What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps
A growing number of Americans want to tear down what it’s taken us 250 years to build—and they’ll start by canceling our shared history, ideals, and culture.
Traditional areas of civic agreement are vanishing. We can’t agree on what makes America special. We can’t even agree that America is special. We’re coming to the point that we can’t even agree what the word America itself means. “Disintegrationists” say we’re stronger together, but their assault on America’s history, philosophy, and culture will only tear us apart.
Who are the disintegrationists? From Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to the New York Times’ 1619 project, many modern analyses view American history through the lens of competing oppressions, a racist and corrupt experiment from the very beginning. They see American philosophy as a lie – beautiful words pasted over a thoroughly rotted system. They see America’s culture of rights as a façade that merely reinforces traditional hierarchies of power, instead of being the only culture that guarantees freedom for individuals.
Disintegrationist attacks on the values that built our nation are insidious because they replace each foundational belief, from the rights to free speech and self-defense to the importance of marriage and faith communities, with nothing more than an increased reliance on the government.
This twisted disintegrationist vision replaces the traditional “unionist” understanding that all Americans are united in a shared striving toward the perfection of universal ideals.
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps shows that to be a cohesive nation we have to uphold foundational truths about ourselves, our history, and reality itself—to be unionists instead of disintegrationists. Shapiro offers a vital warning that if we don’t recover these shared truths, our future—our union—as a great country is threatened with destruction.
Traditional areas of civic agreement are vanishing. We can’t agree on what makes America special. We can’t even agree that America is special. We’re coming to the point that we can’t even agree what the word America itself means. “Disintegrationists” say we’re stronger together, but their assault on America’s history, philosophy, and culture will only tear us apart.
Who are the disintegrationists? From Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to the New York Times’ 1619 project, many modern analyses view American history through the lens of competing oppressions, a racist and corrupt experiment from the very beginning. They see American philosophy as a lie – beautiful words pasted over a thoroughly rotted system. They see America’s culture of rights as a façade that merely reinforces traditional hierarchies of power, instead of being the only culture that guarantees freedom for individuals.
Disintegrationist attacks on the values that built our nation are insidious because they replace each foundational belief, from the rights to free speech and self-defense to the importance of marriage and faith communities, with nothing more than an increased reliance on the government.
This twisted disintegrationist vision replaces the traditional “unionist” understanding that all Americans are united in a shared striving toward the perfection of universal ideals.
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps shows that to be a cohesive nation we have to uphold foundational truths about ourselves, our history, and reality itself—to be unionists instead of disintegrationists. Shapiro offers a vital warning that if we don’t recover these shared truths, our future—our union—as a great country is threatened with destruction.
288 pages, ebook
First published July 21, 2020
About the author
Ben Shapiro
43 books2,385 followersBenjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 and entered UCLA at the age of 16, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in June 2004 with a BA in Political Science. He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in June 2007. Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S.
His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall, ABCNews, WorldNet Daily, Human Events, FrontPage Mag, Family Security Matters, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBS News, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.
The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004), Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005), and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House (Thomas Nelson, 2008), Shapiro has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows around the nation, including "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "Fox and Friends" (Fox News), "In the Money" (CNN Financial), "DaySide with Linda Vester" (Fox News), "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), "The Dennis Miller Show" (CNBC), "Fox News Live" (Fox News Channel), "Glenn Beck Show" (CNN), "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News) and "700 Club" (Christian Broadcasting Network), "The Laura Ingraham Show," "The Michael Medved Show," "The G. Gordon Liddy Show," "The Rusty Humphries Show," "The Lars Larson Show" (nationally syndicated), "The Larry Elder Show," The Hugh Hewitt Show," "The Dennis Prager Show," among others.
His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall, ABCNews, WorldNet Daily, Human Events, FrontPage Mag, Family Security Matters, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBS News, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.
The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004), Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005), and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House (Thomas Nelson, 2008), Shapiro has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows around the nation, including "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "Fox and Friends" (Fox News), "In the Money" (CNN Financial), "DaySide with Linda Vester" (Fox News), "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), "The Dennis Miller Show" (CNBC), "Fox News Live" (Fox News Channel), "Glenn Beck Show" (CNN), "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News) and "700 Club" (Christian Broadcasting Network), "The Laura Ingraham Show," "The Michael Medved Show," "The G. Gordon Liddy Show," "The Rusty Humphries Show," "The Lars Larson Show" (nationally syndicated), "The Larry Elder Show," The Hugh Hewitt Show," "The Dennis Prager Show," among others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 531 reviews
May 2, 2020
good. the 1 star rating is a liberal
July 20, 2020
I had a team of historians I work with review this book for accuracy.
They said not only is it highly accurate, but it is additionally perhaps the single best book on history and theories of politics they have ever read.
Now how you ask did I get advance copies of this book before it was even released?
Well the answer is simple, like other people reviewing the book before its release I am making it up.
Why goodreads is allowing clearly falsified reviews of the book is beyond me, but hopefully there is some mechanism to remove them, including the 1 star reviews.
They said not only is it highly accurate, but it is additionally perhaps the single best book on history and theories of politics they have ever read.
Now how you ask did I get advance copies of this book before it was even released?
Well the answer is simple, like other people reviewing the book before its release I am making it up.
Why goodreads is allowing clearly falsified reviews of the book is beyond me, but hopefully there is some mechanism to remove them, including the 1 star reviews.
October 15, 2020
There’s currently two groups of people in America. Unionists believe America was founded on individualism and freedom while disintegrationists believe it was founded on genocide and hypocrisy. Shapiro shows that the narrative pushed by disintegrationists is inaccurate and that the United States really was founded the way Unionists claim.
I was originally going to give this book three stars but the subject is too important to only warrant three stars.
I was originally going to give this book three stars but the subject is too important to only warrant three stars.
July 23, 2020
One of the problems with this book is that it is titled “How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps,” but it isn’t really about how to destroy America; it’s actually just about political polarization, so the title is misleading and also tone-deaf, because how can anyone argue during a pandemic that the thing that is destroying America is that people are not nice to Republicans?
Also, the book is very light on facts and logic. There’s a lot about US history, but if you took the AP US History exam ten years ago and got a 5/5 without really trying that hard, then you probably know more than the author and could probably win against him in a debate if something like that were ever to occur. He makes up this thing called “American philosophy,” a kind of amalgamation of cherry-picked ideas and values that we’re supposed to believe the founding fathers all held and fully intended to eternally imbue into the foundation of the republic. Obviously this sort of hippy-dippy view of history is false, especially if you look at the way they actually ran the country after the revolution. Also, apparently we’re supposed to believe that classical liberalism is something the founding fathers were ideologically committed to and not just the most convenient existing framework for arguing against British. Also we’re told they were crazy in love with Judeo-Christian values and capitalism, and they did not like socialism (which didn’t even exist as a concept until decades after the Revolution).
I think it’s weird how Shapiro’s misreading of founding fathers—who were really just a bunch of politicians and not that great—is supposed to be the standard by which the American-ness of all ideas and values is measured when the most esteemed 19th century American writer was a gay poet named Walt Whitman, whose work was greatly admired by pretty much all the great writers in the world who knew about it, from Oscar Wilde in England to Natsume Soseki in Japan, so it’s nonsense when Shapiro says supporting the Boy Scouts of America discriminating against gay men because of Judeo-Christianity is American values but seeking to reform the organization to be more inclusive is disintegrationism and the opposite of American values or whatever. (Fortunately it is no longer the policy of the Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay men, but I just mention this because he brings it up in the book.) Also he cites Martin Luther King, Jr. over and over again without ever acknowledging that, far from being Shapiro’s ideological BFF, Dr. King was a democratic socialist (see: “The Radical King” by Cornel West), just like some of the people Shapiro regularly attacks, including Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc. And Shapiro also talks about the decline in civic engagement, and it’s sort of rich to complain about that if, in the past, you’ve praised James O’Keefe for using hidden camera chicanery to destroy ACORN—a non-profit that was known largely for its voter registration drives—long after the facts of the scandal came out.
Also, he writes, “It is simply undeniable that capitalism, founded on the protection of property rights—the ideology of the founding fathers—has been uniquely successful in spreading peace and prosperity both domestically and around the globe,” and that struck me as uniquely nonsensical and ahistorical, because plenty of people have argued to the contrary, and I guess the author fears that he does not have the facts and logic to read their books and argue against them. He has written several books at this point, yet I don’t believe he has ever really engaged with any Marxist works on the relationship between imperialism and capitalism, so it’s like, what is he waiting for? In fact, to actually believe capitalism has made the world more peaceful, you would have to never read a history book, or at least skip all the parts on imperialism. Also if protecting private property was the ideology of the founding fathers, then how do you explain the Boston Tea Party? Obviously the author just wants people to believe that his ideas are desirable and have moral weight because they’re supposedly the same ideas the founding fathers had; it’s sort of like an implicit appeal to tradition, or to authority. But he’s obviously wrong on multiple levels.
There’s a lot more to say about this book but basically, it’s about as insightful as a PragerU video, which is to say it’s not insightful at all. I think people should read books that have more facts and logic, like “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy” by Karl Marx, or really anything else Marx ever wrote. Or if you want to read something on political polarization, search “books on political polarization” and pick something that was written by someone who has more credibility because their career did not start on Breitbart. I would also recommend reading anything Shapiro criticizes because people should really be fact-checking him anyway. He complains about Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” which is actually a much better book than this one, but he’s also being dishonest when he argues that more and more schools are using it as a textbook, which is NOT true! Or at the very least, it’s highly misleading. Just because a school assigns Zinn doesn’t mean he’s replacing other textbooks; Zinn might be assigned for a unit on how to critically read revisionist history, which is actually a great thing to teach students to do, so why do Republicans complain about it?! I actually was assigned an excerpt from Zinn in high school and I got docked points for not critiquing it to the teacher’s satisfaction. The main text we were assigned was “The American Pageant,” which is updated every few years, and it is also a great book to read if you want to learn more about how inaccurate so much of the history-related stuff in Shapiro’s book is. Why would schools be switching to “A People’s History of the United States,” a book that will probably not be updated again because the author died ten years ago? The answer is that they’re not. How can Shapiro talk about political polarization while engaging in this type of fearmongering?!
Also, the book is very light on facts and logic. There’s a lot about US history, but if you took the AP US History exam ten years ago and got a 5/5 without really trying that hard, then you probably know more than the author and could probably win against him in a debate if something like that were ever to occur. He makes up this thing called “American philosophy,” a kind of amalgamation of cherry-picked ideas and values that we’re supposed to believe the founding fathers all held and fully intended to eternally imbue into the foundation of the republic. Obviously this sort of hippy-dippy view of history is false, especially if you look at the way they actually ran the country after the revolution. Also, apparently we’re supposed to believe that classical liberalism is something the founding fathers were ideologically committed to and not just the most convenient existing framework for arguing against British. Also we’re told they were crazy in love with Judeo-Christian values and capitalism, and they did not like socialism (which didn’t even exist as a concept until decades after the Revolution).
I think it’s weird how Shapiro’s misreading of founding fathers—who were really just a bunch of politicians and not that great—is supposed to be the standard by which the American-ness of all ideas and values is measured when the most esteemed 19th century American writer was a gay poet named Walt Whitman, whose work was greatly admired by pretty much all the great writers in the world who knew about it, from Oscar Wilde in England to Natsume Soseki in Japan, so it’s nonsense when Shapiro says supporting the Boy Scouts of America discriminating against gay men because of Judeo-Christianity is American values but seeking to reform the organization to be more inclusive is disintegrationism and the opposite of American values or whatever. (Fortunately it is no longer the policy of the Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay men, but I just mention this because he brings it up in the book.) Also he cites Martin Luther King, Jr. over and over again without ever acknowledging that, far from being Shapiro’s ideological BFF, Dr. King was a democratic socialist (see: “The Radical King” by Cornel West), just like some of the people Shapiro regularly attacks, including Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc. And Shapiro also talks about the decline in civic engagement, and it’s sort of rich to complain about that if, in the past, you’ve praised James O’Keefe for using hidden camera chicanery to destroy ACORN—a non-profit that was known largely for its voter registration drives—long after the facts of the scandal came out.
Also, he writes, “It is simply undeniable that capitalism, founded on the protection of property rights—the ideology of the founding fathers—has been uniquely successful in spreading peace and prosperity both domestically and around the globe,” and that struck me as uniquely nonsensical and ahistorical, because plenty of people have argued to the contrary, and I guess the author fears that he does not have the facts and logic to read their books and argue against them. He has written several books at this point, yet I don’t believe he has ever really engaged with any Marxist works on the relationship between imperialism and capitalism, so it’s like, what is he waiting for? In fact, to actually believe capitalism has made the world more peaceful, you would have to never read a history book, or at least skip all the parts on imperialism. Also if protecting private property was the ideology of the founding fathers, then how do you explain the Boston Tea Party? Obviously the author just wants people to believe that his ideas are desirable and have moral weight because they’re supposedly the same ideas the founding fathers had; it’s sort of like an implicit appeal to tradition, or to authority. But he’s obviously wrong on multiple levels.
