American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again

by Yuval Levin

A top conservative scholar reveals the Constitution’s remarkable power to repair our broken civic culture, rescue our malfunctioning politics, and unify a fractious America  Common ground is hard to find in today’s politics. In a society teeming with irreconcilable political perspectives, many people have grown frustrated under a system of government that constantly demands compromise. More and more on both the right and the left have come to blame the Constitution for the resulting discord. But the Constitution is not the problem we face; it is the solution.    Blending engaging history with lucid analysis, conservative scholar Yuval Levin’s American Covenant recovers the Constitution’s true genius and reveals how it charts a path to repairing America’s fault lines. Uncovering the framers’ sophisticated grasp of political division, Levin showcases the Constitution’s exceptional power to facilitate constructive disagreement, negotiate resolutions to disputes, and forge unity in a fractured society. Clear-eyed about the ways that contemporary politics have malfunctioned, Levin also offers practical solutions for reforming those aspects of the constitutional order that have gone awry.    Hopeful, insightful, and rooted in the best of our political tradition, American Covenant celebrates the Constitution’s remarkable power to bind together a diverse society, reassuring us that a less divided future is within our grasp. 

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Law, Philosophy, American History, Economics

313 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 11, 2024

About the author

American political analyst, public intellectual, academic and journalist. His areas of specialty include health care, entitlement reform, economic and domestic policy, science and technology policy, political philosophy, and bioethics.
He is the founding editor of National Affairs, director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing editor of National Review and a senior editor of The New Atlantis.
Levin was vice president and Hertog Fellow of Ethics and Public Policy Center, executive director of the President's Council on Bioethics, Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy under President George W. Bush and contributing editor to The Weekly Standard. Prior to that he served as a congressional staffer at the member, committee, and leadership levels.
He holds a BA from American University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another masterful book by Yuval Levin. The book lays out why a return to a Madisonian conception of politics, and the constitution, is necessary in our divisive and seemingly stalemated era. Levin clearly lays out how the founders wrestled with the idea of a republic in a large and growing nation and the constitution was structured to channel disagreement and revolve issue through the creation of large stable majorities in the legislative branch. He explains how a Progressive or Wilsonian perspective began to use impatience with the American system to warp and change politics. He does so not as an angry pugilist but as a calm analyst and thinker. He understands the problems and issues that underly the progressive perspective but ask the reader to better understand the unintended consequences of this change and how it has led in so many ways to our current problems. He calls for a return to constitutionalism rightly understood and a patient but firm move toward reform and repair.

It very much builds on his previous books in understanding the weakening of institutions and the differing approaches or understandings of American history and government. He is clearly a conservative but writes with empathy and understanding of those who differ from him. And he highlights the cultural and anthropological underpinnings of the American system and constitution. For Yuval reform must start with understanding and appreciating the constitution and working at shoring up our institutions as they were mean to be and the roles they were meant to play. That will in turn shape our culture in positive ways which will in turn strengthen our institutions.

This is no "light" or easy reading but anyone who care about American governance and political life would do well to read this book. No matter your political of philosophical leanings, these are ideas that should be wrestled with and a history we should reacquaint ourselves with as we seek to build a better America.

[Denisha Chetty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Little bit complex but as someone who didn’t study American history I thoroughly enjoyed the introduction to America through the legal lens. I think this book was written for this time that we are in, it’s hopeful and inspiring because it points to the Constitution as the answer rather than the problem. It explains how faction and political frustrations were actually part of and designed to exist in this “American” political/legal system that was built to be different to its English counterpart. I grew up in a commonwealth country and have a background in international law, so I always compare the two systems and find flaws, but this book gave me a different perspective to why things are the way they are. There’s one page I think could make an excellent presidential speech - and an entire chapter on the importance of unity. If you’re even mildly curious or plain confused about what’s going on in our political realm, or think we are facing the end of the world, this is a great book to dive into the issues in a way that’s easy to consume and digest- sadly though it leaves you wanting more. 4/5 only because I wish the author was more direct about the dangers of the problems he recognizes today. He touches on how we have ended up where we are but is almost afraid to warn of what might happen next if things continue. Maybe a second book is necessary.

[Jary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yuval Levin’s latest page-turner, *American Covenant*, is like finding a well-thumbed rulebook in your attic that explains exactly how to repair the leaky plumbing of American politics. With a spritz of historical zest and a twist of scholarly insight, Levin serves up a compelling case that will have even the most cynical barfly at the political saloon pausing mid-sip.

In today’s America, where finding common ground is as rare as a bipartisan budget bill, Levin argues convincingly that the dusty, old Constitution is not just relevant, but our savior waiting in the wings. Through engaging historical narratives intertwined with lucid analysis, Levin portrays the Constitution not as the curmudgeon responsible for our civic headaches but as the wise old therapist capable of reconciling even the most bitter of political enemies.

What makes *American Covenant* stand out is not just its optimistic lens, but how Levin marries this with practical solutions that don’t just bemoan the present but seek to reengineer it. He digs into the framers’ intentions like an archaeologist, uncovering artifacts of wisdom that seem designed just for our current crises.

However, while Levin’s book might make constitutional scholars and history buffs swoon, the everyday reader might find themselves needing a couple of shots of espresso to power through some of the denser thickets of analysis. At times, the book reads like a love letter to a bygone era, which might leave some of the more progressive patrons at the table checking their watches.

Despite this, *American Covenant* is an enlightening read that throws the gauntlet down in front of our fractured political landscape. Levin doesn’t just ask us to look back with reverence but to look forward with a blueprint in hand—a blueprint drafted in the 18th century, yet surprisingly suited for the 21st.

