The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy
Michael Lewis's brilliant narrative of the Trump administration's botched first presidential transition takes us into the engine rooms of a government under attack by its leaders through willful ignorance and greed. The government manages a vast array of critical services that keep us safe and underpin our lives from ensuring the safety of our food and drugs and predicting extreme weather events to tracking and locating black market uranium before the terrorists do. The Fifth Risk masterfully and vividly unspools the consequences if the people given control over our government have no idea how it works.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
PROLOGUE: LOST IN TRANSITION
9/10
I put off starting this book for a few days because I'm frankly sick and tired of Orange Man Bad stuff and had to force myself a bit more to start this audiobook. On all social media I'm on about 50% of users are very left-wing and hate anyone close to the right-wing, including Trump, which means I already know most bad stuff about Trump and former Republican presidents while I'm pretty ignorant about bad stuff Clinton, Obama or Biden did.
But the first chapter completely sold me on the book. I already saw Michael Lewis as one of the best writers in the world and this chapter just made me remember why I trust him so much that I'm willing to even read stuff from him I'm not interested in. The chapter is really damn exciting. All storytelling tools are used to perfection as we experience events via personal interactions and conflicts and not just vague statements. It may make it a bit harder to believe all this stuff really happened as described here. But it's so damn interesting that it doesn't matter too much. Stuff happened this way or close to this way. A movie will for sure be made about Trump as a funny character.
I. TAIL RISK
7,5/10
It's an interesting chapter with some good points, but with some quite significant biases that will make it feel misleading to many knowledgeable readers.
It's about how United States Department of Energy (DOE) is amazing. How all their programs are crucial for the safety of USA and how their research support produces a big surplus. It's a well-structured argument with some great interviews and points. It makes it clear the department does fulfil some important tasks. The first chapter was biased yet still fun, as attacking Trump is fair game. All politicians deserve some critique no matter how much you like them. This chapter on the other hand is overprotective of a public department. So much so that nearly all statements here are overly positive towards the department and it feels like the author is not critical enough and could easily have been mislead by some of these public workers he interviewed who love their job. It's fair to support some agencies and a their use of tax dollars. But without any critical points it's obviously not a good overview over DOE. And it's not clearly shown that Trump wanting to decrease the size of this agency is a bad thing as we just don't read about what they could cut - we only read that some areas they can't cut. Most public departments do have areas that are just nice to have in very prosperous times, but too expensive to keep running if the public sector is running a deficit.
I'm sure some experts reading this chapter won't just, like I did, feel it's very misleading in parts, but actually cringe while reading such a rose-tinted overview. I'm giving him the benefit of doubt here by rating the chapter highly as I can't know how misleading it is.
II. PEOPLE RISK
6/10
This is probably the worst Michael Lewis chapter I've read in any of his books. It's still high quality writing, but here he unfortunately not just bashes Trump or other politicians, which I think is fine, but is also overly biased pro Democrats. The second chapter did feel like propaganda, but it had a light sense to it. You could see that he supported the government department itself. Here it's about Obama, Hillary, various handout programs and about how evil and stupid many Republicans are. Both the politicians and voters. It feels narrow-minded this way. But even so that's not really the main issue. Unfortunately Michael Lewis is a kind and accepting interviewer. It usually goes well as he describes many curious silly things but is respectful. But what happens if he interviews a lying narcissist about a topic he may not know about? Well, he does seem to be overly trusting. Here a progressive left-wing doctor tells him about her experiences with various battles against "evil men" and it's mentioned how cute it is that everyone calls her Doctor and how her license plate has Dr on it too. Everything about her stories feels fake and off. It sounds like spin, lies and bragging. I just don't remember him interviewing anyone with this huge ideological and personal biases before. And unfortunately the statements fit into his story and worldview so he doesn't seem to ever question anything she says. He actually uses all her personal stories and ideas to conclude how society works. No science and no evidence, just her observations alone are seemingly enough to conclude how whole departments work. He does this with all the people in this chapter. A left-wing researcher visits a poor school in New Orleans after the hurricane and describes how his observations conclusively illustrated that poor schools cause poverty. Well, no. That's not how you show a causality. It's a huge mistake to make in a book on politics. School expenditures don't define grades. And when someone tells Michael Lewis that he visited a school and therefore knows of such an effect that doesn't mean it's actually true. It is true that low grade and low wage workers have low grade kids. But the school they sent them to doesn't define how well they do. Low IQ parents likely won't get high IQ kids. And schooling doesn't change their genetics.