There’s a lot more to say about this book but basically, it’s about as insightful as a PragerU video, which is to say it’s not insightful at all. I think people should read books that have more facts and logic, like “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy” by Karl Marx, or really anything else Marx ever wrote. Or if you want to read something on political polarization, search “books on political polarization” and pick something that was written by someone who has more credibility because their career did not start on Breitbart. I would also recommend reading anything Shapiro criticizes because people should really be fact-checking him anyway. He complains about Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” which is actually a much better book than this one, but he’s also being dishonest when he argues that more and more schools are using it as a textbook, which is NOT true! Or at the very least, it’s highly misleading. Just because a school assigns Zinn doesn’t mean he’s replacing other textbooks; Zinn might be assigned for a unit on how to critically read revisionist history, which is actually a great thing to teach students to do, so why do Republicans complain about it?! I actually was assigned an excerpt from Zinn in high school and I got docked points for not critiquing it to the teacher’s satisfaction. The main text we were assigned was “The American Pageant,” which is updated every few years, and it is also a great book to read if you want to learn more about how inaccurate so much of the history-related stuff in Shapiro’s book is. Why would schools be switching to “A People’s History of the United States,” a book that will probably not be updated again because the author died ten years ago? The answer is that they’re not. How can Shapiro talk about political polarization while engaging in this type of fearmongering?!
July 21, 2020
It’s hard to leave a review on a politically-charged book without getting political, but I will do my best. So, here goes:
What I liked most about this one is how Shapiro tactfully diagnoses the current state of the country as well as the dangerous ideologies that have brought us to such a place. Without the belief that America is and always has been an evil place, he says, we would not see such widespread prevalence of cancel culture, tribalism, and a desire to dismantle the system from top to bottom.
Another thing I really enjoyed about this one was Shapiro’s ability to have a reasonable discussion about the history of America. He does not deny the atrocities that have taken place in our country, nor does he suggest that we should attempt to look past them.
Instead, he says, we should use such lessons to help us guide our future behavior, come together, and reinforce the rights outlined in the constitution. When we don’t do those things, we allow such atrocities to take place, and we grow further divided by the day.
Shapiro’s willingness to actually discuss difficult issues, in my opinion, is what makes him an effective political commentator. He even says, when talking about “cancel culture,” that the proper response to someone you disagree with is to have a discussion. Yet, in America these days, it seems like all we want to do instead is flip the middle finger — the proper response if we want to silence someone.
Thus, he concludes the book by saying that if we want to repair the rifts in our country, we need to stop silencing one another and come together. We need to talk more and attack less. And, most importantly, we need to see the good in others, learn to trust one another again, and unite. It’s an important message delivered at a critical time, and regardless of political affiliation, it’s why I recommend this book.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
What I liked most about this one is how Shapiro tactfully diagnoses the current state of the country as well as the dangerous ideologies that have brought us to such a place. Without the belief that America is and always has been an evil place, he says, we would not see such widespread prevalence of cancel culture, tribalism, and a desire to dismantle the system from top to bottom.
Another thing I really enjoyed about this one was Shapiro’s ability to have a reasonable discussion about the history of America. He does not deny the atrocities that have taken place in our country, nor does he suggest that we should attempt to look past them.
Instead, he says, we should use such lessons to help us guide our future behavior, come together, and reinforce the rights outlined in the constitution. When we don’t do those things, we allow such atrocities to take place, and we grow further divided by the day.
Shapiro’s willingness to actually discuss difficult issues, in my opinion, is what makes him an effective political commentator. He even says, when talking about “cancel culture,” that the proper response to someone you disagree with is to have a discussion. Yet, in America these days, it seems like all we want to do instead is flip the middle finger — the proper response if we want to silence someone.
Thus, he concludes the book by saying that if we want to repair the rifts in our country, we need to stop silencing one another and come together. We need to talk more and attack less. And, most importantly, we need to see the good in others, learn to trust one another again, and unite. It’s an important message delivered at a critical time, and regardless of political affiliation, it’s why I recommend this book.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
February 21, 2022
A growing number of Americans want to tear down what it’s taken us 250 years to build—and they’ll start by canceling our shared history, ideals, and culture. Traditional areas of civic agreement are vanishing. We can’t agree on what makes America special. We can’t even agree that America is special. We’re coming to the point that we can’t even agree what the word America itself means. “Disintegrationists” say we’re stronger together, but their assault on America’s history, philosophy, and culture will only tear us apart. Ironically, they use our rights and freedoms in order to destroy us from within!
Who are the disintegrationists? From Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to the New York Times’ 1619 project, many modern analyses view American history through the lens of competing debunked oppressions, a racist and corrupt experiment from the very beginning. They see American philosophy as a lie – beautiful words pasted over a thoroughly rotted system. They see America’s culture of rights as a façade that merely reinforces traditional hierarchies of power, instead of being the only culture that guarantees freedom for individuals.
Disintegrationist attacks on the values that built our nation are insidious because they replace each foundational belief, from the rights to free speech and self-defense to the importance of marriage and faith communities, with nothing more than an increased reliance on the government. This twisted disintegrationist vision replaces the traditional “unionist” understanding that all Americans are united in a shared striving toward the perfection of universal ideals.
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps shows that to be a cohesive nation we have to uphold foundational truths about ourselves, our history, and reality itself—to be unionists instead of disintegrationists. Shapiro offers a vital warning that if we don’t recover these shared truths, our future—our union—as a great country is threatened with destruction.
Who are the disintegrationists? From Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to the New York Times’ 1619 project, many modern analyses view American history through the lens of competing debunked oppressions, a racist and corrupt experiment from the very beginning. They see American philosophy as a lie – beautiful words pasted over a thoroughly rotted system. They see America’s culture of rights as a façade that merely reinforces traditional hierarchies of power, instead of being the only culture that guarantees freedom for individuals.
Disintegrationist attacks on the values that built our nation are insidious because they replace each foundational belief, from the rights to free speech and self-defense to the importance of marriage and faith communities, with nothing more than an increased reliance on the government. This twisted disintegrationist vision replaces the traditional “unionist” understanding that all Americans are united in a shared striving toward the perfection of universal ideals.
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps shows that to be a cohesive nation we have to uphold foundational truths about ourselves, our history, and reality itself—to be unionists instead of disintegrationists. Shapiro offers a vital warning that if we don’t recover these shared truths, our future—our union—as a great country is threatened with destruction.
August 9, 2020
Ben Shapiro threw a bunch of logical fallacies in a hat and grabbed one out every time he started a new page.
October 7, 2020
When I subscribed to and actively promulgated the Marxist ideology of the far Left as a professor, my colleagues and friends and I raged and spouted frothing criticism of the USA daily. It was only after I departed academe did I come to realize not only how very skewed this perspective was, but how insincere my colleagues were. Although Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach, "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it," they did nothing but talk and deride those who provided "bandaid" solutions to systemic problems.
A major turning point for me was a convention of several thousand conservative homeschoolers, who contextualized the past sins of the USA as part of humans' fallen nature, transcended with human reason and God's grace. They celebrated America's singular history of freedoms and respect for individual rights, culture of self-reliance and striving, and its philosophical roots in Jerusalem and Athens. They awarded prizes to students for their knowledge of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. They were a joyful and patriotic bunch.
I wondered about the reasons for the sharp contrast between these folks and the lack of a similarly balanced view and good humor on the Left.
Shapiro provides a cogent analysis in this uplifting book sure to be enjoyed by anyone with interest in U.S. history. In each section, he defines what he perceives to be the distinguishing characteristics of American philosophy, culture, and history as he builds the case that a shared understanding of these elements bonds Americans together. The dissolution of that bond will lead to the very disintegration of the nation.
Shapiro's defense of the Unionist perspective against the Disintegrationists is a nuanced one. He does not gloss over the troubling aspects of American history, but he demonstrates quite clearly that the foundational principles work when adhered to and striven for, and should be retained rather than jettisoned. Unionists side with originalists who seek to discern the will of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution as one might use holy writs as a moral compass; Disintegrationists perceive the Constitution as a period piece in dire need of serious revision or, more likely, abrogation. "Disintegrationists see themselves as new founders of the country" (199).
Philosophy
American philosophy is founded on natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that preexist government; on the equality of individuals before the law; and on the notion that government is instituted only to protect those preexisting rights and equality of individuals before the law, not "override them in the name of some greater good."
The section on philosophy introduced me to the concept of negative rights and positive rights. The difference between the two is foundational to Shapiro's argument, but I had to seek clarification elsewhere, which I provide for you:
"A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction" and prohibit the government from interfering. Negative rights are Unionist. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an example. The baker had a right to control his labor (an extension of property) and not create a cake that would infringe on his Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Requiring people to use others' preferred pronouns is a similar violation.
In contrast, "A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action." Disintegrationists want more of these, like the [pseudo] "rights to housing, health care, food, and social security" (38). Individuals thus become reliant on the government for their wellbeing, instead of taking responsibility for it themselves. The rights of the landowners, doctors, food producers, etc. are violated because they can be coerced to provide services without their consent, and taxpayers are forced to pay. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835, the American "has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its power only when he cannot do without it" (77); this self-reliance, a defining principle of America, is eroded by the Disintegrationists.
An additional major sticking point between the two factions is that the Founders [and Unionists] regarded rights as pre-existing government, they are "inalienable;" they cannot be given or taken away, even by consent of the electorate. Historically, God has been the ultimate source of legitimation of rights and law; the government protect them. Wherefore the source of rights in an atheistic society? Common convention and agreement are too subjective and inconstant.
The argument concerning equality of opportunity should be evident to anyone involved in a field that applies Affirmative Action: "seeking 'equality of opportunity' through disparate treatment of individuals means violating the rights of some on behalf of others. But Disintegrationists maintain that "all disparities result from societal injustice rather than human differences" (43). Unionists, in contrast, see that "Equal protection under the law is a far better remedy than restorative discrimination" (46).
Traditionally, the phrase "states' rights" has been perceived as a dog whistle for racism due to its association with the slavery defended by the Southern Democrats, but since there are significant regional differences in this country, there is much to support subsidiarity, the principle that whenever possible or feasible, issues should be resolved or engaged by the most local entity rather than a centralized authority. Politics becomes high stakes in the US because the Disintegrationists explicitly intend to erode delegated powers and check and balances in favor of broader powers for government.
Culture:
American culture is predicated on
1. The tolerance for the rights of others, "particularly when we don't like how others exercise their rights"
2. The cohesion and duties instilled and imposed by social institutions like family, church, and associations of all kinds
3. The insistent desire for freedom
4. The spirit of adventure and risk-taking.
That last one matters a great deal, particularly in the wake of 9/11, which resulted in the PATRIOT Act and its enormous infringement on rights. As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In contrast, Disintegrationists promise "guarantees of positive 'freedom' from want and fear, rather than negative freedoms of speech and adventure--and duties created by the mob, dictated by a cultural elite at best indifferent to and at worst openly opposed to the institutions of church and family" (119).
Shapiro underscores that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not from it. The contemporary narrative avers that the Founders were not religious people, which is demonstrably false from their writings. John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Disintegrationists want to "turn the state into a weapon against" religion; Obama and Clinton both disparaged religion. "The founders believed that an immoral people with rights would slide into childish libertinism, and then into the comfortable swaddling of tyranny" (69); how very prescient.
Nevertheless, with great freedom comes great responsibility, duties, moral obligations to be inculcated by those social institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that while American "law permits ...people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything" (70). For how much longer?
History
Shapiro presents an unabashed and stirringly convincing defense of American exceptionalism in the section on History. For Unionists,
1. "America was born with glorious ideals"
2. "America has been united by those ideals more and more universally over time, rather than divided by sectarian interest, and that adherence to those ideals has been at the center of America's progress"
3. "The world has benefited from America's power and greatness" (123).
The strongest evidence supporting this view is that holding fast to the founding principles "has reduced colonialism and imperialism over time which is why the United States may be the most powerful country in the history of the world but does not rule the largest territorial empire in history of world" (184).
"The story of America is one of the great stories in human history. America was founded on principles; America has struggle to live up to those principles, but with each step toward those principles, America has magnified its own greatness. The world is better off for America. We ought to understand the shadows and curses of our history; we ought to understand how history affects the present. But we all ought to understand, most of all, that we are part of the same history, not rivals in a country divided by identity or class. Yet, as we will soon see, Disintegrationists have reworked American history to do just that" (164).
