez identifies disturbing socioeconomic trends within this country that tend toward disunion. Some states receive far more from the United States treasury than they pay in. These are generally "blue" states with a large tax base. Other states are takers; these are generally "red" states in the arid west. Racial divides, including the tremendous influx of Hispanic migrants and the increasing power of Indian tribes as sovereign nations, accentuate the problem. Religiously divided Americans no longer speak a common "language" based on common metaphysical assumptions. As an earlier work on this topic, "The Nine Nations of North America" pointed out, this enormous country in which we live is really a confederation of a great many regional interests. Whether we can continue to view it as our common interest to "buy the American brand" and maintain a common identity is an open question.

Enriquez makes the book entertaining by using a variety of typefaces, photographs, and quotes to make his point. It reads like a website converted into a book. But don't let the quick read fool you. There is a lot here to think about.

A professor I know here at school once described Juan Enriquez's writing as "part e. e. cummings, part html." It's true. I just got this and it kept me up through the night. If you've ever thought that there's more to the red state/blue state divide than just presidential elections, or if you've ever thought there's more common culture between western Canada and California than between California and the Carolinas, or if you ever have wondered about the potential of a north-south "nation" of Spanish speakers on the American continent(s), this book will keep you up too. Oh, and did you know the United States almost acquired a large portion of Mexico as part of the Mexican bailout of the mid-90s?

This book is basically an American liberal's response to "The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age", where Mr. Enriquez hits on many keypoints but cannot ultimately escape his own politics/social mentality he has grown accustomed to.

The points where I diverge with Mr. Enriquez are too numerous to list here, but I think what it all comes down is that while Davidson & Rees-Mogg (authors of Sovereign Individual) look forward to most of the changes through decentralization, and successfully write as (they term it) "political atheists", Enriquez is scared to death of any decentralization to any state let alone the American state and lets his ideology mold his thinking of trends unfolding.

His "Conclusion" (the transition to power on 1/21/08, written in 2005) is really quite funny for anyone up to date on accurate trend forecasters (Sovereign Individual, and also Gerald Celente), but this part gets me:

"The president [newly elected], faced with overwhelming challenges during her first days in office, did understand that there was one overarching priority: Make it unrewarding and uncomfortable for anyone, in the mainstream, to promote untying [political decentralization/secession]."

For all his talk about self-expression and freedom throughout the book, that passage screams to me his real desire: control.

He also is very heavy-handed against religion, attacks a lot of Red State strawmen, while Rees-Mogg and Davidson in Sovereign Individual are lot more even (though negative still) and less childishly simple in questioning religion's role in society.

Speaking of childishly simple...another CON against Enriquez is his prose, of many different fonts making each sentence its own headline of sorts. Very very irritating to read, it screamed to me "I think everyone reading this is an idiot! So I'm going to make everything change constantly to keep your short-attention span from wandering.", even though it distracted more then aided. It also reminded me of the high school/college kids who write papers in fonts larger than 12 pt. and triple spacing to make their work seem longer. I half expected the pages to have lots of pictures (which it actually did, many superfluous and unnecessary) and cardboard thick pages ala "See Spot Run".

The only PRO I can think of, besides giving people who have already read Sovereign Individual a hearty laugh at those still thinking in the Idustrial Age mindset, is that Enriquez does delve into a subject Rees-Mogg & Davidson failed to go into much: Mexico. While Sovereign Individual does go into how there will be an increase in mob/mafia/gang control with the new power vacuum being created with the delegitimization of the State, Enriquez gives a good primer on the political and social climate in Mexico, the country where this is actually taking place.

In the end, please read The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age by Lord William Rees-Mogg and James Davidson http://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239567198&sr=8-1 and if you still want to read The Untied States of America, do so after reading The Sovereign Individual and only if the former doesn't set you back much, my issue I got for $1 at a book warehouse.

Once I finished the first chapter of Juan Enriquez's noteworthy book "The Untied States of America" it dawned on me it was not a book about the "United States of America" but the pulling apart of it.

