America the Strong: Conservative Ideas to Spark the Next Generation

by William J. Bennett

We live in a culture that often dismisses and ridicules conservative values. By the time liberal professors, the news media, and Hollywood get through with them, many young Americans are convinced “conservative” means extremist and intolerant. It’s a distortion that endangers America’s future. Bill Bennett and coauthor John Cribb explain what conservatism really means, using five fundamental principles summarized by the word FLINT : F ree enterprise, L imited government, I ndividual liberty, N ational defense, and T raditional values. America the Strong shows the next generation how these principles have made the United States a great nation and why they are worth preserving. It answers more than one hundred questions, from “Do conservatives hate the government?” to “What’s wrong with having an open border?” to “Why can’t rich people pay all the taxes?”

Discover a strong, clear conservative vision of America for the next generation.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

First published September 22, 2015

About the author

William J. "Bill" Bennett is a politician and author who served in the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, as chief of National Endowment for the Humanities and later Secretary of Education under Reagan, and Drug Czar under Bush. He is a nationally well-known figure of political and social conservatism and authored many books on politics, ethics, and international relations.

Reviews

[Kurtbg · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book's purpose is to explain what it means to be conservative and a republican.
It does not offer any insight or solutions to any existing problems.

The given conservative viewpoint of reality is one that is very simplistic. There is little in-depth analysis and a lack of details. This is out of step with how complex the world has come, and how much more we know about it, history, and how humans develop and thrive. The beliefs sounds more like maxims for personal improvement, such as those collected by Ben Franklin, George Washington, and most self-help gurus. Why this is used a political platform to take on the issues of today seems questionable.

The problem here is that what it means to be a political conservative in politics is different than what it means to have a conservative approach to assessing reality and finding solutions. Conservative in politics means there should be no change in who has the power and money. Conservative in thought means getting data and understanding about a situation to apply the most appropriate solution in an open and democratic forum of experienced and informed individuals. I would further describe the most appropriate solution is one that results in an improvement over previous conditions, and allowing for an increase in efficacy and to those it is available to it.

The introduction contains unsupported facts and inconsistencies including the media's liberal bias (I highly doubt there is a more biased media outlet than FOX news.) Perhaps Steven Colbert (pronounced Cole-bear) said it best when stating "truth has a liberal bias." When compares the most popular information sources in terms of fact checking, representing the truth, the conservative Fox news as been found wanting. Not many news stations have been found to edit video statements made by a President to intentionally misrepresent and create discord. Fox has.

Quotes below are from the introduction.

"Hollywood is a famously liberal place" - if you've ever worked on a production set or been involved in the business side of hollywood you would know that it is far from being liberal. Hollywood caters to public entertainment which means it explores, tittilates, and pushes boundaries to draw in viewers. Some of it is shameless and some is to push social discussion - that is art. Even still, the business is said to be seen by many as male dominated, slow to take chances, unoriginal (fast and furious 8, yet another superhero movie…) and uncreative. These are conservative traits and not those of a liberal.

"Liberals paint conservatives as mean-spirited extremists" – To republicans, liberals (and all democrat are seen as liberals) are always the political enemy. Just look at the scandal chasing right wing campaign against democrats in the past 20 years initiated to discredit and demean. The Clinton administration saw the most as the republican attack machine kicked into gear: whitewater, filegate, emailgate, chinagate, travelgate, pardongate, etc.) The result? No convictions. Over 70 million tax payer dollars wasted, time wasted that could have been spent on meaningful efforts, and ultimately slander on individuals who, when reviewing records, are actually improving quality of life. Republican senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Republicans have one strategy for power and that is attack, attack, attack. Benghazi? 10 congressional hearings spent (attack) with no wrong-doing. Hillary’s emails? The law was put in place in 2014 after she left secretary of state. What applies to her also applies to previous secretary’s of state such as Colin Powell. She provided 55K pages of emails for archive. Yet, stories are still running (attack) about this when no law is broken. Is the same level of scrutiny being applied to Colin Powell’s personal emails?

