A State of Disobedience

Chris

Banned
A State of Disobedience is based round that idea that has haunted military and alternate history writers since 1960 – A second US civil war. The main problem with such a scenario, of course, is that the USA of 2004 is very different from the US of 1860. A massive, four-year long war with state against state is impossible, although some writers have considered massive gruaella war and foreign support. Many other people have preached and planned for a long war against the government, perceiving it as hostile to the American people and slowly becoming less and less democratic.

A State of Disobedience is set, contrary to the book cover, in 2012, which is the fairly near future. In the usual US electoral mess – made worse by trends that make it very dangerous to lose an election – the US elects a president called Wilhelmina Rottemeyer. Rottemeyer’s principles are simple, more power for her, and she’ll do anything to keep that power, including developing a private army of federal employees, political officers for the military and a private system of control for the state governments, many of whom are unable or unwilling to rock the boat. Rottemeyer’s policies – I sense a right-wing cautionary theme here – bring serious disruption to the lives of many Americans, including Alvin G. Scheer, whose trial we read snippets of throughout the book, although we don’t learn why until the last chapter. The outcome of rasing taxes on businesses, it seems, is increased prices and the law that gives medical care to all means that doctors cannot treat the really desperate patients because of the screaming children.

Events come to a head in Texas, which is lucky enough to have a governer with the courage to stand up to Rottemeyer, although I suspect that Rottemeyer would have had someone like her killed quietly. The federal law enforcement agencies accidentally or deliberately kill hundreds of people in a raid on a church – and accidentally kill the governor’s brother. The shocked state of Texas separates itself from the rest of the US and acts as an independent state. This, of course, cannot go unchallenged by Rottemeyer and she acts to seal off Texas and invade. What follows is a bizarre war that ends with the collapse of the federal government.

It might just be me being old fashioned, but the purpose of a book’s first seven chapters is to interest the reader, not to turn them off. Had someone not sent me a copy of the book electronically; I would never have read it. They are sometimes difficult to read and they give details that a) involve characters who will be dead three chapters later and b) are irrelevant to the plot. If you can read though the first few chapters – better yet, just read the ‘interludes’ – you’ll find a reasonably interesting novel with many plot twists.

That said, I don’t think that the author covered enough ground. We are told about attempts to introduce impeachment legislation as a throwaway line, and then we never hear any more about it. Further, everyone on the Texan side claims that there is a serious mismatch in military force, but the bad side believes that a quick invasion of Texas is military impossible quickly – the Texans, it seems, are better equipped than the immediately available regular army units. The rest, it seems, are in Germany (why?) and the Middle East. Further, civil disobedience in the surrounding states makes it hard for the bad guys to send supplies through their territory, when the US has a massive air transportation system. Given the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason why the Feds could not ship supplies via the air – flimsy excuses about the reliability of the USAF do not cut it. This would be very limited compared to ground transport, but if the objective is to capture a single point, why not equip a bridge of fast ground vehicles?

We also learn nothing beyond frustrating hints of the outside world. The Middle East and Israel are apparently American protectorates, but the forces needed to do that must be very large. Why, then, is Texas better armed than all the feds have immediately available?

“Treasury's face took on a somber mien. "Still, I can't help but note that the Great Depression took a matter of days to wreck the economy. This might, or—admittedly—might not, be as bad as that. It's fair to say though, General, that when you invade you had better win quickly." (CH. 10)

The Texans manage to threaten the US ecomony, but there are very little details of how that happens and what its effects are. Many other things are missing: the Internet is barly mentioned, the air force is missing almost entirly from the book and there are no nuclear weapons even threatened. Rottemeyer does not sound like the type of person who would not nuke Texas if she thought her power was fading. She had ample opportunity to gain control – legally – of most of the US’s weapons and the ability to use them.

One of the books major problems is that it features characters that would be interesting in their own right – although how believable is another matter – but stand as caricatures of American political figures. Hilary Clinton is the one most reviewers have pointed at, but someone called Janet Reno is also caricatured. Worse, the good guys are mainly American patriots – it would be nice to see someone who had other motives (escape from the feds for drug offences, perhaps?) on the ‘good’ side.

The author either dislikes lesbians or is seeking to shock people. The subplot of the president’s relationship with her army commander (also female) is unnecessary and adds little, not even a steamy scene, to the plot.

The book does have some very dramatic scenes. The president’s speech to the new constitutionals convention and her subsequent death are very tense and uncertain. The reader is reminded of the death of JFK, but few real heartstrings are pulled for the reader – by the last pages everyone is convinced that she has as much right to live as Hitler. Hitler, at least, was fairly honest about his plans for the future.

I am no expert in US politics, so I won’t comment on the likelihood of this situation developing or the amendments made to the constitution at the end of the book. What I will say is that the president, Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, might well be right when she says, at the end, that no matter how they try, they’ll fall back into the same trap again and again. The heroine responds that that might not be a bad thing – America can handle a revolution once in a while. I consider the first attitude to be defeatist and short-sighted and the second to be irresponsible. Americans may or may not disagree.

From me, the book gets three stars out of five. Good points: interesting plot. Dramatic Outcome. Good overall view. Bad Points: Seriously bad writing in places (and in the wrong place too). Too short in places. No international aspect beyond Chinese arms deliveries. No really final resolution. Characters caricatures instead of real people. I recommend buying the electronic or the paperback copy. The good bits of the book don’t make ignoring the bad bits worth the extra money.

Final Note. A guy called Mathew White did a WebPage speculating on the possibilities of a second American revolution. Someone in the book refers to something very similar.

"Willi . . . I am sorry but some of those states, especially those around Texas, hate you and everything you stand for. If you push, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona . . . maybe the whole deep south and quite a bit of the Midwest might 'just say no'." Remember that red and blue map from the elections in 2000? Well, imagine the red portion in outright rebellion. It could be that bad. If you push them into it we could face a real war, and we could lose it. I can't answer for that. I won't.” (chapter 9)

Mathew’s page is at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/rightvus.htm. Nice touch for us AH writers.
 
Top