Disintegrationists identify alternative fundamental principles (169, 181):
1. "America was founded in evil"
2. "America has always reflected divided sects and hierarchies of power"; it is "irredeemably divided and can never escape her past absent dismantling for founding principles"
3. "America's role in the world has resulted in poverty, death, inequality, and injustice".... "on net, terrible for her citizens and terrible for the world."
The Disintegrationist view is without question what I was taught in a Jesuit university in the late 1980s. The reasons for that are best explained by John Ellis in his recent book (see my review), namely the illiberal liberalism, politicization, and neophilia that have taken over academe.
Shapiro provides a corrective to that and its recent manifestations in The 1619 Project and the work of Howard Zinn, Disintegrationist projects which dominate educational institutions. "The founders did accept slavery as part of the founding bargain, since the alternative would have been the division of the United States itself" (57); it would have severed the Southern delegates. Later, we are reminded that Rockefeller and Carnegie grew up poor, "took risks, and read the rewards." The entire country's standard of living increased enormously during the The Gilded Age, but the disparities ushered in the Progressive Era, "the complete rewriting of the bargain between Americans and their government" (144). He proceeds thus through the 20th century into the 21st. Why this matters occupies considerably less space than the argument itself. A nation needs a shared history and common touchstones for its unity.
Conclusion
The Disintegrationists and Unionists have two starkly distinct views of America, its philosophy, its culture and its history. The former demands "ever more adherence, ever more control. They seek to dominate where they cannot persuade and convince. And so America will be left with two choices: submission or disintegration" (201). Shapiro urges resistance to these forces, reaffirmation of the founding principles and the unity of our nation. He believes that American exceptionalism will prevail. He is far more hopeful than I.
A major turning point for me was a convention of several thousand conservative homeschoolers, who contextualized the past sins of the USA as part of humans' fallen nature, transcended with human reason and God's grace. They celebrated America's singular history of freedoms and respect for individual rights, culture of self-reliance and striving, and its philosophical roots in Jerusalem and Athens. They awarded prizes to students for their knowledge of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. They were a joyful and patriotic bunch.
I wondered about the reasons for the sharp contrast between these folks and the lack of a similarly balanced view and good humor on the Left.
Shapiro provides a cogent analysis in this uplifting book sure to be enjoyed by anyone with interest in U.S. history. In each section, he defines what he perceives to be the distinguishing characteristics of American philosophy, culture, and history as he builds the case that a shared understanding of these elements bonds Americans together. The dissolution of that bond will lead to the very disintegration of the nation.
Shapiro's defense of the Unionist perspective against the Disintegrationists is a nuanced one. He does not gloss over the troubling aspects of American history, but he demonstrates quite clearly that the foundational principles work when adhered to and striven for, and should be retained rather than jettisoned. Unionists side with originalists who seek to discern the will of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution as one might use holy writs as a moral compass; Disintegrationists perceive the Constitution as a period piece in dire need of serious revision or, more likely, abrogation. "Disintegrationists see themselves as new founders of the country" (199).
Philosophy
American philosophy is founded on natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that preexist government; on the equality of individuals before the law; and on the notion that government is instituted only to protect those preexisting rights and equality of individuals before the law, not "override them in the name of some greater good."
The section on philosophy introduced me to the concept of negative rights and positive rights. The difference between the two is foundational to Shapiro's argument, but I had to seek clarification elsewhere, which I provide for you:
"A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction" and prohibit the government from interfering. Negative rights are Unionist. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an example. The baker had a right to control his labor (an extension of property) and not create a cake that would infringe on his Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Requiring people to use others' preferred pronouns is a similar violation.
In contrast, "A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action." Disintegrationists want more of these, like the [pseudo] "rights to housing, health care, food, and social security" (38). Individuals thus become reliant on the government for their wellbeing, instead of taking responsibility for it themselves. The rights of the landowners, doctors, food producers, etc. are violated because they can be coerced to provide services without their consent, and taxpayers are forced to pay. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835, the American "has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its power only when he cannot do without it" (77); this self-reliance, a defining principle of America, is eroded by the Disintegrationists.
An additional major sticking point between the two factions is that the Founders [and Unionists] regarded rights as pre-existing government, they are "inalienable;" they cannot be given or taken away, even by consent of the electorate. Historically, God has been the ultimate source of legitimation of rights and law; the government protect them. Wherefore the source of rights in an atheistic society? Common convention and agreement are too subjective and inconstant.
The argument concerning equality of opportunity should be evident to anyone involved in a field that applies Affirmative Action: "seeking 'equality of opportunity' through disparate treatment of individuals means violating the rights of some on behalf of others. But Disintegrationists maintain that "all disparities result from societal injustice rather than human differences" (43). Unionists, in contrast, see that "Equal protection under the law is a far better remedy than restorative discrimination" (46).
Traditionally, the phrase "states' rights" has been perceived as a dog whistle for racism due to its association with the slavery defended by the Southern Democrats, but since there are significant regional differences in this country, there is much to support subsidiarity, the principle that whenever possible or feasible, issues should be resolved or engaged by the most local entity rather than a centralized authority. Politics becomes high stakes in the US because the Disintegrationists explicitly intend to erode delegated powers and check and balances in favor of broader powers for government.
Culture:
American culture is predicated on
1. The tolerance for the rights of others, "particularly when we don't like how others exercise their rights"
2. The cohesion and duties instilled and imposed by social institutions like family, church, and associations of all kinds
3. The insistent desire for freedom
4. The spirit of adventure and risk-taking.
That last one matters a great deal, particularly in the wake of 9/11, which resulted in the PATRIOT Act and its enormous infringement on rights. As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In contrast, Disintegrationists promise "guarantees of positive 'freedom' from want and fear, rather than negative freedoms of speech and adventure--and duties created by the mob, dictated by a cultural elite at best indifferent to and at worst openly opposed to the institutions of church and family" (119).
Shapiro underscores that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not from it. The contemporary narrative avers that the Founders were not religious people, which is demonstrably false from their writings. John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Disintegrationists want to "turn the state into a weapon against" religion; Obama and Clinton both disparaged religion. "The founders believed that an immoral people with rights would slide into childish libertinism, and then into the comfortable swaddling of tyranny" (69); how very prescient.
Nevertheless, with great freedom comes great responsibility, duties, moral obligations to be inculcated by those social institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that while American "law permits ...people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything" (70). For how much longer?
History
Shapiro presents an unabashed and stirringly convincing defense of American exceptionalism in the section on History. For Unionists,
1. "America was born with glorious ideals"
2. "America has been united by those ideals more and more universally over time, rather than divided by sectarian interest, and that adherence to those ideals has been at the center of America's progress"
3. "The world has benefited from America's power and greatness" (123).
The strongest evidence supporting this view is that holding fast to the founding principles "has reduced colonialism and imperialism over time which is why the United States may be the most powerful country in the history of the world but does not rule the largest territorial empire in history of world" (184).
"The story of America is one of the great stories in human history. America was founded on principles; America has struggle to live up to those principles, but with each step toward those principles, America has magnified its own greatness. The world is better off for America. We ought to understand the shadows and curses of our history; we ought to understand how history affects the present. But we all ought to understand, most of all, that we are part of the same history, not rivals in a country divided by identity or class. Yet, as we will soon see, Disintegrationists have reworked American history to do just that" (164).
Disintegrationists identify alternative fundamental principles (169, 181):
1. "America was founded in evil"
2. "America has always reflected divided sects and hierarchies of power"; it is "irredeemably divided and can never escape her past absent dismantling for founding principles"
3. "America's role in the world has resulted in poverty, death, inequality, and injustice".... "on net, terrible for her citizens and terrible for the world."
The Disintegrationist view is without question what I was taught in a Jesuit university in the late 1980s. The reasons for that are best explained by John Ellis in his recent book (see my review), namely the illiberal liberalism, politicization, and neophilia that have taken over academe.
Shapiro provides a corrective to that and its recent manifestations in The 1619 Project and the work of Howard Zinn, Disintegrationist projects which dominate educational institutions. "The founders did accept slavery as part of the founding bargain, since the alternative would have been the division of the United States itself" (57); it would have severed the Southern delegates. Later, we are reminded that Rockefeller and Carnegie grew up poor, "took risks, and read the rewards." The entire country's standard of living increased enormously during the The Gilded Age, but the disparities ushered in the Progressive Era, "the complete rewriting of the bargain between Americans and their government" (144). He proceeds thus through the 20th century into the 21st. Why this matters occupies considerably less space than the argument itself. A nation needs a shared history and common touchstones for its unity.
Conclusion
The Disintegrationists and Unionists have two starkly distinct views of America, its philosophy, its culture and its history. The former demands "ever more adherence, ever more control. They seek to dominate where they cannot persuade and convince. And so America will be left with two choices: submission or disintegration" (201). Shapiro urges resistance to these forces, reaffirmation of the founding principles and the unity of our nation. He believes that American exceptionalism will prevail. He is far more hopeful than I.
September 16, 2020
I was going into this book thinking that Ben Shaprio would be focusing on how identity politics and the left is ruining America. While he does talk about that, labelling these people as "disintegrationist", the book goes into a review of America. Chapters 1,3,5 take a look into American philosophy, culture, and history. Chapters 2,4,6 is a look at those three topics but in the disintegrationist view-point.
In our current environment, people are retreating from conversation to their group safe spaces because they took offence to what the other party said. The retreat of conversation is creating the rise of tribal/monotholitic group identity thinking, an increase in vilification opposing group identity, and a decrease in collaboration. While I do not always agree with Mr Shaprio conclusions, this should not prevent me, or anyone, from listening to opposing viewpoints. Diversity of thought allows us to achieve the best possible solutions and prevents the creations of an echo chamber. This book gives excellent alternative view-points on issues plaguing America today.
My main complaint is for the Audible version of this book. Mr Shaprio does horrible impersonations of some of the people he is trying to quote which made it hard to concentrate.
Story/Content: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Overall: 3.5/5
In our current environment, people are retreating from conversation to their group safe spaces because they took offence to what the other party said. The retreat of conversation is creating the rise of tribal/monotholitic group identity thinking, an increase in vilification opposing group identity, and a decrease in collaboration. While I do not always agree with Mr Shaprio conclusions, this should not prevent me, or anyone, from listening to opposing viewpoints. Diversity of thought allows us to achieve the best possible solutions and prevents the creations of an echo chamber. This book gives excellent alternative view-points on issues plaguing America today.
My main complaint is for the Audible version of this book. Mr Shaprio does horrible impersonations of some of the people he is trying to quote which made it hard to concentrate.
Story/Content: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Overall: 3.5/5
July 29, 2020
This book is probably THE most topical books of 2020. It's an easy read, but you get a lot of insight as to why all these riots are happening and why certain people are advocating for the erasure of history. American history is flawed and sometimes it strayed away from our principles in the Declaration, but we remedied that by coming back together and working on those flaws. America is a very unique country and we should all work on coming together and solving our problems. Hurting our fellow citizens and allowing them to be killed in some of these cities is not going to help solve the problem, and if we allow this to continue we could lose our country and there's no where else in the world to move to.
July 24, 2020
Let me make this clear. I am an avid fan of Ben Shapiro and his work. As a conservative, I do not always agree with him, and over the years, have found myself disagreeing with him more and more often over his blind devotion to everything that the Republican Party does and says (which you should not do, for both parties are corrupt at the end of the day). However, I am a sucker for his books and own most of them, and will continue to do so because he is one of the few conservative writers that doesn’t always go into the social politics of things (besides his 2011 book, Bullies, which is filled with social issues like racism, religion, feminism. Basically the hot stuff that poorly educated liberals love to talk about on Twitter).
I bought How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps the day it came out, and finished it in less than 24 hours. That isn’t to say the book was this brilliant piece of work. In fact, it’s probably one of Shapiro’s weaker books.
The issue I find with Shapiro’s writing is that he very often repeats the same old stuff. He talks about how we need to stand up for America, ward off the leftist mob trying to force their deviant sexual liberations onto everyone (namely, but not exclusively, homosexuality), and most of all, how much he hates black-on-white racism. Trust me, I have my own issues when it comes to these controversial topics, but he so often cites the same authors, the same famous passages from the Declaration of Independence, etc.
I did not hate this book. In fact, a lot of it was intriguing and very eye-opening. The issue at hand is the fact that Shapiro rarely dares to stray from his favorite topics, and never truly delves into the supposed solutions for so many of the severe and obvious problems that the Democrats have caused in this country. I enjoyed reading it- there is a reason I finished it in less than a day- but Shapiro needs to find something new to write about. There was not a ton of content in this book that I hadn’t already read in another one of his books, The Right Side of History.