So, if you’re ready to swap cynicism for a dose of constitutional optimism, Levin’s book might just be the next best addition to your bookshelf. After all, in an age of division, perhaps what we need most is a reminder of how to unite—not just in spite of our differences, but because of them. Cheers to that!

[Lance Kinzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent and an important book. Yuval Levin really hits the bullseye here in articulating a vision for how core insights of the founders, and the constitutional structure they bequeathed to us, point the way forward for our fractured republic.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yual Levin is one of the most productive relatively young conservative scholars at this time. This book tries (and achieves) to do three things. First, Levin offers an explanation of the underlying assumptions of our Constitutional system. Second, he does a good exposition of the counter ideas first offered by Woodrow Wilson in Congressional Government and reproposed with almost all progressive successors to the Federalist vision. Interestingly he quotes a speech given by Calvin Coolidge which I think was one of silent Cal's career of politics. On the 150th anniversary of the Declaration in 1926 Coolidge took on the progressives by saying ""If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people." In my undergraduate program I was first introduced to Herbert Croly and Sal Padover (who wrote a book called the Living Constitution - which I reacted to negatively at the time). Both argued in different ways that the system established by the Founders was overtaken by modern trends. But as Coolidge suggested the system contained timeless principles.

The suggestions Levin offers are designed to take back the progressive innovations which have effectively divided us. He suggests that we should add perhaps 150 members to the House which would bring us back to the level achieved in the 1920 Census; he also argues that the Budget Control and Accounting Act has been a colossal failure (and the data from the uncontrolled budget and inability to set priorities) so we should abolish the budget committee and to eliminate the distinctions between authorization and appropriations. Finally to reduce the centralizing organizing provisions of things like the Bolling Act - House committees should be guaranteed a portion of the agenda in each Congress. He also makes substantive suggestions about the Executive and the Courts which would get us back to the assumption of the Founders to encourage citizens to talk to each other instead of talking about each other. One other interesting suggestion is to require ranked choice voting elections but only for the primary - that would force candidates to run to the center - if the idea is successful it would not be necessary in the general election.

The explanations in the book are quite good and the analysis of how to improve
The third purpose of the book is to offer some modest ideas to bring us back to the Republican form we adopted in 1787. We is the first word in the Constitution is we.

[Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

In American Covenant, Israeli-born political analyst Yuval Levin begins with an orderly presentation of the debates by the framers of our Constitution. He then traces U.S. history through good times and bad, identifying points at which our national unity broke down and yet was able to right itself again and again, regardless of the party in power, by balancing the principle of majority rule with the duty to protect minority rights. This worked well as long as the Legislature remained the primary arena for the give-and-take of coalition building, an underlying assumption evident from the opening discussions. A pluralistic society cannot be expected to think alike, he argues repeatedly, but progress is still possible when we agree to act together for the common good.

Levin goes on to say that in more recent times Congress began to cede its authority to the Executive and Judicial branches, and we forgot how to disagree constructively. In his chapter “What is Unity?” Levin writes: “The parties have lost their roles as facilitators of coalition building and have, instead, become mere brand names for two opposing camps, keen to remain terrified of each other at a distance.” In his concluding chapter, he writes: “We have become too divided in contemporary America, not because we engage in that struggle too intensely, but because we avoid it too readily and so have lost some of our knack for disagreeing constructively. The factions in our politics tend to talk about one another rather than to one another, and therefore, we too rarely talk in ways that could point to common action.” The 2024 presidential campaign is a case in point. Levin’s prescription for recovering lost habits is coming to know the Constitution again and putting it into practice.

Most amazing to me is the fact that our framers were doing a new thing when they met in Philadelphia in 1797. In a relatively short time, they devised a wise plan of government, complete with checks and balances, without a prototype! Guided only by common sense, knowledge of human nature, and their vision of justice as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, they knew what they did NOT want (monarchy or tyranny) and what had NOT worked (the Articles of Confederation). The result was the world's longest-lasting written national constitution, in operation since 1789 and amended only 17 times after the addition of Bill of Rights (needed to ensure its ratification).

This book is eminently readable at only 300 pages plus helpful back matter. I highly recommend it to Americans of all political persuasions or none, as a healing guide to our future.

[Sophie Bugg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Levin’s message is good, however his writing style is hard to stay invested in. I found myself zoning out several times, even though it’s obvious he is incredibly smart and has well-educated opinions on the state of America.

[Andrew W. Strauss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading for all Americans.

[Gordon Larsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yuval Levin is a brilliant scholar and a masterful writer. After reading an outstanding book I’ll sometimes think, “boy, you could build a college course around this book”. This was one of those books. College administrators and faculty would be wise to make this required reading for courses on American history and political science. High schools should consider making it part of AP American History. And law schools should design a seminar on the Constitution built around this book. A retired federal judge recently told me he believes it’s the most important book written on the Constitution.

In some ways American Covenant feels like an extension or sequel to “A Time to Build” in which Levin talks about the American public’s declining trust in our most important institutions: Congress, the Presidency, the media, organized religion, and big business. At the end he offers some wise and hopeful counsel about how we can, as individuals, build up the institutions within our sphere. In American Covenant, it’s like he’s continuing that conversation and suggesting that if we wanted to fix a lot of those problems, at least the ones related to government, we ought to reacquaint ourselves with the Constitution–not just with the process but the purpose and spirit of it.

A central theme is how the Constitution forces “competition, negotiation, and productive tension”, which is frustrating and not harmonious but creates the framework for civic peace. I love the lesson that the founders assumed a constant process of negotiating and bargaining. We sometimes fall into this trap of thinking that there is a perfect set of policy solutions and that if we can just win the next election and get rid of “those people” we could implement our ideal policies and the country would be in good shape. The founders rejected that and created a system that assumed a never ending process of negotiating with people we disagree with.