--

The author states that laws are god-given. Nothing is further from the truth. We get what we give to each other. When laws and rules are decided in open forums of democratic and informed discussion it serves this country best. The foundations of most laws are based on basic social rules to instill safety, order, equality and fairness. As the history of such laws progressed the culturally biased laws fell out (no pork, shellfish, multi-woven fabrics, etc.) they were also updated to account for the progress of thought and intelligence (oh, when you said all men are created equal you didn't just mean men! That only took over 150 years to correct, at least on the books.)

Stated, conservative republicans support equality, personal freedom, and responsibility of actions. The application doesn’t seem to jibe with the reality. Republicans are still a white male dominated group in terms of power. Remember that republican group on women's health - all male. “Freedom of religion “ is a law and embraced by the author, but the book is peppered with christian bible verses to provide a basis for conservative belief. It’s as if the platform is based on an outdated 1950's patriarchal selling of this stance despite the fact the author stated that conservatives study and learn from history. Kind of like GHW Bush stating that “occupying Iraq would have harmed the international response and that we would be occupying a hostile land.” Sons never listen, do they?

Free enterprise or capitalism, as the author treats synonymously, is the best economic approach. Everything should be able to be sold without government involvement. The government is said to be the people and everyone acknowledges that there should some regulation: what can be sold, what claims can be made, how safe is it, protection of property - I can't just starting peddling products by the name of iPhone, coca-cola. The government determines the rules to protect and maintain the legitimacy of the economic forums (and political.) that means there is no such thing as an overarching free enterprise. It is set by the government, and when it's not you get pollution, over fishing, tainted water, Wall Street scandals (yeah, all those created by weakening of the rules via deregulation), in short it gets broken first then the people pay to clean it up, bail it out, or just deal with getting fleeced.

Capitalism does seem to provide the best motivation for engaging in economics activities to inspire competition and innovation to provide improvements and monetary rewards. However, there needs to be rules in place to keep financial institutions responsible and accountable, and to prevent huge swings caused by breaks and bubbles. The problem is when a markedly imbalance is shown to exist in the form of monopolies and in compensation. Monopolies stifle competition, innovation, and crates power imbalances. The more money the more influence on local and state governments. There were laws and regulations in place to hold that in check, but those have been drastically reduced. Public company CEOs compensation is set by the company board comprised of CEOs of other companies. This raises questions of conflict of interests on a professional level. Statistics show CEOs "earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago" while the majority of other job wages have stagnated during that same period. This despite studies that show "CEOs have far less an impact on company performance than most people think." Could it be CEOs are given preferential treatment by their board of peers? Since CEOs performance have been tied to market performance the importance of short terms market gains has risen to the point where it can damage company long term viability. This has raised the perception that CEOs are less devoted to the purpose of the company and more interested in using it as a vehicle to manipulate to pad their own pockets at the expense of the company future solvency. That doesn’t sound like a conservative ideal.

What impact do these facts have on a conservative republican? Is the growth in economic disparity alarming? Do they see the potential for imbalance of wealth, and hence, power (as the US has pretty much replaced citizen votes for dollars - more dollars more access and more political pull.) The author does not engage in that discourse. Positions appear to be based on the tip of the iceberg of reality, but not the mass hidden beneath the water line which drives the berg and keeps it afloat. Does he not value facts, or does he not believe they should be presented to the reader in order for them to make an informed judgment? Does he believe that the public shouldn't concern themselves?

Below are examples of adopting simple stances without understanding the truth, thereby distorting reality and selling a false statement.

"Millions of people are receiving thousands of dollars a year in benefits, but they still earn very little money on their own." and
"... As the welfare state has expanded, many people have stopped working."

The cost of living has gone up, not down. It's fact that wages for the majority of jobs have stagnated since the seventies for the bottom 90%. Combine that with the loss of jobs and income locally from the centralization of distribution services which took jobs and income locally and shifted it to single online companies, such as Amazon, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, and the depression caused by the housing bust and two wars during the Bush Jr years and you get the impression that an increase in assistance is less likely a voluntary choice and one that was forced on the greater populace. It's also been documented that many people on assistance work multiple jobs. This indicates a weakening of the economic and political institutions towards serving the best interests of the country and citizens to create an economy that all can participate in fairly. Are the abuses, absolutely, but that is the reason to have sound financial and political institutions to create a vibrant and accessible job market, as well as regulations to identify and act on those defrauding, and weakening the system, be they individuals or corporations.