Overall, the book is interesting. It brings up some stuff to think about. It’s just not mind-blowing. It’s the same thing over and over- we need to protect and save America from the nasty leftists trying to control our every move. And trust me, I fully believe that Democrats are out to destroy this country and it’s every value, along with becoming full-blown fascists by controlling and forcing speech. This book is just not the best out there that speaks on this sort of issue. I would recommend Tucker Carlson’s Ship of Fools or even Dinesh D’Souza’s new-ish book United States of Socialism. They’ll probably provide you more insight and food for thought.
I bought How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps the day it came out, and finished it in less than 24 hours. That isn’t to say the book was this brilliant piece of work. In fact, it’s probably one of Shapiro’s weaker books.
The issue I find with Shapiro’s writing is that he very often repeats the same old stuff. He talks about how we need to stand up for America, ward off the leftist mob trying to force their deviant sexual liberations onto everyone (namely, but not exclusively, homosexuality), and most of all, how much he hates black-on-white racism. Trust me, I have my own issues when it comes to these controversial topics, but he so often cites the same authors, the same famous passages from the Declaration of Independence, etc.
I did not hate this book. In fact, a lot of it was intriguing and very eye-opening. The issue at hand is the fact that Shapiro rarely dares to stray from his favorite topics, and never truly delves into the supposed solutions for so many of the severe and obvious problems that the Democrats have caused in this country. I enjoyed reading it- there is a reason I finished it in less than a day- but Shapiro needs to find something new to write about. There was not a ton of content in this book that I hadn’t already read in another one of his books, The Right Side of History.
Overall, the book is interesting. It brings up some stuff to think about. It’s just not mind-blowing. It’s the same thing over and over- we need to protect and save America from the nasty leftists trying to control our every move. And trust me, I fully believe that Democrats are out to destroy this country and it’s every value, along with becoming full-blown fascists by controlling and forcing speech. This book is just not the best out there that speaks on this sort of issue. I would recommend Tucker Carlson’s Ship of Fools or even Dinesh D’Souza’s new-ish book United States of Socialism. They’ll probably provide you more insight and food for thought.
March 23, 2024
“If we do not unify around our common past, we can have no common future.” (3.5 stars)
I was pleasantly surprised by this text. It was not what I expected. I listened to it as an audiobook because I thought it would be more political than it was. It’s more history and political science theory then I was expecting. And that’s a good thing. A note, for me the audiobook took a little getting use to as Mr. Shapiro has a very quick reading pace, and I had to get used to his quick cadence.
Mr. Shapiro breaks down the American citizenry into two broad categories, Unionist and Disintegrationist. The rest of the book is an examination of how individuals view and live out their American lives considering the philosophy that seems to govern them. This dichotomy is broken down in a concise and interesting manner in the text’s Introduction.
As I read chapter one of HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA IN THREE EASY STEPS, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was real political science. It was an examination of principles and ideas, not parties or politics. As I progressed through the text it also became part history lesson. I did not always agree with the lesson that Shapiro took from history, but I appreciated his thoughts on it.
An interesting note, although he is conservative Mr. Shapiro frequently disagrees with, and takes on, the views of others who call themselves conservative. This willingness to disagree with principles over common political cause was engaging to read. Examine the ideas, not just circle the wagons because we may have a common enemy.
Quotes:
• “But encouraging better individual decision making doesn’t fit within the Disintegrationist worldview.”
• “Disintegrationist history is designed to explain everything, but it fixes nothing.”
• “The social media mob will come for anyone and everyone-even, hilariously enough, those who have egged on the social media mob.”
My favorite part of the experience was chapter 5 of this book, called “The American History”. It is an excellent, and interesting, overview of American policy as it relates to specific events from our founding to current day. It is 44 pages of concise, engaging, and thoughtful history and analysis. High school (or sadly college) classes should read it just to get an idea of the board sweep of American history so they can then begin to dive in and dissect and debate it.
HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA IN THREE EASY STEPS was a better experience than I was anticipating, and my attention was held. I had to think, engage, and digest its content, and I appreciate books/writers that do that. Plus, the ideas it presents are well thought out. I’ll read another book of Mr. Shapiro’s at some point.
I was pleasantly surprised by this text. It was not what I expected. I listened to it as an audiobook because I thought it would be more political than it was. It’s more history and political science theory then I was expecting. And that’s a good thing. A note, for me the audiobook took a little getting use to as Mr. Shapiro has a very quick reading pace, and I had to get used to his quick cadence.
Mr. Shapiro breaks down the American citizenry into two broad categories, Unionist and Disintegrationist. The rest of the book is an examination of how individuals view and live out their American lives considering the philosophy that seems to govern them. This dichotomy is broken down in a concise and interesting manner in the text’s Introduction.
As I read chapter one of HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA IN THREE EASY STEPS, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was real political science. It was an examination of principles and ideas, not parties or politics. As I progressed through the text it also became part history lesson. I did not always agree with the lesson that Shapiro took from history, but I appreciated his thoughts on it.
An interesting note, although he is conservative Mr. Shapiro frequently disagrees with, and takes on, the views of others who call themselves conservative. This willingness to disagree with principles over common political cause was engaging to read. Examine the ideas, not just circle the wagons because we may have a common enemy.
Quotes:
• “But encouraging better individual decision making doesn’t fit within the Disintegrationist worldview.”
• “Disintegrationist history is designed to explain everything, but it fixes nothing.”
• “The social media mob will come for anyone and everyone-even, hilariously enough, those who have egged on the social media mob.”
My favorite part of the experience was chapter 5 of this book, called “The American History”. It is an excellent, and interesting, overview of American policy as it relates to specific events from our founding to current day. It is 44 pages of concise, engaging, and thoughtful history and analysis. High school (or sadly college) classes should read it just to get an idea of the board sweep of American history so they can then begin to dive in and dissect and debate it.
HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA IN THREE EASY STEPS was a better experience than I was anticipating, and my attention was held. I had to think, engage, and digest its content, and I appreciate books/writers that do that. Plus, the ideas it presents are well thought out. I’ll read another book of Mr. Shapiro’s at some point.
September 14, 2020
Polarization in America during this covid year. What steps in disintegration of philosophy, societal definition, observable outcomes re cancel culture etc. It's accurate. But for most readers the logic and explaining of current progressions of what is allowed or what is denied or what is considered loyalty or what end stage from this?
I am fairly sure most of the factors in the processes of core explanation used for deconstructions will be too far over readers' historic or philosophical heads. Saddest non-fiction of the year. Because it is so observable to be true. The history theories of political trends and composites are 5 star treatise level.
The cultural/ cancel culture disintegration processes section was 5 star.
I am fairly sure most of the factors in the processes of core explanation used for deconstructions will be too far over readers' historic or philosophical heads. Saddest non-fiction of the year. Because it is so observable to be true. The history theories of political trends and composites are 5 star treatise level.
The cultural/ cancel culture disintegration processes section was 5 star.
February 22, 2022
Did not contain any actual information on how to destroy America. Very disappointed.
December 7, 2020
Ya I gave Howard Zenn 2 stars yesterday and Ben Shapiro 4 stars today. Cancel me plz!
July 18, 2021
I thought this was a really interesting read.
Certain terms, phrases, dates, historical figures, and U.S./world events can get confusing to me, some things I forget over time, some I don’t always feel I can articulate well to other people much less sort them in my mind when engaging in conversation. So I’m always trying to find ways to stimulate my mind, move from vague notions and memorization to practical application and meaning to daily life. This book helped to clarify and connect a lot of concepts for me.
Here's how I organized this review:
Readership recommendation. Audiobook. The writing style. Tone. Book organization. Personal interest/relevancy. Credibility. Subjects of interest. Questions to ask.
Readership Recommendation
I’d recommend this book to anyone. Whether you’re seeking to understand U.S. history as a citizen, expat, or foreigner, a student, a casual learner looking for an accessible review of history or historical refresher, anyone looking to solidify their thoughts and knowledge of certain subjects, or anyone seeking clarification of how U.S. history, founded on certain principles and culture, plays out in today’s climate.
Audiobook
I listened to it via audiobook, narrated by the author, which was excellent and I’d highly recommend. There was a lot packed into this 6-hour long book. He talked rather fast, as in running words together, but it was clearest for me at 0.9x speed, so I actually quite enjoyed listening because I did like the fast pacing of concepts as they come to his mind in the way he explained them following up and qualifying instantaneously if that makes sense. Though I did find myself still hitting replay of the previous 15 seconds button several times throughout the book so I could grasp the words and absorb the sentiments better. Sometimes I wasn’t sure if I understood exactly when he was stating opposing viewpoints/opinions or not, though some were quite animated by impressions or quotes that were easier to pick out, though some were a bit silly, both hilarious and silly I suppose.
The Writing Style
It was a very inviting, conversational approach to writing. Proposing questions, exploring alternative/opposing viewpoints/endings from a philosophical standpoint, rationales. I liked the format.
Tone
Based on my interpretation of the title and description, I thought there possibly could be an underlying negative tone, is the U.S. doomed to fail, feeling throughout the book, possibly focusing on negative or opposing opinions of today and debating them into an oblivion of despair.
But it was actually quite hopeful and refreshing to explore U.S. philosophy, culture, and history and what the founders wanted to achieve at the time and what can be celebrated today. And to whom, in essence, achieved a certain timelessness to the principles, time they spent putting their ideas and words into a physical document to stand for the foreseeable future as a society moving forward in an era where such concepts were actually quite unique, radical, and well-developed for the time, even compared to other countries today.
Book Organization
I liked how the book was organized. It outlined in both a time-wise fashion and topical discussion simultaneously, depicting key dates and principles and culture that were key to the founding and development as a country we know today. With a recapping of ideas for each chapter conclusion, letting me know I absorbed something.
Personal Interest/Relevancy
When it comes to certain key events in history, I like to know what other people around the world were doing. I like to know what my grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents were doing. I also like to connect pop culture, certain advancements, novel ideas, and inventions to events of the time and he touched on some of these things I seek out which made the social outlook and political reasoning much more personal and solidified in my mind. I’d like to see more maps and timelines cross-referencing and depicting things like this, I don’t know if there were any in the book because I had the audiobook version, maybe I missed out.
Credibility
I’m a cross-checker and I love research. The author did a good job providing supporting data, citing them, and then explaining what about U.S. history is true, both in realities and intentions of forethought, and what was actually applied. What some of the myths and misnomers are. I liked the multiple historical and relational examples he gave, which were detailed enough to bridge the concepts, but also weren’t academically dry or belabored to read.
Subject Matter
I gleaned a lot and you may glean a lot from the book if learning about any of these topics appeal to you:
Speech policing/censorship, emotional sensitivity, religious freedom/protection, racism, affirmative action, tribalism, tyranny, secular universalism, monopolies, union power, risk aversion, boycotting, shifting policies pressure, Industrial Revolution, white/black women income gaps, The 1619 Project, 3/5th Compromise, social media mobbing, the human soul, reason, natural law, and eternal ideals.
Questions to Ask
I gained understanding and you may gain understanding in the interpretation of founding documents (especially as it relates to legal interpretation and social implications), by asking questions such as:
-Why did founders seek to build the country in such a way anyway?
-What is meant by Western civilization settling and who determines what that society should look like?
-Does humanity have a need for community and thus a need for communal standards?
-How is freedom and virtue defined?
-Should the government be enforcing virtue?
-What should the expectation be for individual rights VS communal self-control?
-How does bringing forth the freedom and prosperity of the past and today compare to any other country or civilization in history?
-What is the theme of The Declaration of Independence?
-What does it represent at the very core?
-Was it intended to be an allegiance to ideals?
-What was the intention of the U. S. Constitution? Was it mean to be the protector of rights or the source of them?
-Where/how are rights sourced?
-What is the difference between the scope and capacity of rights?
-What does it mean to have a democracy with limited government involvement?
-What is the role of government in our lives?
-How can society achieve a balance of power between people and the government?
-What internal checks are in place to prevent imbalance of power?
-What about competing values?
-What is the difference between a backdrop of an event or figure compared to the motivating idea put forth?
-Was U.S. wealth dependent on slavery?
-What was the first country to abolish slavery? The last? First existence and what forms of slavery exist today?
-Why exactly did the South lose the Civil War?
-Why did it occur/what were the contributing factors to the Civil War in the first place?
-Why was slavery not a written abolishment in The Declaration of Independence?
-Is the U.S. embracing diversity more than ever?
-What is the difference between disparity and discrimination?
-What is the difference between restorative discrimination and equal protection of the law?