The most frequent phrase in the book is some variation of how the Constitution helps us “act together even when we don’t think alike.” I counted 16 times.

Among many other great observations, he has really clear and compelling lessons on federalism, Madison’s vision vs. Woodrow Wilson’s. the problems with the administrative state, and the ways in which the Constitution not only restrains the worst impulses of the majority but also improves the public behavior.

There are too many great excerpts to include all, but here are a few of my favorites:

Competition, negotiation, and productive tension:
“[o]ur regime was meant to be suspended in unending contention between different claims to authority, legitimacy, and priority, both to make it accountable and to render it limited and just.”
“[I]t would be a mistake to view a politics of negotiations as purely procedural or prudential. Such a politics is formative of habits that tend to turn our attention toward the common good, by compelling different factions in society to make their case (and in time even to understand their case) in terms of the broader interests of society. In order to persuade others to go along with you, in negotiation just as in a competition for votes, you have to show them that what you want would be good for them too, and so to present your own interest in terms of a broader good and a broader truth.”
“Negotiation points toward such an order both by letting more people and groups be part of the process of political action and by legitimizing outcomes that are less than ideal—enabling people to feel that, even when things do not turn out quite as they’d hoped, the outcome is fair and just and better than I might have been. This is particularly important for legitimizing majority rule.”
“By embracing conflicting aims together, by compelling political combatants into negotiation, and by putting differing interests into competition, our system drives us to engage with each other precisely where we disagree, and so to build common ground through common action at the very heart of our disputes. Those are not ways of eliminating differences, or even quite overcoming them. But they are ways of making it possible for citizens to act together when they don’t think alike, and therefore of making civic unity more achievable.”

Formative role of Constitution:
“Our institutions aren’t going to change before our expectations do, only after. And so a recovery of our civic health—and especially of our capacity for unity despite our differences—has to begin with a recovery of our commitment to the ethic and the practice of American constitutionalism. Our system can help. Form us to be better citizens, and our practice of citizenship can in turn help form our system to be more effective and unifying.”
“The operation of our institutions can teach us some essential truths and habits. But the free society requires more of its citizens than its politics alone can teach them. Or to put it another way: our politics requires a kind of person it does not produce by itself, and so it must depend on other institutions of our society to produce that person. It has to make room for, and to offer essential protections to , a set of pre-liberal and pre-republican institutions of formation—familial, communal, religious, civic, and educational.”
“Much of the work of producing republican citizens is the work of the family, religion, and civil. Society, and our Constitution protects the preconditions for that work—securing the private sphere so that society might benefit from the human beings produced there. This is a more sophisticated idea of freedom than the kinds of shallow and individualistic political theories often used to defend it.”
“[B]ecause we do not often think about the formative aims of the Constitution, we have not paid enough attention to the ways in which the deformation of our practice of constitutionalism also deforms us as a democratic public, and makes it harder for us to hang together.”

On federalism:
“[f]orced uniformity is frequently an invitation to recalcitrance and sectionalism. Fidelity to the local can be an obstacle to national identity, yet it can also be the root of a national spirit. So in our search for greater unity, Americans much still continually ask ourselves how centralized we want our government to be. But there is no denying that while American government has grown more centralized in recent decades, the American people have grown more divided. The history of federalism suggests this is no coincidence, and that alleviating our dignity will require us to lower the temperature of our national politics a little by better distinguishing between national and state responsibilities in the years to come.”
“We should not think of the states and the national government as collaborating in one joint governance effort but as governing in different domains. Generally speaking, the states and the federal government are not intended to cooperate, and the “cooperative federalism” (which has usually involved the states serving as deputized agents of federal action) is at odds with the logic of the Constitution. By that original logic, states can cooperate or compete with one another, and the federal government should secure the preconditions for both to work smoothly, but state and federal action should be mostly kept apart.”
Reformers of American federalism should in other words look to disentangle state and federal governance as far as they practically can. This would not necessarily make for better administered public programs in every case, though it likely would in some. But there is every reason to think that a more robust federalism would allow us to be more cohesive, less divided, and more at home in our society. By reducing the quantity of divisive questions that need to be resolved at the national level and providing some space for a diversity of answers to such questions in the forms of different individual choices and communal practices, federalism offers us a framework for political life exceptionally well adapted to the challenges our society now confronts.”

Nationalization of our politics:
“The nationalization of our politics is clearly a key part of the story of polarization and division in American life—as both cause and effect. The issues that dominate local and state politics tend to be more practical and immediate than our national debates, and so lend themselves better to bargaining and accommodation. National issues now too often reach us as abstractions, and seem to require us only to identify with one political tribe or another. By allowing national debates to dominate our perception of politics, we therefore deny ourselves the opportunity to deal with people who differ from us, and end up instead just talking about such people at a distance and with members of our own camp.
“But even more fundamentally, a politics that tends to emphasize symbolic debates over partial governance leads us to mistake expression for action, and so to understand the very fact of the existence of people with different views from ours as a problem to be solved. The fact that someone, somewhere, is saying or doing something I profoundly disagree with is not inherently a problem for me or for our society. And given how diverse our society has always been, we should want a system of government that lets us live with such differences.”