III. ALL THE PRESIDENT’S DATA
6/10
Just like the prior chapter this chapter starts on a bad/mediocre note as we hear absolutely nothing about Trump's funny mistakes, but instead read about a really long personal biography that Lewis retells without any critical input. It's about a female astronaut 'fighting' men as she had issues with what period pads NASA bought, how they made space suit for women, how pilot men were egotistical and how she mocked them, and various other tropes about "I'm a fighter and got through a hard time and won". It's not as narcissistic as the story from the last chapter, but it's still a ton of pointless bragging. These people didn't start out being dirt poor, they didn't fight their way to the top, they didn't experience any great difficulty or discrimination. It's clear that both these women try to create a story around them as fighters fighting evil men who just want them defeated. In reality both are extremely lucky and lived near perfect lives with amazing jobs.
Another "magnificent hero" is a guy who grew up "poor", but then made it to the public sector leadership. It's always the same stuff about "I didn't want to make money I just wanted to save lives/change the world". All public workers in this book sound like demigods who won the game of life by conquering evil as a little guy.
Worse still is how Lewis yet again uncritically looks at info. One example is when he is told, with zero data being shown, about some racial police bias. The numbers are presented in a way where we don't even know what race the cops are. So the numbers are pointless and tell us nothing. And there are plenty of studies that find no significant effect so you can't just conclude that these cops are bad just from one study alone. I do think this stuff needs a way more careful handling than Lewis gives it as "cops are racist" research shouldn't be used as a fun way to create an anecdote. It deserves more careful studies and conclusions. Right now we just don't know if cops are racist. You may assume they are with no good evidence. But don't try to do tricks with numbers.
I must admit I had already kinda lost hope in this book being great at this point.
After these biased points the chapter goes into hurricane warnings and how important they are. This is told via interviews again. It's not that exciting because at this point I mostly looked forward to seeing how Trump would screw it up. The first chapter promised way too much. And the title of the book and the topic also promised too much. This is not about Trump or his silliness. I initially didn't want to read about him. It's just that this is what the point was and instead I read a fine, but not at all convincing, public sector fan book.
Conclusion:
Overall it's a book that tries to convince the reader that the public sector is crucial, cheap, and honorable. It also tries to argue that women made the public sector great as they took it over from mean men and that Trump will now ruin it. It does that with a ton of anecdotes from interviews used very uncritically. It's eerily uncritical to any kind of claim critical of the government and overly eager to make heroes out of all government workers. It's one-sided to a degree that it becomes misleading. But if it didn't have those braggart interviews with the 2 women and was critical of the research on cop racism I'd consider rating it higher. I just can't forgive mean loose accusations with no good evidence. It's not just supporting a huge state sector, but becoming mean and destructive.
This book very much could use some conservative or libertarian voices somewhere. At least a few pages. Even just 5 pages would be acceptable. Just a few clear illustrations of some public sector making some mistake. That would also show why people distrust it.
Overall the main point of the book is to convince us Trump will hurt the country by overlooking extremely crucial agencies. Yet it's written right after Trump came into power so it doesn't have a single word about what happened to any of these agencies. Did they stay the same? Did some of them become worse? Maybe some saved 10%, but stayed just as effective? We just don't know. We know any worker he interviewed would want to keep their job and name intact so they wouldn't go around telling people they did a lazy job in a useless department. If some did say that he didn't add their interviews to the book. And when such an extremely strong claim remains unchallenged you kinda don't know how strong it is. It's a book that does convince me some government departments are essential. But besides that it doesn't really archive any other set out goal. Even if you love big state you surely still want a stronger argument that can stand up to direct scrutiny?
9/10
I put off starting this book for a few days because I'm frankly sick and tired of Orange Man Bad stuff and had to force myself a bit more to start this audiobook. On all social media I'm on about 50% of users are very left-wing and hate anyone close to the right-wing, including Trump, which means I already know most bad stuff about Trump and former Republican presidents while I'm pretty ignorant about bad stuff Clinton, Obama or Biden did.
But the first chapter completely sold me on the book. I already saw Michael Lewis as one of the best writers in the world and this chapter just made me remember why I trust him so much that I'm willing to even read stuff from him I'm not interested in. The chapter is really damn exciting. All storytelling tools are used to perfection as we experience events via personal interactions and conflicts and not just vague statements. It may make it a bit harder to believe all this stuff really happened as described here. But it's so damn interesting that it doesn't matter too much. Stuff happened this way or close to this way. A movie will for sure be made about Trump as a funny character.