-What are the liberties and requirements of mankind?
-What is the measurement of success in obtaining freedoms as written in the constitution and is it a moving target?
I’ll leave it at that and say I learned a lot. I think other readers will glean a lot from this book and find it to be stimulating no matter what origin, background, worldview, or position held on any of the subject matter.
Blog post
Certain terms, phrases, dates, historical figures, and U.S./world events can get confusing to me, some things I forget over time, some I don’t always feel I can articulate well to other people much less sort them in my mind when engaging in conversation. So I’m always trying to find ways to stimulate my mind, move from vague notions and memorization to practical application and meaning to daily life. This book helped to clarify and connect a lot of concepts for me.
Here's how I organized this review:
Readership recommendation. Audiobook. The writing style. Tone. Book organization. Personal interest/relevancy. Credibility. Subjects of interest. Questions to ask.
Readership Recommendation
I’d recommend this book to anyone. Whether you’re seeking to understand U.S. history as a citizen, expat, or foreigner, a student, a casual learner looking for an accessible review of history or historical refresher, anyone looking to solidify their thoughts and knowledge of certain subjects, or anyone seeking clarification of how U.S. history, founded on certain principles and culture, plays out in today’s climate.
Audiobook
I listened to it via audiobook, narrated by the author, which was excellent and I’d highly recommend. There was a lot packed into this 6-hour long book. He talked rather fast, as in running words together, but it was clearest for me at 0.9x speed, so I actually quite enjoyed listening because I did like the fast pacing of concepts as they come to his mind in the way he explained them following up and qualifying instantaneously if that makes sense. Though I did find myself still hitting replay of the previous 15 seconds button several times throughout the book so I could grasp the words and absorb the sentiments better. Sometimes I wasn’t sure if I understood exactly when he was stating opposing viewpoints/opinions or not, though some were quite animated by impressions or quotes that were easier to pick out, though some were a bit silly, both hilarious and silly I suppose.
The Writing Style
It was a very inviting, conversational approach to writing. Proposing questions, exploring alternative/opposing viewpoints/endings from a philosophical standpoint, rationales. I liked the format.
Tone
Based on my interpretation of the title and description, I thought there possibly could be an underlying negative tone, is the U.S. doomed to fail, feeling throughout the book, possibly focusing on negative or opposing opinions of today and debating them into an oblivion of despair.
But it was actually quite hopeful and refreshing to explore U.S. philosophy, culture, and history and what the founders wanted to achieve at the time and what can be celebrated today. And to whom, in essence, achieved a certain timelessness to the principles, time they spent putting their ideas and words into a physical document to stand for the foreseeable future as a society moving forward in an era where such concepts were actually quite unique, radical, and well-developed for the time, even compared to other countries today.
Book Organization
I liked how the book was organized. It outlined in both a time-wise fashion and topical discussion simultaneously, depicting key dates and principles and culture that were key to the founding and development as a country we know today. With a recapping of ideas for each chapter conclusion, letting me know I absorbed something.
Personal Interest/Relevancy
When it comes to certain key events in history, I like to know what other people around the world were doing. I like to know what my grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents were doing. I also like to connect pop culture, certain advancements, novel ideas, and inventions to events of the time and he touched on some of these things I seek out which made the social outlook and political reasoning much more personal and solidified in my mind. I’d like to see more maps and timelines cross-referencing and depicting things like this, I don’t know if there were any in the book because I had the audiobook version, maybe I missed out.
Credibility
I’m a cross-checker and I love research. The author did a good job providing supporting data, citing them, and then explaining what about U.S. history is true, both in realities and intentions of forethought, and what was actually applied. What some of the myths and misnomers are. I liked the multiple historical and relational examples he gave, which were detailed enough to bridge the concepts, but also weren’t academically dry or belabored to read.
Subject Matter
I gleaned a lot and you may glean a lot from the book if learning about any of these topics appeal to you:
Speech policing/censorship, emotional sensitivity, religious freedom/protection, racism, affirmative action, tribalism, tyranny, secular universalism, monopolies, union power, risk aversion, boycotting, shifting policies pressure, Industrial Revolution, white/black women income gaps, The 1619 Project, 3/5th Compromise, social media mobbing, the human soul, reason, natural law, and eternal ideals.
Questions to Ask
I gained understanding and you may gain understanding in the interpretation of founding documents (especially as it relates to legal interpretation and social implications), by asking questions such as:
-Why did founders seek to build the country in such a way anyway?
-What is meant by Western civilization settling and who determines what that society should look like?
-Does humanity have a need for community and thus a need for communal standards?
-How is freedom and virtue defined?
-Should the government be enforcing virtue?
-What should the expectation be for individual rights VS communal self-control?
-How does bringing forth the freedom and prosperity of the past and today compare to any other country or civilization in history?
-What is the theme of The Declaration of Independence?
-What does it represent at the very core?
-Was it intended to be an allegiance to ideals?
-What was the intention of the U. S. Constitution? Was it mean to be the protector of rights or the source of them?
-Where/how are rights sourced?
-What is the difference between the scope and capacity of rights?
-What does it mean to have a democracy with limited government involvement?
-What is the role of government in our lives?
-How can society achieve a balance of power between people and the government?
-What internal checks are in place to prevent imbalance of power?
-What about competing values?
-What is the difference between a backdrop of an event or figure compared to the motivating idea put forth?
-Was U.S. wealth dependent on slavery?
-What was the first country to abolish slavery? The last? First existence and what forms of slavery exist today?
-Why exactly did the South lose the Civil War?
-Why did it occur/what were the contributing factors to the Civil War in the first place?
-Why was slavery not a written abolishment in The Declaration of Independence?
-Is the U.S. embracing diversity more than ever?
-What is the difference between disparity and discrimination?
-What is the difference between restorative discrimination and equal protection of the law?
-What are the liberties and requirements of mankind?
-What is the measurement of success in obtaining freedoms as written in the constitution and is it a moving target?
I’ll leave it at that and say I learned a lot. I think other readers will glean a lot from this book and find it to be stimulating no matter what origin, background, worldview, or position held on any of the subject matter.
Blog post
September 6, 2020
3.5 stars
This is a pretty short book, written during the Year of Covid. He talks about how two major factions have arisen in America: “Disintegrationists” want to destroy everything and start over; “unionists” want to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
He discusses the attacks on America’s culture, governmental philosophy (such as the nature of rights), and history and corrects misconceptions that have arisen recently. It’s mostly stuff I already knew, but it was still presented in a clear, engaging way. If you’re new to American history or political science, this is a good place to start.
I listened to the audio version narrated by the author. He is the fastest reader I’ve ever encountered! I guess that’s because of his radio experience. For the first time, I was looking for a setting slower than 1.0.
Clean content
This is a pretty short book, written during the Year of Covid. He talks about how two major factions have arisen in America: “Disintegrationists” want to destroy everything and start over; “unionists” want to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
He discusses the attacks on America’s culture, governmental philosophy (such as the nature of rights), and history and corrects misconceptions that have arisen recently. It’s mostly stuff I already knew, but it was still presented in a clear, engaging way. If you’re new to American history or political science, this is a good place to start.
I listened to the audio version narrated by the author. He is the fastest reader I’ve ever encountered! I guess that’s because of his radio experience. For the first time, I was looking for a setting slower than 1.0.
Clean content
October 19, 2020
This book is filled with poorly sourced and honestly poorly written history/pop psychology. Shapiro argues with straw men and the book is just overwhelmed by a sense of unearned grievance. Not recommended for anything other than frustration and an example of a mediocre high school essay.
September 11, 2020
As a conservative study of history or economics, this book offers a mostly predictable narrative that regularly wanders off into the absurd. The author intersperses some well-trodden stories and selective data with a steady drip of ad hominem attacks, either/or framing, slippery slope arguments, and straw person mischaracterizations of the other side.
That said, the book really has very little to do with history or economics. It’s not a text meant to inform or persuade; it’s a work of rhetorical affirmation directed at a particular group of conservative readers. The author writes to assure these readers that the policies they support are not racist; their fears about democracy are rational; and they are perfectly justified in continuing to support the Trump administration (even if they wish he didn’t use so many bad words) because he and they are part of the great “unionist” struggle to preserve American exceptionalism from the mob.
That said, the book really has very little to do with history or economics. It’s not a text meant to inform or persuade; it’s a work of rhetorical affirmation directed at a particular group of conservative readers. The author writes to assure these readers that the policies they support are not racist; their fears about democracy are rational; and they are perfectly justified in continuing to support the Trump administration (even if they wish he didn’t use so many bad words) because he and they are part of the great “unionist” struggle to preserve American exceptionalism from the mob.
August 2, 2020
This is a good presentation of Ben Shapiro's broadly Libertarian and conservative views on America (history, present, future). Most of this would have been essentially mainstream until the past ~15 years) -- it's not arguments for low taxes, lack of any social safety net, etc., but just that broadly America has produced good results for Americans and the world and that where it has failed to do so has just been an implementation failure and not a reason to throw the whole thing out. In particular, slavery was not the economic engine which has driven >400 years of economic success in America, but a crutch used by some people in the South, contrary to both moral and economic values, and largely not the cause of income (vs. wealth) disparities in America today.
As an audiobook -- I know I encourage authors, especially those trying to present a political or philosophical argument, to narrate their own audiobooks. Unfortunately I find Ben Shapiro's ideas a lot more acceptable than his voice (especially at 2X); it's just grating, mostly because I associate it with various soundbite arguments on TV (which rarely show anyone at their best).
As an audiobook -- I know I encourage authors, especially those trying to present a political or philosophical argument, to narrate their own audiobooks. Unfortunately I find Ben Shapiro's ideas a lot more acceptable than his voice (especially at 2X); it's just grating, mostly because I associate it with various soundbite arguments on TV (which rarely show anyone at their best).
September 7, 2020
OMG! This book is HORRIBLE! Life is too short to read this crap. Another white, male, conservative, realizing he is about to be in the minority and doing whatever he can to preserve power. If you are not white, male, and a real republican, you are a Disintigrationist (his word) and you are destroying America.
July 26, 2020
A must read for any American. This books lays out the proper view of American History, philosophy, and culture. It should be our compass as the conservative movement continues forward. The book pits American values vs Marxist values. It’s not directly drawn between left and right, but one must not read far to tell which political group in America represents American values and which group represent Marxist values.
September 6, 2020
Our poor America is still the most blessed land to belong to. I wish the people who live here already could love one another and lose the hair trigger leap to offense. We need to employ an appraising look at History before we toss away what we take for granted. This book discusses the lack of balanced understanding of our heritage due to decades of revisionist social studies and non existent examination of the founding documents. Also, the tendency to judge and condemn people from a different century mucks up clear vision. Individuals giving up being autonomous and responsible for themselves for the all knowing succor of government or collectives or social programs is tantamount to throwing away freedom, liberty and independence.
September 2, 2020
I wish every American could read this book. Instead of getting bogged down in political issues, Shapiro gets to the heart of why our nation is so divided. It all boils down to worldview and how we view the origin of man, culture and history. Unionism versus disintegrationism explained. An enlightening read, to say the least!
August 7, 2020
Hard to rate and review.
On one hand, this book is very well-researched, to the point of having paragraphs that are hard to follow as they read as quote linked to quote linked to quote. Credit to Shapiro there. He is obviously well-read, and has an excellent understanding of the subject matter.
But a well-researched book does not necessarily a good read make.
I have many thoughts, none of which have been carefully organised, so this might be a bit ramble-y.
Firstly, I think Shapiro has the biggest pair of rose-coloured glasses on when it comes to America. He doesn't even counter the very real problems his country faces, he simply refuses to see them, because the existence of the problems does not align with his very rosy view of America and capitalism. This is a book that screams AMERICA IS THE BEST with very little moderation for 515 ebook pages. (Admittedly almost 100 of these pages form the reference list. Like I said, well-read.)