Conclusion:
“We have remained one nation, thanks in no small part to the Constitution’s distinct approach to keeping us together.
That approach has involved pushing, plying, and pressuring Americans to engage with each other, and so also to understand themselves as engaged in a common enterprise. The Constitution forces insular factions to forge coalitions with others, and thereby to expand their sense of their own interests and priorities. It forces powerful office-holders to govern through negotiation and competition rather than through fiat and pronouncement, and so to align their ambitions with those of others. It forces Americans to acknowledge the equal rights of fellow citizens, and has (gradually and thanks to the heroic efforts and sacrifices of many) come to better align the definition of “fellow citizen” with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. None of this is easy or simple. All of it happens through politics, and so through contention, competition, pressure, and negotiation. It’s a struggle. But the Constitution is rooted in the insight that this very struggle is itself a source of solidarity and an engine of cohesion.
“We have become too divided in contemporary America not because we engage in the struggle too intensely but because we avoid it too readily, and so have lost some of our knack for disagreeing constructively. The factions in our politics tend to talk about each other rather than to each other, and therefore we too rarely talk in ways that could point to common action. Recovering our grasp of why it is important to pursue ways of acting together across difference, and then recovering the habits of doing so, is the path toward a more cohesive society, a more responsive government, and a more responsible citizenry. That grasp could be renewed by coming to know the Constitution again. And those habits could be revitalized by a better practice of constitutionalism.”

Final two paragraphs:
“American politics is an endless argument among people who share a history, a geography, a culture, a national character, and a set of broad commitments in common and who owe each other something. We sometimes disagree intensely, but what we disagree about is how to live out the shared promise of our country together. Those with whom we disagree in our society are not our enemies; they are our neighbors. They are not out to do harm to our country; they differ with us about what would be good for it. To love our country is to love them too—even when they do not make it easy. We should not allow ourselves to fall into hysterical fear of the supposed advances and victories of these ideological adversaries. They are struggling and mostly failing, just as we are. Our system of government makes sure that they have to persuade a substantial portion of our society for an extended period of time before they could get their way on any matter of real substance, just as we do. This helps us keep our balance as a nation, and avoid large mistakes. And it forces us to act together, even when we do not think alike.

“The Constitution thereby offers us the hope of greater unity. We should be cheered by that hope. And we should be profoundly grateful for the glorious fact that we all get to be Americans together.”

[Pete Williamson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read. This. Book.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

It showed me how much time and effort went into creating the Constitution. It also explained how the Constitution could help us to come back together as neighbors with differing views. How to disagree without becoming enemies. Learning to listen to each other and find common ground. In my opinion it's a must read for anyone who really cares about our country

[Joe Stack · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well-written , well-thought out discourse on the Constitution and how we have strayed from it. Levin’s focus is on how the Constitution fosters unity (not the everyone has to think alike) through negotiated resolutions. Liberal and progressive readers may take issue with the author, but his view of the Framers’ struggles, their intent, and how and why straying from the Constitution has resulted in disunity and dysfunction is rationally and clearly presented.

The author analyses the three branches of government using many references to the Framers, especially Madison and Hamilton. The chapters covering the presidency and the history and impact of the political parties are particularly revealing.

We have become more partisan, more divided, because we’ve strayed from “the Madisonian prescription for unity.” The author’s suggestions to fix what we have broken are, from this reader’s perspective, sound, but are not overnight fixes. They require citizens to work together, and legislators who understand and strive to follow their constitutional responsibilities.

Notes (warning: long list):

The Declaration of Independence lays out the principles (equality, unalienable rights, and the consent of the govern) underlying the Constitution.

Liberalism: a commitment to equal individual rights secured by procedural legal protections backed by a government rooted in a limited conception of the purpose of the state and an expansive conception of the freedom of the individual. (p. 277) “The Constitution’s liberalism is perhaps most evident in its attempts to balance majority and minority rights by recourse to procedural protections, structural constraints, and institutional mechanisms.”(p. 278)

Madison’s view: Majority factions would treat minorities justly if minorities were involved in negotiating and consensus building. “ . . . It is the failure to act together more than a failure to think alike that threatens gross injustice in a republic.” (p. 278).

The Constitution serves 5 purposes (p. 15):

1. A legal framework. The legal framework is setting “constraints or structured boundaries on power.” (p. 17). The legal function “is nomocratic, rule by law. Policymaking “is telocratic, ruled by ends and goals.” (p. 20). These are expected to clash.
2. An institutional framework
3. A policymaking framework (every day governing)
4. A political framework
5. A framework for union and solidarity. This enables governing objectives per the Declaration of Independence: order, justice, liberty, and safety, and fosters fulfilling the Constitution’s preamble “to form a more perfect union.” The Articles of confederation did not foster unity. The founders wanted a document that fostered unity.

Unifying the nation doesn’t mean thinking the same. Different perspectives, opinions, in compromises are brought together by acting cohesively. “Constructive disagreement” - Congress is suppose find common ground with cross-partisan bargaining. (p.162)

An aspect of the Constitution that is distinctly American is prioritizing “structured decision-making and broad accommodations” over substantive policy outcomes. (p. 21)

The Founders meant for Congress to be the predominant institution. “Coequal” branches is a modern concept. For the Founders, “coequal” applied to the relations between the states.
The Constitution gives the legislative branch power over the other two branches, but because republican government is prone to problems such as excessive ambitions and “the excesses of unjust majorities,”the executive and judicial branches are part of the measures against congressional overreach.

Congress is expected to bargain and deliberate; facilitate cross-partisan outcomes. “ . . . the risk of excess legislative power is a danger to Congress, and not just to the other branches, because Congress has a crucial role to play not only in framing the uses of federal power but also in facilitating the cohesion of the American nation.” (p. 135)

The Constitution “de-emphasizes policy goals in relation to its other goals.” Restraints exist for “structured decision-making and broad accommodations.” (p. 21)

Congress frames and authorizes government action.