There's a vast amount of information in "UNTIED" and it's presented in a way that is easy way to digest. How did Juan Enriquez come up with all this stuff? The information is FANTASTIC and you'll probably want to read the book more than once to digest it fully.

A couple of pages really spoke out to me personally; page 83 had this statement "Gaps in educational attainment and income can eventually become national security issues".

"If two or more populations consistently diverge, if they become increasingly isolated, there is ever more opportunity for
recrimination and blame".

That's an example of what's happening now in the "UNTIED States of America"; and it's also happening in Iraq.

As you read the book your taken to the possible future, a very real future where the boundaries of countries are different than what we know them to be today, and UNTIED makes it possible for me to envision how that might happen that the boundaries change. In fact, it's already happening and the process is accelerating; you may want to read the book to understand the changes.

I know I'll be reading this book more than once.

Funny. This is one of the hottest topics on the planet right now since a Russian social scientist, Igor Panarin, predicted the break up of the US by 2010.

Is the US news media being willfully stupid (what else is new?) by not including this book written by a Harvard academic and venture capitalist in the discussion.

Hard to tell.

In any event, this is an interesting book designed to provoke thought and intelligent discussion. It puts a time frame of 50 years on this potential outcome unless the country faces its problems and growing disunity.

50 years is a LONG time and just about anything can happen. No earthly kingdom is immune from dissolution. In fact, dissolution is the historical norm for ALL states. I realize this is hard for most people to wrap their minds around.

Then again, the finest minds in US journalism can't even be bothered to do a five minute search on Google to see if this now red-hot topic has been discussed before.

A powerful and procative book that snaps you back to the right questions. The Untied States serves you with a clear and compelling story without agenda other than to make you think...

Mr. Enriquez argues that a country's borders are not eternal. He examines the centrifugal and centripetal factors acting on a country. The focus is on North America, but he uses examples from around the world, including half a chapter devoted to the European experience.

He strongly believes a country's political stability rests upon social tolerance and economic vitality. This not an uncommon belief, but he offers many facts, comparative statistics and unconventional points of view to make the argument.

What sets the book apart from similar works is the format. One reviewer described it as ~ a Powerpoint presentation. I agree. Here's an example:

"Think about what happen in Brazil. Decades ago it decided to become the best in the world. Scouts scoured each and every village to find the most talented kids. It did not matter if they were rich or poor, black, brown, or white, lived in a village or a big city, had powerful parents or were orphans. If they were good, they were supported, mentored, tracked and trained. And eventually, the country won. Time and again ... Until there was no doubt they were the best. Brazil beat the world five times. The tragedy is that Brazil chose to do this in soccer....Meanwhile, South Korea chose to do exactly the same thing ... in math and science. Very different outcomes."

In the book, the above takes about a page to present. (pp.61-62)

Contents: (1) How Dare You (2) Untied States (3) Technology and Religion's Brutal March (4) Excuse Me - I Was Here First (5) Borders Bounce: Do You Habla Espanol? (6) Democracy + Open Borders = Four Mexicos? (7) Europe and Its Discontents (What Is A Country Anyway?) (8) Like Your Flag? Want To Keep It? Conclusion: What Is Yet To Be Done?


Nutshell, a conventional line of reasoning, unconventionally presented.

Good read for those who pay attention to the coming train wreck. If you don't see we're headed over a cliff, you're not paying attention.

Juan Enriquez has the rare ability tu summarize in a series of short sentences what it takes many other writers a long and winded book without the same concise effect. Enriquez does not attempt to take sides and several times he reminds the reader on this. It is expected that a good number of readers from each section of the political spectrum to be offended when confronted with one-liners that give little room for rebuttal. Enriquez doesn't loose time trying to convince us: he simply states what he considers a trend and folows it with a reference.

Excellent book that should be widely read and debated so we can use it to begin to find common grounds between factions.