As a non-American, I simply raise my eyebrows at the Americans pointing their fingers at the problems with my country (usually, the gun buyback, which, uh, WORKED. We can still buy weapons here, we just don't have a gun culture, we don't have mass shootings, and you're telling me our gun laws suck? *facepalm*) meanwhile demonstrating a complete inability to recognise the enormous issues America has. I can agree with you, that the basis for your declaration and constitution is great. And important. And unique. In your own words, Mr Shapiro, *two things can be true at once.* I appreciate you giving the time to an even-handed exploration of the history of racism in your country. That's good. Now, can we also give the same treatment to all the other issues America has, recognising that not every problem America has can be boiled down to the influence of the Disintegrationists? There are downsides to a culture obsessed with rights. Here's an example. The rest of the western world is able to look at Coronavirus with the fairly even-handed recognition that the only way forward, (no matter what the chosen strategy), is TOGETHER. We're all limping along, finding our way, doing better in some cases than others, but the near-universal derision towards the handful of idiots moaning about muh rights and (are you kidding me) quoting American law badly (in Australia) are treated with utter derision and ostracism. Rightly. This is not a time for moaning about rights. Wearing a mask is not equivalent to communism you idiots. It is a PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY and your selfishness is rightly met with disgust. Public health emergencies requires a focus on collectivism, the collective good, not individualism. Every person must make an individual choice for the good of the collective, but it is absolutely a time for the government to respond quickly and harshly. The government should have one job, and responding to a pandemic definitely falls under that title. To be fair to Shapiro, he has indeed actively encouraged people to make considerate decisions in this pandemic, (although his focus on death rates = the only negative outcome is unfortunate, because the evidence of long-haul debilitating illness is extensive, and the suggestion that we should throw young people under the bus because they'll survive is supremely callous) but the logic in his book does not. The logic in the book would lead anyone without a questioning mindset to believe that their "muh rights" response to the pandemic is THE RIGHT ONE. Now, I am not someone who believes that therefore he's responsible for the muh rights crowds. I believe in personal responsibility. But I do believe he could minimise this effect by being more even-handed in his treatment and application of the principles he espouses.
This is not an easy read. Know that going in. It's dense, and he doesn't have the flow of, say, Peterson. (Shapiro might be easier to listen to and follow verbally, Peterson is far easier to read.) He loses flow to supporting evidence, and he's very repetitive, restating his case multiple times in quick succession. His law background obviously shows through, as his main concern is supporting his argument, not exploring possible viewpoints or making it easy for the reader to follow.
If anything, this book has clarified my own position, so I'm grateful for that. I think the libertarian leanings Ben has are obviously naive. For example, he recognises the enormous value social and religious institutions have and that a libertarian society requires these social values (he's right) but offers no real solution for a replacement, or any way to reintroduce the positive effects they have. He recognises the rights system only really works with the 'inculcated virtue' from social institutions, and in absence of that inculcated virtue..... uh, what are we supposed to do? He states that mandating or using the government to reintroduce these virtues is absolutely not the answer, and I agree, but.... what is, Mr Shapiro? You've essentially done what every boss hates: extensively extrapolated the problem, but offered no solution or way forward.
Here's another problem with individualism: healthcare. I'll never be on board with the idea that it's a problem if my tax payment ensures someone can go to the doctor. Never. I've lived on both sides of that arrangement. I'm so glad that I live in a system, as flawed as it is, that means I don't have to SELL MY HOUSE and be in debt for the rest of my life if I end up in hospital with Coronavirus. I don't even have to WORRY about that. I know if I need to get tested, I can. And I won't think twice if I need to because it's not going to cost me a down payment on a car to do so. The fact that Americans had to fight over this is utterly crazy to me. Australians just knew that the government would get the tests out there as soon as possible. That's not worshipping at government feet, that's recognising it's under the mandate of genuine public safety to cover off testing for a highly transmissible disease. I have been so, so glad that I live in Australia — while there is some politicking happening six months in, our state, local and federal governments have done a great job of actually facing it all together. The opposition have asked important questions, but largely not made it about political gain.
If it's all about individualism, 'muh rights' come before compassion. I know that compassion is being hijacked and weaponised, and compassion without logic or reason is incredibly dangerous (this isn't something he goes into here, it's something I'm reading about elsewhere and have observed in my own life). But this book reads like it's written by a man who has no compassion, if that compassion costs him anything. He has genuine compassion for slaves and Native Americans, and rightly has outright derision for those enacting said genuine oppression in the past. But that position costs him nothing, and outside of that? Nope. It's all pull yourself out of the mire, because capitalism is perfect.
The idea that a healthcare system would force doctors to alienate their labour without their consent is an oversimplification, and doesn't recognise that there are other factors like the fact that doctors abide by the hippocratic oath. (Which he knows, because his wife is a doctor didn't you know). They are already obliged to offer care by virtue of their occupation (there is some argument as to what care constitutes, but my point is doctors are obliged to care for other humans, regardless of their background, circumstance, life choices, ethnicity, sexuality, full stop. That is their job). Doctors want to care for people. I think most doctors in Australia don't care which system brings them patients, as long as they are paid, and they can offer the care they're here to offer, they are doing what they signed up for. I just can't see those who oppose health care as anything other than cruel and uncaring. Sorry Ben, I think you're denying reality here — because people get sick, that is reality, so what is the alternative you propose? If you have a for-profit healthcare system, you have insurance companies that will do anything to get out of covering the people who have paid for their coverage. So where do we go from here? What's the other option? I now understand where the argument that 'healthcare isn't a right' comes from, and in the sense that it is a 'right to a service' as opposed to a right to freedom, I can agree. That said, I don't think it's fair to equate wanting healthcare to wanting a 'right to a job.'
Now, back to virtue and moral obligations, needing to be inculcated by institutions. Yes. And here's why I don't think America's gun problem can actually be solved: it's a culture problem, not an existence-of-object problem. It's a completely integrated national obsession. It's truly in the national psyche. It is a vicious circle that would be nigh on impossible to break. I'm not an idiot: I understand that what John Howard did in Australia, so many years ago, with a much smaller population, is not analogous to the current circumstance in America. All I know is that I never once in my life have had to think about guns in my day-to-day life, for which I am so, so grateful. For the record, you CAN own a gun in Australia, it's just that the ownership is very regulated, and it's *not a cultural norm to own one*. Which circles me back to the fact that I RECOGNISE the importance of cultural norms, cultural institutions, and I recognise that that norm here has grown out of government action, at a single moment in time. Does that mean I want more government? No, it doesn't. But credit where credit is due. Things changed for us, and here we are. Our society locally is genuinely better for it. I had to laugh out loud at the moral superiority of Mr Shapiro implying that cultures like Australia are literally enslaved (p175 in the ebook, quoting George Mason). I am not now, nor have I ever been enslaved, my friend. I don't have to worry about guns. I don't have to worry about riots. I don't have to worry about vast political division. Not because of government intervention, but because that's the culture over here. We are generally very laid back, so much so it can be a problem. Tell me again why America is the best? How on the nose, how much evidence of a superiority complex is this: "Without America, the world would have fallen to tyranny long ago; without America, the beauty of individual rights would have been completely subsumed by the collective long ago; without America, the notion of a multiethnic democracy would have collapsed long ago." (p262 ebook) And my note on this was "Lol K we are doing just fine over here thanks." (Australia is a multiethnic democracy, FYI.)
I'm never going to see eye-to-eye with someone who thinks it's about the right to bear arms, and law-abiding citizens, but can't seem to front up to the mass shootings and gun violence, perhaps because he has no real answers. Someone who thinks that an AR-15 is an appropriate weapon for HOME DEFENCE. I can't get my head around the fact that he may be right, if simply for the fact that a home invader is likely to be similarly armed (they would not be similarly armed in the same situation in Australia). See what I mean? It's a vicious cycle, it's a cultural norm, and not one that is not easily broken.
I've also had to come to terms with the fact that recognising this armed culture in America also means that the police response, and police training, will always be to some degree different than it is in other countries. OF COURSE the system of policing in America is broken. That's totally obvious. But the solution can't be 'take Australia's system and straight up implement it.' Or 'take all the guns away from police.' Or 'remove the police entirely.' The likelihood of a policeman or woman encountering an armed person is much, much higher in America. This is the nuance that lies in the grey of holding two things to be true. It's kind of ironic that's one of Shapiro's favourite phrases.
See, I'm able to recognise that a completely free market doesn't work for the same reason socialism and communism don't. HUMANS ARE FLAWED, and they will take advantage of whatever system they are in. As Douglas Murray says, "There are categories of problems that we don't address because the only people who have been trying to address them are the people with the worst possible answers. Capitalism... falls into this basket." (Interview with John Anderson.)
Look, I have always maintained that every culture has good to offer, but every culture is broken in its own way. I'll tell you just some of the problems Australia has. The historical treatment of Indigenous people has had vast, ongoing effects that continue today, and there are no easy solutions. We're so laid back we're likely to wake up one day without freedom of speech, because it's not constitutionally protected. There's an epidemic of domestic violence behind closed-doors. Our larrikin nature can often become vicious and cutting; an ingrained sense of tall-poppy syndrome, where fair-go culture becomes I-don't-have-that culture. There are pockets of racism, but there are also too many people willing to call something racist when the thing in question isn't. We still don't have good solutions to women in the workplace. We pay 'the Australia tax' on everything; which is above and beyond currency conversion, even for digital products. Life here is expensive. A huge chunk of our country is uninhabitable because it's desert, and I don't think the people who actually live here realise that: we don't have the land or the infrastructure to support massive population growth, either by immigration or by birth. I think our progressive tax system is pretty broken. Our economy is worryingly entangled with China's. I say all this to tell you I'm not looking at my own country with rose-coloured glasses. Truly, I'm not. I won't sit here and tell you it's the best country in the world. I'll tell you I'm grateful we have a pretty robust welfare system, but we also have economic opportunity. I'm grateful the government doesn't resemble the disaster zone that is American politics. I'm grateful for the lower population density. I'm grateful I can consider further study and access it easily. I'm grateful we produce more food than we need, and it's excellent quality, with such variety (because of how many different climates we have in one country). I'm grateful to have grown up with people from SO MANY different backgrounds: Lebanese, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian, Finnish, Greek, English, Irish, Italian, South African, Sri Lankan, Indian... And to have access to so many different cuisines — our national cuisine would best be described as fusion. Australia is a vast, beautiful country, and I am SO proud, but it isn't perfect. Neither is America, Mr Shapiro.
On one hand, this book is very well-researched, to the point of having paragraphs that are hard to follow as they read as quote linked to quote linked to quote. Credit to Shapiro there. He is obviously well-read, and has an excellent understanding of the subject matter.
But a well-researched book does not necessarily a good read make.
I have many thoughts, none of which have been carefully organised, so this might be a bit ramble-y.
Firstly, I think Shapiro has the biggest pair of rose-coloured glasses on when it comes to America. He doesn't even counter the very real problems his country faces, he simply refuses to see them, because the existence of the problems does not align with his very rosy view of America and capitalism. This is a book that screams AMERICA IS THE BEST with very little moderation for 515 ebook pages. (Admittedly almost 100 of these pages form the reference list. Like I said, well-read.)
As a non-American, I simply raise my eyebrows at the Americans pointing their fingers at the problems with my country (usually, the gun buyback, which, uh, WORKED. We can still buy weapons here, we just don't have a gun culture, we don't have mass shootings, and you're telling me our gun laws suck? *facepalm*) meanwhile demonstrating a complete inability to recognise the enormous issues America has. I can agree with you, that the basis for your declaration and constitution is great. And important. And unique. In your own words, Mr Shapiro, *two things can be true at once.* I appreciate you giving the time to an even-handed exploration of the history of racism in your country. That's good. Now, can we also give the same treatment to all the other issues America has, recognising that not every problem America has can be boiled down to the influence of the Disintegrationists? There are downsides to a culture obsessed with rights. Here's an example. The rest of the western world is able to look at Coronavirus with the fairly even-handed recognition that the only way forward, (no matter what the chosen strategy), is TOGETHER. We're all limping along, finding our way, doing better in some cases than others, but the near-universal derision towards the handful of idiots moaning about muh rights and (are you kidding me) quoting American law badly (in Australia) are treated with utter derision and ostracism. Rightly. This is not a time for moaning about rights. Wearing a mask is not equivalent to communism you idiots. It is a PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY and your selfishness is rightly met with disgust. Public health emergencies requires a focus on collectivism, the collective good, not individualism. Every person must make an individual choice for the good of the collective, but it is absolutely a time for the government to respond quickly and harshly. The government should have one job, and responding to a pandemic definitely falls under that title. To be fair to Shapiro, he has indeed actively encouraged people to make considerate decisions in this pandemic, (although his focus on death rates = the only negative outcome is unfortunate, because the evidence of long-haul debilitating illness is extensive, and the suggestion that we should throw young people under the bus because they'll survive is supremely callous) but the logic in his book does not. The logic in the book would lead anyone without a questioning mindset to believe that their "muh rights" response to the pandemic is THE RIGHT ONE. Now, I am not someone who believes that therefore he's responsible for the muh rights crowds. I believe in personal responsibility. But I do believe he could minimise this effect by being more even-handed in his treatment and application of the principles he espouses.
This is not an easy read. Know that going in. It's dense, and he doesn't have the flow of, say, Peterson. (Shapiro might be easier to listen to and follow verbally, Peterson is far easier to read.) He loses flow to supporting evidence, and he's very repetitive, restating his case multiple times in quick succession. His law background obviously shows through, as his main concern is supporting his argument, not exploring possible viewpoints or making it easy for the reader to follow.