The presidency acts within the structures established by Congress’s laws.

The Judiciary accesses laws and their execution.

The branches are not siloed. There is gray area where they overlap, where they get in the way of each other. (p. 49). The President, for instance, can veto legislation, and recommend measures to Congress, while the judiciary can strike down laws.

The Constitution’s political framework isn’t meant to compete for power but to work for the public’s common good - the seeking of a more perfect union - as spelled out in its Preamble; protect minority rights and freedom.

“The Constitution was built with a keen awareness of the plurality and fractiousness of the American nation. . . . It was intended to forge common ground.” (p.35)

The restraints are there to protect minority rights. (p. 38)

Negotiation is at the core of the Constitution.

Negotiating is necessary to resolve productive tension: “the embracing of liberalism and republicanism, individualism and communitarianism, majoritarianism and the protection of minority rights, and consolidation and decentralization.” (p. 58)

An underappreciated fact about every democracy, especially ours: “the structure of the institutions of government creates the contours of the electric.” (p. 67)

Because of the Electoral College, our presidents are chosen by the number of states they can win, thus, the election is based on the competitive states and the issues involved instead of an election by the majority favoring a political party. The results don’t necessarily tell us about public opinion because the regions and state issues can be so different.

Rather than direct popular elections, the founders thought that representative government yielded more balanced and less divisive political action. (p. 70)

James Madison thought “constitutional constraints were essential because moral constraints would be inadequate.” (p. 74). The Public’s judgment would foster responsible decisions because “there is virtue in the public.” (p. 75)

At the core of the ratification debate was what was meant by republicanism. For Madison, Republicanism was simply a scheme of representation.

The pillars of classical republicanism are popular sovereignty, liberty, and natural law. For the framers, republicanism presumed a larger public and a significant degree of internal multiplicity. (p. 80)

5 core premises to American republicanism (Andy Smarick, Manhatten Institute), (p.80):

-citizens are equal and self-governing
-Citizens exhibit civic virtue, and take ownership of the fate of the community
-representative democracy is the primary means of making public decisions
-public life should advanced common good
-Government should be active but limited

Modern Republicanism assumes multiplicity and diversity (p. 82)

We are currently failing to practice republican constitutionalism as citizens and public officials, thus, dysfunction. (p. 89)

Our institutions - familial, communal, religious, civic, & educational - have to form the person who can practice the politics underscoring and framed by the Constitution.

The relationship between the states and the nation was the most contentious question at the constitutional convention of 1787. (p.95)

The Framers intended to separate federal and state responsibilities. Regulatory/administrative agencies muddy the separation of powers because these agencies regulate what was intended to be regulated by the states. The agencies also shift power away from Congress and legislators avoid political heat for regulations.

Constitutionally, states and federal government should be kept apart. It’s the function of the federal government to create the conditions for both spheres to work as smoothly as possible. When states act as administrators of federal programs, the separation of state and federal activities is muddied.

“The nationalization of our politics is clearly a key part of the story of polarization and division in American life - as both causes and effect.” (p. 120). The purpose of separating authorities is to “allow for greater social peace, cohesion, and unity.” (p.125).

An intention of the separation of powers within the federal government is to reduce the risk of excessive legislative and executive power. The framers thought of republican government as a legislative government. This would hold together and forge meaningful cohesion of a vast and diverse republic. (p. 135). Requires coalition building.

Woodrow Wilson’s reforms made in accordance to his view of government (quick action vice deliberation; the concentration of power in one person or party- as in a parliamentary govt.) is the opposite of the intent of the Constitution.

Congress was never intended to pass narrowly partisan legislation. Today, “Congress is failing to facilitate cross partisan bargaining and accommodation. It is failing to mitigate the bitter partisanship of our political culture and is, instead, making it worse.” (p. 151)

Problems identified by the author:
-Today Congress is too centralized in the hands of party leaders. Work gets done behind the doors of the leaders, excluding many legislators.
-In running for office during the primaries, candidates do not have to focus on their general constituents.
-With today’s media environment, legislators behave as performers and not legislators. This includes cameras recording everything, so congressional and committee hearings are media events - playing to the audience - instead of being productive sessions.

The presidency was a unique creation to accomplish a variety of roles without threatening the rights and freedoms of the public:

-an office of action balanced with accountability to the people
-be a head of state while also being chief administrator
-give direction while reflecting the will of the public
-provide stability and steadiness in administrating the government

Today we treat “the presidency as a tribune of the people” and expect office’s administrative apparatus underneath to be a substitute legislature. This undermines effective administration and undermines unity and cohesion. (p. 166). The presidency as a bully pulpit weakens the presidency as a source for unity. “The presidency is now likely the single, most divisive facet of our politics — an incessant and exhaustible fountain of tribalism and disunity.” (p. 195). To change this, Congress has to be revitalized.

The Electoral College was meant to be a venue of deliberation in selecting the president. It is now operated as “a kind of mediated public election venue” and the party system is a substitute for the EC. (p. 175)

“By providing a stable, predictable framework of constitutionalism and law, the courts can … create strong disincentives to future misbehavior.” When the courts substitute themselves as legislators or administrators, then the courts stray from constitutional cohesion. (p. 217)

The 14th Amendment was a vital civic achievement. It aligned the constitution with the most ambitious commitments and ideals of the Declaration of Independence (p. 220). Over time, this amendment fostered the concepts of “privileges and immunities,” “due process,” and “equal protection.” (p. 221)

The Constitution fosters national unity by (1) allowing diversity through federalism, (2) the legislature negotiating differences re national priorities, and (3) the executive facilitating stability. The judiciary “guided by republican imperatives” reinforces that unity. (p. 230)

Political parties, as envisioned by Van Buren, expected to restrain partisanship. The lack of parties and weak parties result in more intense partisanship. (p. 248-9). Strong parties would bargain and compromise to resolve internal factions. Factions within drive change.