I. TAIL RISK
7,5/10
It's an interesting chapter with some good points, but with some quite significant biases that will make it feel misleading to many knowledgeable readers.
It's about how United States Department of Energy (DOE) is amazing. How all their programs are crucial for the safety of USA and how their research support produces a big surplus. It's a well-structured argument with some great interviews and points. It makes it clear the department does fulfil some important tasks. The first chapter was biased yet still fun, as attacking Trump is fair game. All politicians deserve some critique no matter how much you like them. This chapter on the other hand is overprotective of a public department. So much so that nearly all statements here are overly positive towards the department and it feels like the author is not critical enough and could easily have been mislead by some of these public workers he interviewed who love their job. It's fair to support some agencies and a their use of tax dollars. But without any critical points it's obviously not a good overview over DOE. And it's not clearly shown that Trump wanting to decrease the size of this agency is a bad thing as we just don't read about what they could cut - we only read that some areas they can't cut. Most public departments do have areas that are just nice to have in very prosperous times, but too expensive to keep running if the public sector is running a deficit.
I'm sure some experts reading this chapter won't just, like I did, feel it's very misleading in parts, but actually cringe while reading such a rose-tinted overview. I'm giving him the benefit of doubt here by rating the chapter highly as I can't know how misleading it is.
II. PEOPLE RISK
6/10
This is probably the worst Michael Lewis chapter I've read in any of his books. It's still high quality writing, but here he unfortunately not just bashes Trump or other politicians, which I think is fine, but is also overly biased pro Democrats. The second chapter did feel like propaganda, but it had a light sense to it. You could see that he supported the government department itself. Here it's about Obama, Hillary, various handout programs and about how evil and stupid many Republicans are. Both the politicians and voters. It feels narrow-minded this way. But even so that's not really the main issue. Unfortunately Michael Lewis is a kind and accepting interviewer. It usually goes well as he describes many curious silly things but is respectful. But what happens if he interviews a lying narcissist about a topic he may not know about? Well, he does seem to be overly trusting. Here a progressive left-wing doctor tells him about her experiences with various battles against "evil men" and it's mentioned how cute it is that everyone calls her Doctor and how her license plate has Dr on it too. Everything about her stories feels fake and off. It sounds like spin, lies and bragging. I just don't remember him interviewing anyone with this huge ideological and personal biases before. And unfortunately the statements fit into his story and worldview so he doesn't seem to ever question anything she says. He actually uses all her personal stories and ideas to conclude how society works. No science and no evidence, just her observations alone are seemingly enough to conclude how whole departments work. He does this with all the people in this chapter. A left-wing researcher visits a poor school in New Orleans after the hurricane and describes how his observations conclusively illustrated that poor schools cause poverty. Well, no. That's not how you show a causality. It's a huge mistake to make in a book on politics. School expenditures don't define grades. And when someone tells Michael Lewis that he visited a school and therefore knows of such an effect that doesn't mean it's actually true. It is true that low grade and low wage workers have low grade kids. But the school they sent them to doesn't define how well they do. Low IQ parents likely won't get high IQ kids. And schooling doesn't change their genetics.
III. ALL THE PRESIDENT’S DATA
6/10
Just like the prior chapter this chapter starts on a bad/mediocre note as we hear absolutely nothing about Trump's funny mistakes, but instead read about a really long personal biography that Lewis retells without any critical input. It's about a female astronaut 'fighting' men as she had issues with what period pads NASA bought, how they made space suit for women, how pilot men were egotistical and how she mocked them, and various other tropes about "I'm a fighter and got through a hard time and won". It's not as narcissistic as the story from the last chapter, but it's still a ton of pointless bragging. These people didn't start out being dirt poor, they didn't fight their way to the top, they didn't experience any great difficulty or discrimination. It's clear that both these women try to create a story around them as fighters fighting evil men who just want them defeated. In reality both are extremely lucky and lived near perfect lives with amazing jobs.
Another "magnificent hero" is a guy who grew up "poor", but then made it to the public sector leadership. It's always the same stuff about "I didn't want to make money I just wanted to save lives/change the world". All public workers in this book sound like demigods who won the game of life by conquering evil as a little guy.