If anything, this book has clarified my own position, so I'm grateful for that. I think the libertarian leanings Ben has are obviously naive. For example, he recognises the enormous value social and religious institutions have and that a libertarian society requires these social values (he's right) but offers no real solution for a replacement, or any way to reintroduce the positive effects they have. He recognises the rights system only really works with the 'inculcated virtue' from social institutions, and in absence of that inculcated virtue..... uh, what are we supposed to do? He states that mandating or using the government to reintroduce these virtues is absolutely not the answer, and I agree, but.... what is, Mr Shapiro? You've essentially done what every boss hates: extensively extrapolated the problem, but offered no solution or way forward.
Here's another problem with individualism: healthcare. I'll never be on board with the idea that it's a problem if my tax payment ensures someone can go to the doctor. Never. I've lived on both sides of that arrangement. I'm so glad that I live in a system, as flawed as it is, that means I don't have to SELL MY HOUSE and be in debt for the rest of my life if I end up in hospital with Coronavirus. I don't even have to WORRY about that. I know if I need to get tested, I can. And I won't think twice if I need to because it's not going to cost me a down payment on a car to do so. The fact that Americans had to fight over this is utterly crazy to me. Australians just knew that the government would get the tests out there as soon as possible. That's not worshipping at government feet, that's recognising it's under the mandate of genuine public safety to cover off testing for a highly transmissible disease. I have been so, so glad that I live in Australia — while there is some politicking happening six months in, our state, local and federal governments have done a great job of actually facing it all together. The opposition have asked important questions, but largely not made it about political gain.
If it's all about individualism, 'muh rights' come before compassion. I know that compassion is being hijacked and weaponised, and compassion without logic or reason is incredibly dangerous (this isn't something he goes into here, it's something I'm reading about elsewhere and have observed in my own life). But this book reads like it's written by a man who has no compassion, if that compassion costs him anything. He has genuine compassion for slaves and Native Americans, and rightly has outright derision for those enacting said genuine oppression in the past. But that position costs him nothing, and outside of that? Nope. It's all pull yourself out of the mire, because capitalism is perfect.
The idea that a healthcare system would force doctors to alienate their labour without their consent is an oversimplification, and doesn't recognise that there are other factors like the fact that doctors abide by the hippocratic oath. (Which he knows, because his wife is a doctor didn't you know). They are already obliged to offer care by virtue of their occupation (there is some argument as to what care constitutes, but my point is doctors are obliged to care for other humans, regardless of their background, circumstance, life choices, ethnicity, sexuality, full stop. That is their job). Doctors want to care for people. I think most doctors in Australia don't care which system brings them patients, as long as they are paid, and they can offer the care they're here to offer, they are doing what they signed up for. I just can't see those who oppose health care as anything other than cruel and uncaring. Sorry Ben, I think you're denying reality here — because people get sick, that is reality, so what is the alternative you propose? If you have a for-profit healthcare system, you have insurance companies that will do anything to get out of covering the people who have paid for their coverage. So where do we go from here? What's the other option? I now understand where the argument that 'healthcare isn't a right' comes from, and in the sense that it is a 'right to a service' as opposed to a right to freedom, I can agree. That said, I don't think it's fair to equate wanting healthcare to wanting a 'right to a job.'
Now, back to virtue and moral obligations, needing to be inculcated by institutions. Yes. And here's why I don't think America's gun problem can actually be solved: it's a culture problem, not an existence-of-object problem. It's a completely integrated national obsession. It's truly in the national psyche. It is a vicious circle that would be nigh on impossible to break. I'm not an idiot: I understand that what John Howard did in Australia, so many years ago, with a much smaller population, is not analogous to the current circumstance in America. All I know is that I never once in my life have had to think about guns in my day-to-day life, for which I am so, so grateful. For the record, you CAN own a gun in Australia, it's just that the ownership is very regulated, and it's *not a cultural norm to own one*. Which circles me back to the fact that I RECOGNISE the importance of cultural norms, cultural institutions, and I recognise that that norm here has grown out of government action, at a single moment in time. Does that mean I want more government? No, it doesn't. But credit where credit is due. Things changed for us, and here we are. Our society locally is genuinely better for it. I had to laugh out loud at the moral superiority of Mr Shapiro implying that cultures like Australia are literally enslaved (p175 in the ebook, quoting George Mason). I am not now, nor have I ever been enslaved, my friend. I don't have to worry about guns. I don't have to worry about riots. I don't have to worry about vast political division. Not because of government intervention, but because that's the culture over here. We are generally very laid back, so much so it can be a problem. Tell me again why America is the best? How on the nose, how much evidence of a superiority complex is this: "Without America, the world would have fallen to tyranny long ago; without America, the beauty of individual rights would have been completely subsumed by the collective long ago; without America, the notion of a multiethnic democracy would have collapsed long ago." (p262 ebook) And my note on this was "Lol K we are doing just fine over here thanks." (Australia is a multiethnic democracy, FYI.)
I'm never going to see eye-to-eye with someone who thinks it's about the right to bear arms, and law-abiding citizens, but can't seem to front up to the mass shootings and gun violence, perhaps because he has no real answers. Someone who thinks that an AR-15 is an appropriate weapon for HOME DEFENCE. I can't get my head around the fact that he may be right, if simply for the fact that a home invader is likely to be similarly armed (they would not be similarly armed in the same situation in Australia). See what I mean? It's a vicious cycle, it's a cultural norm, and not one that is not easily broken.
I've also had to come to terms with the fact that recognising this armed culture in America also means that the police response, and police training, will always be to some degree different than it is in other countries. OF COURSE the system of policing in America is broken. That's totally obvious. But the solution can't be 'take Australia's system and straight up implement it.' Or 'take all the guns away from police.' Or 'remove the police entirely.' The likelihood of a policeman or woman encountering an armed person is much, much higher in America. This is the nuance that lies in the grey of holding two things to be true. It's kind of ironic that's one of Shapiro's favourite phrases.
See, I'm able to recognise that a completely free market doesn't work for the same reason socialism and communism don't. HUMANS ARE FLAWED, and they will take advantage of whatever system they are in. As Douglas Murray says, "There are categories of problems that we don't address because the only people who have been trying to address them are the people with the worst possible answers. Capitalism... falls into this basket." (Interview with John Anderson.)
Look, I have always maintained that every culture has good to offer, but every culture is broken in its own way. I'll tell you just some of the problems Australia has. The historical treatment of Indigenous people has had vast, ongoing effects that continue today, and there are no easy solutions. We're so laid back we're likely to wake up one day without freedom of speech, because it's not constitutionally protected. There's an epidemic of domestic violence behind closed-doors. Our larrikin nature can often become vicious and cutting; an ingrained sense of tall-poppy syndrome, where fair-go culture becomes I-don't-have-that culture. There are pockets of racism, but there are also too many people willing to call something racist when the thing in question isn't. We still don't have good solutions to women in the workplace. We pay 'the Australia tax' on everything; which is above and beyond currency conversion, even for digital products. Life here is expensive. A huge chunk of our country is uninhabitable because it's desert, and I don't think the people who actually live here realise that: we don't have the land or the infrastructure to support massive population growth, either by immigration or by birth. I think our progressive tax system is pretty broken. Our economy is worryingly entangled with China's. I say all this to tell you I'm not looking at my own country with rose-coloured glasses. Truly, I'm not. I won't sit here and tell you it's the best country in the world. I'll tell you I'm grateful we have a pretty robust welfare system, but we also have economic opportunity. I'm grateful the government doesn't resemble the disaster zone that is American politics. I'm grateful for the lower population density. I'm grateful I can consider further study and access it easily. I'm grateful we produce more food than we need, and it's excellent quality, with such variety (because of how many different climates we have in one country). I'm grateful to have grown up with people from SO MANY different backgrounds: Lebanese, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian, Finnish, Greek, English, Irish, Italian, South African, Sri Lankan, Indian... And to have access to so many different cuisines — our national cuisine would best be described as fusion. Australia is a vast, beautiful country, and I am SO proud, but it isn't perfect. Neither is America, Mr Shapiro.
September 1, 2022
Sometimes I read a book and I wonder why it was written. In the introduction, Shapiro talks about how the differences between people on the Left and on the Right as not as large as each side perceives them to be. His thesis is that the two sides we should be worried about are not Right and Left but “Unionists” and “Disintegrationists”. However, throughout the book it becomes clear that his Disintegrationists are… the Left.
Disintegrationists, on the other hand, believe “that true freedom lies in government”; that is, that federal solutions are the correct way to solve the problems of America. That Americans are too focused on individual rights such as the right of self-defense, and that racism can only be cured through affirmative actions by the state.
He’s basically just redefined Right and Left as Unionist and Disintegrationist. I received this book as a promotional item from FreedomWorks; in the accompanying letter from Shapiro, he’s more explicit that the book describes how “the Radical Left is doing all it can to tear down what it’s taken 250 years to build—and they’ve started by cancelling our shared history, ideals, and culture.” That latter list is all things he ascribes to Disintegrationists.
I don’t necessarily disagree with him overall, but it seems a pointless book when comparing the introduction to the rest of it.
He also has a tendency to buy into the language of the Left, such as that “positive” rights are those provided by government, and “negative” rights are individual rights. This is opposite language. So-called positive rights are rights taken from somebody—that is, they’re subtracted. The term “positive rights” refers at best to zero sum transactions, but in reality the bureaucratic journey from taking to redistribution will always be negative.
Whereas the term negative rights is used to mean rights inherent in an individual—that is, positive things held by people. If anything, the terms should be reversed; but these terms are not enough in common use that there is any reason to buy into this twisted phrasing at all.
Despite painting the Left, or at least its leadership, as Disintegrationists, he goes out of his way to appear even-handed in a way that literally makes no sense from what he describes as a Unionist perspective.
But of course, one of those things is very different from the other: it’s government speech. The local library is almost certainly a government-run institution. As a counterfactual, try Catholic story hour or NRA story hour in those same libraries and see how far you get. If “rights mean we don’t get to stop them”, then this means that funding can never be cut for a public institution for reasons of not actually providing the service the people funding the service expect.
But he’s not always so even-handed. He occasionally uses himself as an example, such as highlighting the various times he was “banned from speaking” at a University. A perfect opportunity to recognize that recognizing rights is hard comes when he discusses social media mobs:
What he neglects to say here is that he himself helped to magnify the media rage against the teens on social media. It’s something that’s very easy to do, especially when you see a colleague whom you presumably trust joining in. In a book about overcoming division and rage, how he overcame that would be both interesting and a useful example.
I actually changed my view of this book while writing this review—I had one quote I needed to look up, because it didn’t sound like something Tucker Carlson would say. It turns out that not only does Shapiro’s quote elide 30 paragraphs between the ellipses to make it look like one sentence was the conclusion of a single paragraph, he actually took the quotes out of order. The conclusion is at the beginning, and the beginning is at the end.
Previous to checking that quote, I thought this was an okay book that confuses some issues and assumes others but was otherwise on target. Now I’ve no idea.
His sense of history, at least recent history, seems lacking, too. At one point he takes on a short discussion of Trump’s “Make America Great Again Slogan”, which he sees as divisive; at another point, he includes Ronald Reagan in a list of revered historical figures. But Trump borrowed the slogan from Reagan. That doesn’t mean it can’t also have been transformed into something divisive, but it does require some sort of acknowledgement.
Shapiro’s conclusions for how to fix our divided country are right out of a movie I was an extra in in the eighties, The Sleeping Car. At the end of the movie, the evil ghost who has been maliciously killing people is stopped by… hugging it. “Forgive him… love him.” (For the record, this is not a movie worth searching out.)
How do we solve the split between Unionists and Disintegrationists? “We learn to love”.
The problem is that, like the ghost in The Sleeping Car, the villain Shapiro’s described as Disintegrationists would take that love and trust and unity and use it to create more division and to force more submission. That’s literally what Shapiro describes them doing in the rest of the book. If he’s right about that, then his solution makes no sense. If his solution makes sense, then the rest of the book seems pointlessly divisive.
The topics that Shapiro covers are important topics, but I’d recommend far more interesting and in-depth writers such as Thomas Sowell (free market) or Dennis Prager (culture), or the older authors he quotes, such as President Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
To most Americans, America is about, and was always about, rights to religious freedom, to freedom of speech, to freedom of self-defense, to economic freedom—and about the duties provided and enforced by thriving social institutions inculcating virtue.