Woodrow Wilson’s concept of governing focused on the presidency and relegating parties to a more supportive role, fostering more polarization.

Party reform over time has empowered the fringes of both parties. The primaries giving more power/influence to the small percentage of voters who participate. These are the people least interested in bargaining and compromise. The primaries have drawn in politicians who are not well-suited to the work of institutions. (p. 257) . . . have moved in a demagogic direction focusing on a narrow segment of the party’s base. Ranked choice is one way to change this.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy Levin as a thinker and writer in general, even though I'm a liberal. I found myself agreeing more with the spirit of the book than the arguments and the applications.

The spirit of this book is to look back at the intentions and culture of the Constitutional era itself to find centripetal political forces that can unify people again in our age of polarization. I do like the idea of the Constitution as a core document of our political culture that sets the groundwork for our political competition. Levin argues that a major problem with our politics today is less that we disagree too much, but that we have forgotten how to disagree constructively. Politics, he argues, is all about learning to act collectively while often disagreeing individually. He contends, and I mostly agree, that the genius of our system is institutions that enable majorities to rule within boundaries and within mechanisms that force them to reach out to minorities. Everyone is a minority in some way (I'm a white guy, but I'm also an atheist, for example) and wants protections for their minority views/interests. Slim majorities should not be able to simply dominate minorities until the next election; instead, power should be chopped up and slowed down in many ways within the system (separation of powers btw branches, federal-state-local powers, a bicameral legislature representing different publics, etc). The cost of all this is that the system moves slowly, but the long-term benefits are enabling a free and pluralistic society to flourish, encouraging habits of open-mindedness and common citizenship, and inhibiting dangerous concentrations of power.

Undergirding this system is the belief that in a free society people will always disagree about what it good, often at fundamental levels, and that there's an innate human tendency to want to force one's views on others. Tolerance and cooperation have to be cultivated, and majorities always have to be restrained. I would add, in keeping more with the liberal tradition, that ANY concentration of power should be looked on with high skepticism, whether that's a large democratic majority, an oligarchy/aristocracy, a monarch/dictator, etc.

Levin also has some nice reflections on the need to make Congress more central to our politics again. Congress, he argues, was intended by the Framers to be the central body of American politics. It would be most directly accountable to the people and would be the site where most of their political contestation took place. Now, however, a gridlocked Congress has taken a backseat to our focus on the Supreme Court and the presidency. Each side looks to the President to use executive power (or the Court to use judicial power) as a shortcut for actually passing legislation (think pressure on Biden to relieve student loans). While he's not very specific about what to do in reform terms at any point in the book (a significant flaw) I did like the idea of expanding the House to allow for a more

One up front problem with his argument, however, is that YL doesn't look seriously at the causes of polarization today. He briefly examines social media and media stovepipes but doesn't look at what scholars call asymmetrical polarization, which is that the GOP has moved further rightward than the Dems have leftward, although both are moving outward. The Democrats have a broader and more varied base and stronger institutions that continually pull them center-wards, whereas the GOP has a more monolithic base (rural, white, older) that enables them to be more extreme and still win. When you combine that with a system (Senate, Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc) that systematically gives more power to heavily rural and white parts of the country. The GOP has broken more basic norms and guardrails of democracy, even before Trump, and

So what you have happening now isn't Levin's vision of a balanced system where slim majorities are empowered but still have to reach out to minorities to pass legislation and govern. You have a system where minorities frequently wield majority-level power in the system, and when they are minorities they use the counter-majoritarian parts of the system to block the majority from doing what it wants (The GOP has used the filibuster, for example, way more than the Dems). Levin seems not to consider it an issue that while the Senate is currently a 51-49 Democratic advantage, the Democratic side of the Senate represents 54 million more people than the REpublican side. In other words, one side systematically has to reach out more to the center and garner a heavy majority of votes to exercise very slim margins of power.

Levin doesn't appreciate how these counter-majoritarian institutions are driving our dysfunction today, and defenses of institutions like the EC or Senate fall short. He argues that these institutions prevent the parties from simply pandering to their bases, but that's what they are increasingly doing under the current system! Moreover, these institutions effectively give more power to certain people, in violation of the basic principles of our democracy. They lead to absurdities like a party that hasn't won the popular vote in a pres election since 2004 appointing more SC judges than a party that won in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2024. So one form of imbalance grows exponentially within our system to create larger gaps where what the public wants is way out of whack with who actually holds power in our institutions.

Overall, Levin wants what most Americans want: a system where majorities rule but minorities retain rights and a say in law-making and in which very slim majorities cannot exercise overwhelming power. We already have enough counter-majoritiarian and consensus-forcing elements in our system without the radical discrepancies created by things like the Electoral College and the Senate. Ziblatt and Levitsky make this argument drawing on the Federalist Papers and other sources to show why our system is so out of whack at the moment. I think their answer is far more persuasive than Levin's, who never really comes down from the higher reaches of political theory to the grimier realities of contemporary politics. I think more fertilization with non-political theory fields of poli-sci would have really strengthened this book, which is nonetheless worth reading.

