There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century

“Education in all its forms—from elementary to secondary to further education and professional training—is the beating heart of the infrastructure of opportunity. It has the potential to define and redefine who you are and who you will be. For me, it was everything.”

Hill’s personification of education as the “heart of opportunity” shows what a vital role she believes education plays in positive change and social mobility. Without a strong heart, a body cannot function, and without equal access to quality education, neither does society.

“For me, the year abroad in Moscow was a surprisingly easy transition despite the language and cultural differences and learning to navigate a big city for the first time. The dreaded determinative questions of ‘Where are you from?’ and ‘What does your father do?’ met with instant approval. I was from a world-famous coal-mining area and my dad had been a miner. I was a standard-bearer of the working class. This gave me cachet in the Soviet Union. People could relate to me and my family story.”

This reversal of Hill’s original story about the questions she faced as a child in England injects humor into the book. The answers that used to earn her instant disdain from English people who judged her as less worthy for her background now gave her credibility with folks in the Soviet Union.

“Mass industries built the cities, not the other way around. When the industries closed, the place-based economies and societies crumpled in on themselves. The infrastructure of opportunity disappeared.”

Hill demonstrates the vital role of industry in placemaking. Her diction, particularly her usage of visceral verbs like “crumpled” and “disappeared,” shows the dramatic effects industrial changes can have on an area.

“[R]ace in the United States creates a hierarchy, a fixed caste system that those within it can never fully escape. Irrespective of their educational and professional achievements and income, they are still seen to belong on the bottom rung.”

Hill doesn’t hedge her thoughts on the issue of racism; her certainty sends a clear message: The paradigm of race unfairly affects society in the United States. Caste systems are often associated with long-ago history or developing nations, so by applying phrases like “fixed caste” to the United States, Hill reveals the severity of the issue.

“Even though the prohibition was lifted, Russians continued to improvise alcohol in the 1990s out of desperation. Real vodka was often simply too expensive, and the despair that drove people to drink was simply too pervasive.”

Addiction permeates Hill’s work. She witnessed people in her hometown turn to alcohol to cope; later, she saw something similar in Russia. Mind-altering substances numb people to reality, and in turn, create issues all of their own. Hill pinpoints economic insecurity and social despair as major contributing factors to these addictions.

“President Putin suffered from some of the minor aggravations of older age, like presbyopia. He never wore reading glasses—a sign of weakness. I was so close to him that I could see he was not wearing contact lenses, but the super-large font on his notecards was a clear indication.”

This snapshot of Putin reveals his vanity and self-importance: He would rather struggle to see and use a hidden aid (enlarged print) than seem weak to others by putting on corrective glasses. This posturing is a classic example of the strong autocrat Trump admires and also, in a slightly humorous way, reveals the fragility behind the facade.

“People want their government to do something to address their difficulties. They want their political system to deliver some relief and to level the playing field.”

While the means of government and policy are complicated and nuanced, the ends people want from them are quite simple: Make life better. When governments don’t meet, or worse ignore their constituents’ needs or intensify their pain points, people seek alternatives.

“The overall message of salary discrimination is that women are worth less, even if they have the same or better qualifications and expertise than the men they work with.”

Pay gaps are a challenging subject to address in the United States since many people deny the issue and salaries aren’t public, but Hill uses her experiences to spotlight the problem. She also calls out the problematic thinking exacerbating the problem—that women are worth less than men, quite literally in this case.

“[S]tudents who had taken out loans to support their educations could no longer afford to pay them off and sank into debt. Rather than a springboard to opportunity, advanced education seemed like a millstone around this generation’s neck. Given their relatively high level of educational achievement, it is a testament to the toughness of the times that Millennials have been deemed the ‘unluckiest generation’ in American history.”

Hill shows how much difference the passage of time can make: Higher education, the tool that enabled her to positively change her social position, now has become a burden that has adversely affects Millennials’ mobility. Dramatically calling Millennials the “‘unluckiest generation’ in American history,” and negatively comparing their outcomes to those of the Silent Generation, shows how dire the situation has become.

“Populists play in the gaps created by generational and demographic change, divergent economic circumstances, competing social and cultural identities, and along the seams of inequality.”

This poetic language shows the craftsmanship of populist leaders and how they tap into a base of disenfranchised followers. The key word here—“along”—shows that populists seeking power are not interested in engaging with people who are already well off. Rather, they rely on inequalities to exploit one group’s unmet needs and pit them against another marginalized group.

“As a former intelligence operative, Vladimir Putin had determined over the years that Russia and the United States were really not so different. The two countries were essentially subject to the same larger economic and social forces, and their populations were equally susceptible to political manipulation.”

Putin long ago figured out what it has taken the United States too long to realize: Positing the US and Russia as foils of each other is an outdated Cold War narrative that is far from reality. Putin’s awareness of the similarities between the two nations informed his plans to interfere in US elections: He knew the same tactics that worked in Russia would work here.

“In circumstances where millions of people feel marginalized and mainstream political parties have no evident solutions, populists fill the vacuum.”

While populism has a negative connotation, its appeal is clear here: Populism speaks to needs that aren’t being met.

“‘So what do you think, is he a nice man, Putin? Am I going to like him?’ I never got to respond, as the cabinet members got up to leave. The rest of the group was ushered in for the photo.”