Disintegrationists, on the other hand, believe “that true freedom lies in government”; that is, that federal solutions are the correct way to solve the problems of America. That Americans are too focused on individual rights such as the right of self-defense, and that racism can only be cured through affirmative actions by the state.
He’s basically just redefined Right and Left as Unionist and Disintegrationist. I received this book as a promotional item from FreedomWorks; in the accompanying letter from Shapiro, he’s more explicit that the book describes how “the Radical Left is doing all it can to tear down what it’s taken 250 years to build—and they’ve started by cancelling our shared history, ideals, and culture.” That latter list is all things he ascribes to Disintegrationists.
I don’t necessarily disagree with him overall, but it seems a pointless book when comparing the introduction to the rest of it.
He also has a tendency to buy into the language of the Left, such as that “positive” rights are those provided by government, and “negative” rights are individual rights. This is opposite language. So-called positive rights are rights taken from somebody—that is, they’re subtracted. The term “positive rights” refers at best to zero sum transactions, but in reality the bureaucratic journey from taking to redistribution will always be negative.
Whereas the term negative rights is used to mean rights inherent in an individual—that is, positive things held by people. If anything, the terms should be reversed; but these terms are not enough in common use that there is any reason to buy into this twisted phrasing at all.
Despite painting the Left, or at least its leadership, as Disintegrationists, he goes out of his way to appear even-handed in a way that literally makes no sense from what he describes as a Unionist perspective.
Rights mean that we have to tolerate those with whom we disagree… Rights mean that sometimes the KKK marches through Skokie, that religious bakers will sometimes refuse to bake cakes to the satisfaction of Lady Gaga, that golf clubs may be closed to women, that drag queen story hour may take place at the local library.
We may be fine with some of those things, none of those things, or all of those things.
Rights mean we don’t get to stop them.
But of course, one of those things is very different from the other: it’s government speech. The local library is almost certainly a government-run institution. As a counterfactual, try Catholic story hour or NRA story hour in those same libraries and see how far you get. If “rights mean we don’t get to stop them”, then this means that funding can never be cut for a public institution for reasons of not actually providing the service the people funding the service expect.
But he’s not always so even-handed. He occasionally uses himself as an example, such as highlighting the various times he was “banned from speaking” at a University. A perfect opportunity to recognize that recognizing rights is hard comes when he discusses social media mobs:
…the kids of Covington Catholic High School find themselves under the harsh glare of the media for the crime of wearing Trump hats and standing still while being screamed at by Black Hebrew Israelites and confronted by a militant Native American Activist. We are a swarming culture, finding encouragement and social satisfaction in tearing down isolated targets. We check the trends on Twitter to determine who will be our collective target—and then we forget about them the next day.
What he neglects to say here is that he himself helped to magnify the media rage against the teens on social media. It’s something that’s very easy to do, especially when you see a colleague whom you presumably trust joining in. In a book about overcoming division and rage, how he overcame that would be both interesting and a useful example.
I actually changed my view of this book while writing this review—I had one quote I needed to look up, because it didn’t sound like something Tucker Carlson would say. It turns out that not only does Shapiro’s quote elide 30 paragraphs between the ellipses to make it look like one sentence was the conclusion of a single paragraph, he actually took the quotes out of order. The conclusion is at the beginning, and the beginning is at the end.
Previous to checking that quote, I thought this was an okay book that confuses some issues and assumes others but was otherwise on target. Now I’ve no idea.
His sense of history, at least recent history, seems lacking, too. At one point he takes on a short discussion of Trump’s “Make America Great Again Slogan”, which he sees as divisive; at another point, he includes Ronald Reagan in a list of revered historical figures. But Trump borrowed the slogan from Reagan. That doesn’t mean it can’t also have been transformed into something divisive, but it does require some sort of acknowledgement.
Shapiro’s conclusions for how to fix our divided country are right out of a movie I was an extra in in the eighties, The Sleeping Car. At the end of the movie, the evil ghost who has been maliciously killing people is stopped by… hugging it. “Forgive him… love him.” (For the record, this is not a movie worth searching out.)
How do we solve the split between Unionists and Disintegrationists? “We learn to love”.
Unless we learn to love; unless we learn to trust; unless we remember what unites us, rather than what divides us.
The problem is that, like the ghost in The Sleeping Car, the villain Shapiro’s described as Disintegrationists would take that love and trust and unity and use it to create more division and to force more submission. That’s literally what Shapiro describes them doing in the rest of the book. If he’s right about that, then his solution makes no sense. If his solution makes sense, then the rest of the book seems pointlessly divisive.
The topics that Shapiro covers are important topics, but I’d recommend far more interesting and in-depth writers such as Thomas Sowell (free market) or Dennis Prager (culture), or the older authors he quotes, such as President Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
July 22, 2020
The acerbic, quick-witted Ben Shapiro continues his journey away from penning pithy polemics toward reflective social, cultural, and political commentary (with a little bit of history) in How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps. However, don't worry Shapiro fans, there is still plenty of incisive take-downs in these pages. Unfortunately, I feel that the title does not quite capture what this book tangibly adds to our current, fraught moment in history: the clever transmutation of the left-right political divide into a unionist-disintegrationist divide. This conceptualization is a crucial improvement that our public discourse should adopt as it is a dichotomy that doesn't breakdown along partisan lines but still accurately captures the polarization and acrimony that pervades our public discourse, especially on social media and other public fora. It may serve as a point for finding common ground between those who would otherwise be political opponents. Ostensibly, Shapiro favors the unionist's perspective but dutifully describes the disintegrationist perspective accurately, demonstrating a clear and deep understanding of its intellectual foundations (i.e. John Dewey, Herbert Marcuse, Richard Hofstadter, Howard Zinn, etc).
Shapiro asserts that unionist and disintegrationist forces are struggling ferociously over the soul and future of America (a battle that obliquely mirrors that of the U.S. Civil War, an analogy Shapiro draws on). Unionists contend that America needs a common identity/philosophy rooted in a shared understanding of the lofty founding ideals, while the latter are dedicated to the destruction of a systemically oppressive and fatalistically marred system, America the imperialistic and inherently racist hegemon. Shapiro deftly defines the ideological and political proclivities of these two competing groups, but his conception of what disintegrationists actually envision for America's future is somewhat nebulous other than that they wish for an unobtainable utopia where everyone experiences equal outcomes. However, I think this limitation is acceptable given that disintegrationists often take advantage of the vagueness of their language and symbols to achieve various ends.
As the title suggests, the book is roughly divided into three parts that discuss American philosophy, culture, and history from the two competing perspectives. Generally, Shapiro illustrates how disintegrationists endeavor to disrupt our common American understanding (a process decades in the making). Shapiro conceives of this shared American understanding as represented by Constitutional principles (i.e. the protection of "negative" rights rather than the guarantee of "positive" rights), an entrepreneurial, self-reliant spirit, and the idea that American history contains many terrible iniquities but that progress is made by "cashing the promissory note" of founding ideals rather than nihilistically surrendering them.
Overall, I find Shapiro's unionist case persuasive but desperately wish for a more detailed and rigorous fleshing out of American philosophy, culture, and history. Shapiro gives an amazingly concise recap of American history, which suffices for his purposes, but I think the book would benefit from a deeper mediation on the cultural history of America. The section on culture relies heavily on reaction to disintegrationist culture and discussions of how religion and other community-based institutions have historically operated in America but touches little on other major cultural variables. This is something definitively within Shapiro's capacity, but he has clearly opted for brevity (most readers will likely appreciate this).
I definitely recommend this as a good read. It's quick, easy, enjoyable, and, most of all, topical.
Shapiro asserts that unionist and disintegrationist forces are struggling ferociously over the soul and future of America (a battle that obliquely mirrors that of the U.S. Civil War, an analogy Shapiro draws on). Unionists contend that America needs a common identity/philosophy rooted in a shared understanding of the lofty founding ideals, while the latter are dedicated to the destruction of a systemically oppressive and fatalistically marred system, America the imperialistic and inherently racist hegemon. Shapiro deftly defines the ideological and political proclivities of these two competing groups, but his conception of what disintegrationists actually envision for America's future is somewhat nebulous other than that they wish for an unobtainable utopia where everyone experiences equal outcomes. However, I think this limitation is acceptable given that disintegrationists often take advantage of the vagueness of their language and symbols to achieve various ends.
As the title suggests, the book is roughly divided into three parts that discuss American philosophy, culture, and history from the two competing perspectives. Generally, Shapiro illustrates how disintegrationists endeavor to disrupt our common American understanding (a process decades in the making). Shapiro conceives of this shared American understanding as represented by Constitutional principles (i.e. the protection of "negative" rights rather than the guarantee of "positive" rights), an entrepreneurial, self-reliant spirit, and the idea that American history contains many terrible iniquities but that progress is made by "cashing the promissory note" of founding ideals rather than nihilistically surrendering them.
Overall, I find Shapiro's unionist case persuasive but desperately wish for a more detailed and rigorous fleshing out of American philosophy, culture, and history. Shapiro gives an amazingly concise recap of American history, which suffices for his purposes, but I think the book would benefit from a deeper mediation on the cultural history of America. The section on culture relies heavily on reaction to disintegrationist culture and discussions of how religion and other community-based institutions have historically operated in America but touches little on other major cultural variables. This is something definitively within Shapiro's capacity, but he has clearly opted for brevity (most readers will likely appreciate this).
I definitely recommend this as a good read. It's quick, easy, enjoyable, and, most of all, topical.
November 2, 2020
Hmmm. What did I think of this book? Meh?
It wasn't fantastic. It wasn't horrible. It had good points. It had bad points. I honestly think that the one before this, 'The Right Side of History' was much better. It was more interesting, had more of a cohesive flow and just seemed...better.
This one, well, there's nothing really in it that you couldn't have gleaned from listening to his podcasts. And while I suppose that's good for someone who's not really aware of Ben Shapiro and his viewpoints, if you have a passing awareness of them, you don't really need to read this book.
It's funny, because I agree with a great deal in this book. I agree that America is losing its connection to its past, its philosophy, and its culture. But I didn't think that this book is really going to solve that. I think it can help, a bit, in helping people to know the history of the US and what it's founding principles are. But if you already have at least a basic knowledge of those founding principles and history, it seems a bit...superficial. At least I found it so, maybe others won't. Or maybe it's just that I've been reading massive, 600 page books about individuals recently so a 288 page book over two centuries of developments just must necessarily be a bit more of an overview than an in-depth mine of information. Ah well. It was enjoyable, just not awesome.
It wasn't fantastic. It wasn't horrible. It had good points. It had bad points. I honestly think that the one before this, 'The Right Side of History' was much better. It was more interesting, had more of a cohesive flow and just seemed...better.
This one, well, there's nothing really in it that you couldn't have gleaned from listening to his podcasts. And while I suppose that's good for someone who's not really aware of Ben Shapiro and his viewpoints, if you have a passing awareness of them, you don't really need to read this book.
It's funny, because I agree with a great deal in this book. I agree that America is losing its connection to its past, its philosophy, and its culture. But I didn't think that this book is really going to solve that. I think it can help, a bit, in helping people to know the history of the US and what it's founding principles are. But if you already have at least a basic knowledge of those founding principles and history, it seems a bit...superficial. At least I found it so, maybe others won't. Or maybe it's just that I've been reading massive, 600 page books about individuals recently so a 288 page book over two centuries of developments just must necessarily be a bit more of an overview than an in-depth mine of information. Ah well. It was enjoyable, just not awesome.
September 18, 2020
This book has an awful lot to say. If you’ve ever listened to the author, that won’t surprise you.
Really good book. Shapiro breaks down and brings up historical facts we know and puts them into contexts that apply to current popular thoughts. He calls for unity and understanding in our country. He explains why that could and should be the situation.
Ben Shapiro is brilliant, no doubt. He talks really fast and doesn’t wait for my brain to digest one thing before he explores the next. I usually listen to books between 1.25 and 1.5 speed. I listened to this one at .95. Whew!
I’m exhausted, but smarter. If I can only remember what he said...😄
Really good book. Shapiro breaks down and brings up historical facts we know and puts them into contexts that apply to current popular thoughts. He calls for unity and understanding in our country. He explains why that could and should be the situation.
Ben Shapiro is brilliant, no doubt. He talks really fast and doesn’t wait for my brain to digest one thing before he explores the next. I usually listen to books between 1.25 and 1.5 speed. I listened to this one at .95. Whew!
I’m exhausted, but smarter. If I can only remember what he said...😄
July 24, 2020
It's a quick read and easy algorithm to destroy America.
Classic Shapiro stuff!
Bombardment of facts and statistics with simple arguments and explanations.
Classic Shapiro stuff!
Bombardment of facts and statistics with simple arguments and explanations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 531 reviews