[skip thurnauer · Rating 4 out of 5]

American Revolution:How the Constitution Unified Our Nation and Could Again is a primer on the U.S. Constitution. Levin delves into the writing of the Constitution with references to the Federalist papers and writings and comments by Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Jay, and others that help frame both the intent and contents of the document. He sees the Constitution as a framework for national unity. Contents include “What Is the Constitution” as well as key sections on Federalism, Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts. “The spirit of the Constitution is plainly democratic… It assumes that power is ultimately rooted in the people.” One of the challenges facing the new democracy was not just protecting themselves against political power but to accept the responsibility of governing themselves. The Federal system allocating power to both the U.S. government and the states and the separation of power among the three branches - the Congress, Presidency, and Courts - speaks to the goal of balancing power while also creating tension, a push-pull, among the entities. Congress was a compromise between the big states and small states resulting in two houses, the Senate and House of Representatives. The election of the president was structured to compel candidates to appeal to regions of the country that are politically competitive rather than a direct popular vote. The courts also were designed to promote national unity “policing the rules and boundaries of constitutionalism and their restricting of the power of majorities to break those rules and boundaries.” Today some want to rewrite sections of the Constitution or otherwise alter the delicate balance the framers designed. One of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention asked, “Can it be supposed that this vast country… will 150 years hence remain one nation?” Tested by the Civil War, the answer is a resounding “yes”. The Constitution created a nation and system designs for “pushing, plying, and pressuring” Americans to engage with each other, iron out differences, and reach compromises for the common good. Levin asserts that the Constitution thereby offers us the hope of greater unity. We should be cheered by that Hope.” Although at times I struggled with the 18th and 19th century prose, American Covenant is a rewarding read that underscores many of the precepts of our democracy.

[Alex Lambert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was hard to rip through, but certainly has given me some things to chew on.

“We have forgotten that the only real alternative to a politics of bargaining and accommodation in a vast and diverse society is a politics of violent hostility. That forgetfulness now crosses lines of party and of ideology. It is pervasive in our politics. And it is genuinely terrifying.”

“But it is not irredeemable.”

This is going to have to be one to return to and reference on occasion. Spelled out a really good history of the way the framers intended each branch of government to act; as a check and balance to a system that, by design, is slow and rigid— forcing competition, cooperation, coalition building, consensus, and concession to the common good. Showed how progressive ideology that is impatient with the slowness of government power has inadvertently introduced incentives into each branch & party system that are corroding the ends for which we have our government to begin with.

In the end, the question that kept coming to mind was “how do we see our personal relationship to America?” Do we see our fate as linked with the fate of our countrymen? Do we seek to contribute to the collective good? Or are we selfish in the way we see our countrymen? Is it, “my way or the highway, and if you get nothing it doesn’t matter to me.”? It certainly seems to have become the latter in our politics today. I think that, at its core, that’s a moral issue pervading our culture. Institutions are made up of people contributing to a common purpose. They require things of us. It seems our culture has become less interested in what we can contribute to institutions and instead what we can get from them. Shel Silverstein’s “The Giving Tree” seems to be prescient of this. Until we each individually decide we care enough about others as we do about ourselves, I think we can expect our institutions to fail us. For we are failing them.

Yuval offers not only some ideas for solutions, but a call to recognize this and get onboard the task-force. I want to heed the call.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dense Yet Optimistic Treatise Calls For Revival Of Long-Lost Ideals. In American political discourse, the tide turned significantly towards a more Jeffersonian approach based on liberal ideals such that most all American political discourse for quite some time now is mostly based on rights - who has them, who needs them, whose should have them, who should defend them, etc.

Here, Levin argues that this focus on Jeffersonian thoughts has led us to the current divisive era, one that threatens to tear the American nation apart.

Levin, instead, has a suggestion: the revival of Madisonian thoughts regarding *republican* ideals- somewhat (but not completely) analogous to some modern foci on pluralism, but with the added focus of making pluralism work within a functioning government. After all, it was this very tension between these two competing camps that originally allowed the nation to come together under "e pluribus unum"... and Levin has some thoughts on how that can work again.

Levin does a detailed look at the ideas, how we got to where we are, how each plays out in each realm of American polity, and how a renewed focus on republicanism could heal our divided land. It is a dense look mostly written for scholars and deep thinkers, but for those that can hang with density akin to some substance just shy of lead... this promises to be quite illuminating indeed. And it is one that more Americans *should* read than likely actually *will*.

The single star deduction here is simply due to the shorter than expected bibliography, clocking in at about 13% of the Advance Review Copy of the text I was able to read, where even in a relaxed posture on that point I would still expect around 15%. Splitting hairs at that point, perhaps, but I've had these standards since I began reviewing books several years ago, and it wouldn't be fair to either this book or all the others to not hold to the same-ish standard.

Very much recommended.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is exceedingly high-quality work here. Levin drills deep into the worldview behind the Constitution and shows what it was seeking to accomplish, how it was seeking to accomplish those things, and why recent critiques of various elements of the Constitution would lead to "solutions" that worsen our situation rather than improving it.

If only those who find the senate "undemocratic" or dislike the electoral college or want to neuter the supreme court would read this book! To channel Chesterton, I'll say that too many want to remove the gate without even realizing why it was there in the first place.

Levin even has a great chapter on why political parties are useful, even necessary. Really we should want stronger parties, not weaker ones. Levin offers other suggestions as well--increasing the size of the House, instant runoffs in primaries but not in general elections, a heavier caseload for the supreme court, and so on.

But to understand these suggestions, you've got to understand how they fit into the Founders' original goals. And to understand that, why not read this book?

[Mommalibrarian · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thesis of the book is the founders did a great job and careful attention to the framework laid out in the constitution would unify our current fractured polity. He states that he is a conservative and in the acknowledgements that he wrote it while working at the American Enterprise Institute, one of many foundations associated with the Koch brothers. He mentions liberals at least once as acting counter to his interpretation of the constitution but mostly uses the term progressives. In general, the text is a jolly version of history aimed at high school age readers. He has selected many quotes from the Federalist Papers to back up his interpretations but I do not think he quotes from the actual text of the constitution anywhere. He is very repetitive. This might be a book for Blinkist or Cliff Notes.

