I recently posted the note below the line at the blog for my new book, It Could Happen Here. By taking a quote from my book out of context, "Conservative" writers have suggested I support their views. I do not.
(In fact, the ideas in the book fall within the Progressive tradition, and Progressive commentator Thom Hartman recently named It Could Happen Here as the "Independent Thinkers Book of the Month". I also build on the ideas in It Could Happen Here as a Braintruster for the Progressive New Deal 2.0 blog of the Roosevelt Institute, and frequent contributions to the The Huffington Post).
In the Internet age, a misquote or misstatement lasts forever and is often magnified by subsequent articles. Here's the issue: how do nonfiction authors, with a serious message, ensure their words and views are not misrepresented in an era when anyone can publish anything, no real fact-checking occurs and inaccurate material lives forever.
The article discussed below has been reprinted so often that is now mentioned under "Conservative Blogwatch" on the first page whenever anyone searches "Bruce Judson" on Google.
Please comment with your ideas and suggestions.
------------------------------------------------------------
A recent slew of "Conservative blogs" (See Conservative Blogwatch) have discussed an article, titled, The Ominous 'S-Word' - Secession, on the possibility of secession in the United States based on the political values of blue and red states.
This article has been widely reprinted on multiple "politically Conservative" blogs. The article includes a quote from It Could Happen Here. The quote is accurate, but the context is not. As a consequence, I must note that the article is misleading with regard to my views.
In It Could Happen Here, I explore how extreme (and growing) economic inequality in the United States can ultimately lead to political instability. We are currently at the highest levels of economic inequality in the recorded history of the Republic (with the top 10% of families receiving about 50% of all income). As economic inequality increases, the levels of anger, mistrust, and political polarization within nations grow. At some point extreme economic inequality can lead to political paralysis and even political instability.
It Could Happen Here includes a section titled, Lessons from the Soviet Collapse, which is an analysis of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This analysis was developed for two reasons: 1) to show that, in the modern era, super-powers can collapse suddenly and seemingly without warning and (2) that super-powers can also collapse without violence. It's hard to imagine that the governing system of a nation can disappear quickly and without substantial violence, but that is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union.
The final sentence in the section analyzing the collapse of the Soviet Union as a governing entity reads:
The United States is not the Soviet Union. Our economy is not as terrible. Our government is not as despised. But nobody thought the U.S.S.R. could collapse. Could everyone be wrong again?
The Ominous S Word article associates this quote with the possibility of secession by blue and red states in our nation who then form separate nations. The article gives the impression that my work supports the idea of this possibility; it does not.
In fact, my analysis does not address whether nations can collapse because of differences in values or political ideas. I am inclined to believe that they cannot.
But, what is most important is that I have not studied this question, and the quote from my book should not be associated with this idea.
I regret the need to make this correction, and I do want to note that I am a strong advocate of discussion of ideas of all sorts--whether I agree or disagree with the views expressed. At the same time, I hope my own views will be reported accurately, and my words will not be used out of context to imply a meaning that was not intended.