Through this line of dialogue, Hill characterizes Trump’s mindset before she offers her own straightforward analysis of his psychology and fixation with Russia. His dialogue is child-like, as is his preoccupation with Putin’s niceness—both would be funny in their innocence coming from an adult man, if that man weren’t president of the US. By using a direct quote from Trump, Hill confirms her thesis that as president, Trump was highly individualistic, self-centered, and temperamental—but also earnest in trying to foster positive relations with other nuclear powers to establish peace. The end of this scene shows the dynamic between Hill and Trump: She remains largely a background figure in meetings about Russia, despite being an expert—Trump mostly ignores her, which is a recurring theme in her professional experiences as a woman.

“The shadows of Thatcher and Reagan loomed especially large in the Trump White House. Both had believed in strong executive power and in the authority of the executive, the leader at the top.”

Casting the specters of two well-known political figures over the White House establishes the legacy Trump aspired to live up to and the methods he attempted to improve upon to maintain control and achieve his objectives.

“Putin wanted one Russia. Trump wanted many Americas, not one.”

In a sea of long sentences, a burst of short ones stands out. Hill uses simple diction and syntax to convey a complex point: The key difference between Trump and Putin lies not in their populist tendencies but in the fault lines they exploit to retain their supporters.

“This was a classic Putin ploy. I had witnessed him do this repeatedly. He would make people complicit in something nefarious by first introducing it in a deliberately vague and innocuous way. Putin said it. The other person heard it. Putin then created guilt by association when he later added new and damning details.”

Hill’s confidence in assessing Putin’s tactics based on repeated behavior and trends in his interactions give credibility to her authority on the subject. Her previous work—a book on Putin—allows her to offer readers insights into his inner workings and breaks down the mechanics of Putin’s mind for readers.

“Trump was a success as a populist in exploiting those domestic divisions, but ultimately a failure as policymaker for the same reason. He couldn’t pull himself or America together to overcome them and get them done domestically. And internationally, as president, where he in fact had all the executive authority to set the agenda and accomplish objectives, he was mesmerized by autocrats, carried away by his own sense of infallibility, and unwilling to do the homework necessary to follow through on a coherent foreign policy strategy. As far as Trump’s nuclear agenda was concerned, this was something of a personal and political tragedy for him. And insofar as nuclear arms control is one of the most consequential and pressing issues facing the world today, the tragedy didn’t end with Trump.”

Hill comes across as fair-minded and thus credible in her assessment of Trump. She accomplishes this in part by not glossing over what she views as his strengths and motivations, even as she also details his flaws and weaknesses. By showing Trump’s fixation with nuclear war and autocrats, Hill renders him a sympathetic, yet dangerous character in America’s story.

“With all kinds of conspiracy theories swirling around, we constantly found ourselves going down rabbit holes. And the president was forever wanting people ‘taken out.’ Lewis Carroll had, as he put it, conceived of the Queen of Hearts as the representative of ‘ungovernable passion—a blind and aimless Fury.’ She ‘had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. “Off with his head!” she said without even looking around.’ That was essentially what Trump demanded of Masha Yovanovitch, equally reflexively: ‘Get rid of her! Off with her head!’”

By comparing Trump to the Queen of Hearts, Hill offers a clear portrait of his temperamental and rash reactions to any perceived threat to his ego and objectives. Using a childish character from Carroll’s fairytale to describe Trump in this situation helps Hill distance herself from direct partisanship while providing a memorable description of working in the Trump administration.

“America’s postindustrial decline and dearth of opportunity—and its consequence: populist, partisan domestic politics—had become an obvious national security threat. If nothing was done to stop our political infighting and bridge partisan divides, the United States would be perpetually vulnerable to the kind of operations that the Russian security services had launched in 2016 to disrupt our democratic processes.”

Hill links America’s economic shifts with its increasing polarization to show that, if the opportunity crisis isn’t addressed, critical vulnerabilities in the country will remain exposed. Foreign actors, like Russia, are only too aware and eager to take advantage of those weak points.

“The global pandemic was another shock to fragile systems, a negative force multiplier that compounded preexisting problems. If ever there was proof that the decline of opportunity posed an existential threat, this was it.”

The reaction to the pandemic and the politicization thereof isn’t due to the virus itself, but a testament to the erosions already eating away at America’s democracy. The stress of the pandemic tipped an already tense reality over the edge, particularly economically, in a rapid and visible way.

“Their anxiety about the loss of their perceived racial and socioeconomic position had propelled them into an emergent populist political movement—a collective, desperate attempt to counter their change in circumstances.”

Hill argues that people susceptible to searching for scapegoats are exhibiting anxiety about losing the little privilege afforded to them. In fear, they turn on other groups, blaming them for shrinking opportunities. Rather than seeking common ground, populism stokes anger, pointing to a simple enemy, rather than explaining the complex reality: the failure of institutions and systems to adapt to the postindustrial and ever-changing world.

“Bishop Auckland epitomized the crisis of cyber connectivity in places that had been stripped of their terrestrial connections and physical networks because of economic decline. Inadequate infrastructure contributed to the opportunity crisis. And the United States was full of Bishop Aucklands—small towns in predominantly rural areas not connected to a major city and not connected reliably to the internet or cell service. ”

Hill uses her hometown as an example of how a lack of resources creates incredible barriers. By using a location in the UK, she can make a point about the US without readers feeling directly targeted: Rural areas without strong technological infrastructure suffered, particularly during the pandemic as schools and work shifted to online venues.

“Education is the beating heart of the infrastructure of opportunity, but place—where you live—is the body that holds it. Place frames everything else.”

Hill builds on her earlier metaphor of education as a heart—this time, place is the body. The body determines the condition of the organs, just as location shapes the quality of its institutions.