New to me: the current structure of the Electoral College results, maybe locks in a two party system. He thinks a two party system is desirable.

[Janet L · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very disappointing, although I really shouldn't have been surprised. Levin posits that if we only returned to the sacred document of the Constitution, all of our current political problems -- divisiveness, party in-fighting, paralysis of Congress, emergence of Executive Orders as law -- would be gone. It is an interesting reflection on how our Founders anticipated a lot and fully understood human nature, political ambition, competing factions and thereby crafted a governing document to appeal to our better angels. But what the book lacks is any sense of how to turn the tide in today's world. Maybe the Constitution could unify our nation -- again, as he postulates, but well........how would/could that come about?

[Zander Sud · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author is in love with the US Constitution and you should love it too.

It is a gift that Yuval Levin writes what he writes no matter the topic. He is always masterful in his analysis and thinking and writing as well.

Yuval thoroughly diagnoses the core political structural issues of today and traces them, largely, as a failure of living up to the ideals of the founders. He also suggests how we might reclaim those ideals again.

After reading this, I felt much more educated on a topic I’ve already thought about a great deal.

My only beef is that this book is much more academic than his other novels and can come across as dry sometimes, but I think it’s the only way of addressing this topic so thoroughly. I wish everyone in government could read this book.

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fact that it took us many months to get through this book is not indicative of our opinion of it (just that we have limited shared listening time). Tommy and I both really enjoyed this book written by conservative political analyst, academic, and journalist Yuval Levin.

While Levin brings his conservative bias to his writing and reasoning, he gives examples of how both parties have strayed from constitutional principles and what we can do to correct that through CIVIL discourse and debate and some needed reforms. There were things that challenged some of my previous thinking, which was just what I was looking for.

I have recommended this book for MWEG's book discussion group.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book started out with very basic constitutional provisions and I was worried at first that I wasn't really the target audience. However, it later ramped up into some really thoughtful principles and ideas. I was persuaded by most of the ideas in this book (I'm sure it helped that it also provided confirmation for other of my political beliefs). However, it still felt very theoretical and out of reach. Ultimately, the solutions boil down to "disagree better" and have Congress take on more of its constitutional authority to act and fix problems. Neither seem likely, so as much as I agree, I didn't end the book with any more hope for our system than I started with.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compelling historical and political analysis of the US Constitution, its procedural and institutional characteristics, and the beneficial results for a diverse and extensive republican democracy - such as ours! Levin also reminds us that this constitutional system is both necessary and desirable, a solution to bitter, divisive, tribal socio-political partisanship such as that so characteristic today. Madison had far more right than he had wrong. The strengths of the constitutionally imposed structures, restrictions, legal requirements and restraints far outweigh its flaws - and Levin frankly;y discusses both.

[Randy · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, but somewhat long-winded. Covered much of the historical aspect of our government make-up but I was expecting more suggestions as to how to get out from under our current inability to have rational discussions. About the only useful suggestion I came away with was for ALL of the cameras in the Congress to be removed. While the experiment of putting cameras in has gone on for so long, all it has led to is a bunch of performers looking out for how they can get re-elected via their speaking ability and performance, rather than being able to actually negotiate behind the scenes with members of the opposite party.

[Troy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The civics lesson 2024 America needs. A bit dense but worthwhile. How are each of our branches of government supposed to work and why? Levin draws on the contemporary writings of the founders to answer this question. He also explains how and why Congress is failing to carry its weight, how that’s foisting too much onto both the Executive and Judicial branches, and what to do about it. Most of all, Levin makes a compelling case on how to redeem a culture of compromise in an era of polarizing absolutism.

[Greg Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

So many these days are frustrated by our form of government because it won’t or can’t do what they want. The founders who created the Constitution that we all claim to revere did not create a system where a president was authoritarian or where small majorities could make sweeping changes. This is a feature not a bug. They wanted us to be unified in action while understanding that we would never be unified in thought. There will always be disagreements and Levin tells us that in order for us to move forward we must learn to disagree better.

[Patsy · Rating 5 out of 5]

As my husband and I listened to this book, we stopped the audio often, to discuss and digest what we had heard. I want to go back and read the print version, although when I tried that, I felt like I was reading a textbook, for which I hadn't taken the prerequisites. I did come away with an understanding that our American Constitution is a document intended to empower diverse groups to find a way forward. That is unity. Not being in total agreement, but in utilizing the discussion to help us progress.

[Michael Weinraub · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although somewhat repetitive, this powerful book redeems itself by being right (!) and uplifting. Levin makes a great case that the Constitution is both a document of rules as well as a way of being citizens in a nation together. We. We. We oozes out of this book in wholehearted and nerdy ways, and though I agree with his prescriptions, I feel an additional layer of recommendations for getting there would be even more inspiring.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent outline of the ways in which the Constitutional order is meant to work, and how it is falling short and how it might be rebuilt. It goes through the three branches of government and embraces partisanship as well. It focuses on the degree to which the Constitutional Order was meant to foster unity, in action if not in opinion, in a country who the founders assumed would be permanently divided.

[Samuel Hislop · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the insight that permeates the pages of this important book:

“The Constitution establishes a politics in which no one is in charge and, therefore, in some sense, everyone is in charge. This requires our political culture to be a culture of negotiation and accommodation.”

We have in large part lost this spirit in America. Levin’s book shows us the way back.