Worse still is how Lewis yet again uncritically looks at info. One example is when he is told, with zero data being shown, about some racial police bias. The numbers are presented in a way where we don't even know what race the cops are. So the numbers are pointless and tell us nothing. And there are plenty of studies that find no significant effect so you can't just conclude that these cops are bad just from one study alone. I do think this stuff needs a way more careful handling than Lewis gives it as "cops are racist" research shouldn't be used as a fun way to create an anecdote. It deserves more careful studies and conclusions. Right now we just don't know if cops are racist. You may assume they are with no good evidence. But don't try to do tricks with numbers.
I must admit I had already kinda lost hope in this book being great at this point.
After these biased points the chapter goes into hurricane warnings and how important they are. This is told via interviews again. It's not that exciting because at this point I mostly looked forward to seeing how Trump would screw it up. The first chapter promised way too much. And the title of the book and the topic also promised too much. This is not about Trump or his silliness. I initially didn't want to read about him. It's just that this is what the point was and instead I read a fine, but not at all convincing, public sector fan book.
Conclusion:
Overall it's a book that tries to convince the reader that the public sector is crucial, cheap, and honorable. It also tries to argue that women made the public sector great as they took it over from mean men and that Trump will now ruin it. It does that with a ton of anecdotes from interviews used very uncritically. It's eerily uncritical to any kind of claim critical of the government and overly eager to make heroes out of all government workers. It's one-sided to a degree that it becomes misleading. But if it didn't have those braggart interviews with the 2 women and was critical of the research on cop racism I'd consider rating it higher. I just can't forgive mean loose accusations with no good evidence. It's not just supporting a huge state sector, but becoming mean and destructive.
This book very much could use some conservative or libertarian voices somewhere. At least a few pages. Even just 5 pages would be acceptable. Just a few clear illustrations of some public sector making some mistake. That would also show why people distrust it.
Overall the main point of the book is to convince us Trump will hurt the country by overlooking extremely crucial agencies. Yet it's written right after Trump came into power so it doesn't have a single word about what happened to any of these agencies. Did they stay the same? Did some of them become worse? Maybe some saved 10%, but stayed just as effective? We just don't know. We know any worker he interviewed would want to keep their job and name intact so they wouldn't go around telling people they did a lazy job in a useless department. If some did say that he didn't add their interviews to the book. And when such an extremely strong claim remains unchallenged you kinda don't know how strong it is. It's a book that does convince me some government departments are essential. But besides that it doesn't really archive any other set out goal. Even if you love big state you surely still want a stronger argument that can stand up to direct scrutiny?
I got this audiobook for free as part of my $15/month Audible membership. (Free as in, it didn't use up a credit.) It's about 2.5 hours long.
There are a lot of really interesting things in this book regarding government data collection and weather data. I don't read enough books about data, especially considering how important it is to our society today. Especially now that I live in an area prone to tornados, I was especially interested in the tornado section.
I don't understand the people who seemed not to like this book because they claim there is an attack on Trump contained within. Either the information regarding the Trump administration and data dissemination and restriction is correct or incorrect. None of the reviewers claim it's incorrect (except one person, more on him later). Let's say you support Trump and you think the information is correct but negatively described, well, go ahead and explain why it's okay to take away data (paid for with public funds) from public use that would help the public. There was one reviewer that claimed he formerly worked for AccuWeather, and that Lewis was incorrect about AccuWeather. He wrote an entire blog post basically confirming exactly what Lewis said.
I took a star away because I really don't like the entire concept of audiobooks that are only available on Audible. I think you should be able to verify sources in print. An audiobook-only format, especially for a book this short, strikes me as a glorified podcast. Also, I really didn't like the ending.
There are a lot of really interesting things in this book regarding government data collection and weather data. I don't read enough books about data, especially considering how important it is to our society today. Especially now that I live in an area prone to tornados, I was especially interested in the tornado section.
I don't understand the people who seemed not to like this book because they claim there is an attack on Trump contained within. Either the information regarding the Trump administration and data dissemination and restriction is correct or incorrect. None of the reviewers claim it's incorrect (except one person, more on him later). Let's say you support Trump and you think the information is correct but negatively described, well, go ahead and explain why it's okay to take away data (paid for with public funds) from public use that would help the public. There was one reviewer that claimed he formerly worked for AccuWeather, and that Lewis was incorrect about AccuWeather. He wrote an entire blog post basically confirming exactly what Lewis said.
I took a star away because I really don't like the entire concept of audiobooks that are only available on Audible. I think you should be able to verify sources in print. An audiobook-only format, especially for a book this short, strikes me as a glorified podcast. Also, I really didn't like the ending.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.