Climate change has been a hot topic for the past 30 years. We take carbon out of the planet, burn it and put it into the atmosphere which also makes its way into the ocean increasing acidification levels. Add to that the persisting deforestation and I think most people can agree that there is some affect this activity is having on the planet. Regardless of the magnitude, which people debate, wouldn't any reasonable and responsible person be for reducing carbon in the atmosphere? Should we be “conservative” and wait until serious catastrophes occur before taking any preventative action? Even if we make the most drastic changes and there are still major catastrophes we'll at least not deal with the guilt and shame of not having done something to reduce the impact. How does this thinking fit into the religious views in which the author believes supersedes gender, patriotism and politics? It’s been said “What harm is there in an increase of one or two degrees to the planet’s temperature?” That’s a very complex formula. To simplify it, how is the human body affected by a difference of one or two degrees?
Just less than three degrees changes the body from “normal” state to “fever.” Small changes across many areas can combine to create drastic change.

The author states the case for deregulation by sharing a story about a girl who had a heart problem and a device had been approved in Europe but not the US. A waiver was approved, the device obtained, and the girl saved. What would have happened if the device was not approved by anyone? Should it have been available to everyone with a "put it in and see what happens" approach? What if that was the case and people died because of that lack of specialist review (the FDA in this case)? How many deaths would be acceptable? This story is silly because there is a process in place to confirm such devices. If there wasn't a process in place to automatically approve European devices, then that is the process. The fact that a waiver was obtained, means there was a process for special cases. So what didn't work? Medical products shouldn't be tested for safety and efficacy by using the public as Guinea pigs in the "free and open" market. If the approval process can be improved than look into it and do so. If there's mismanagement, abuse of the approval process for gain, then review and fix it.

A system is only good as the strength of its rules and the people who act within that forum. For the most part it seems greed and power creates holes in every system whereby the reality is that they all seem to become pervaded with profiteering. The new guys have to compete with the incumbents, and to do so, something different needs to be done. Sometimes it’s improving process with technology. Other times it can lead to embracing extremes such as fraud and pushing for deregulation. The extremes apply pressure on the institutions and their legitimacy. Think of all the deregulation that caused so many problems in the economy since Reagan (Savings and loans, junk bonds, repeal of Glass-Steagall , the housing bubble, Citizens United allowing money and corporations to grab an unprecedented amount of sway and power in the government and political arena. Just look at the level of involvement of the Koch brothers and who their efforts benefit.

Conservatives are against big government. I think most would agree that Government should be no bigger than it needs to be. That is driven by the people who are running it who decide on the needs and the budgets. When the checks and balances of democracy, fairness, and responsibility to the country are removed the government can become bloated. However, in the last thirty years Reagan and Bush Jr administrations were responsible for the biggest expansions - both republicans. Conservatives believe in low debt, yet in the same 30 years the administrations that created the most debt were, can you guess, Reagan and Bush jr. The Clinton administration was the only one in recent time to actually reduce debt and keep it down (Bush spent it, like he said he would.) Perhaps conservatives should really be labeled democrats more so than republicans.

We as people and a country change. You can never go back, there is only moving forward.
The US is no longer comprised of 13 colonies which were started by rebelling British and Europeans. The population in 1776 is estimated at around 2.5 million. The land was mostly unknown to the west. There was a large amount of personal self-reliance as towns and infrastructure was minimal, if not completely missing. In 2016 the population is close to 320 million. The land is almost entirely surveyed; life is much more complex with the need for a level of infrastructure to support that. In the gosh-darn, aw shucks 1950's the population was half that. The conservative platform can be likened to a "Little House on the Prairie" approach to government. That time and place doesn't exist or apply anymore. The country, cities, society, jobs, and technology is complex. There is still the prairie, but there are complex and highly populated cities which require more to support and function to the democratic benefit of all.

Managing complex systems is a lot of work. Today, with the concept of managing up it seems leadership wants to manage and be responsible less, but want to reap as many personal rewards (assets and power) as possible. That's not a good recipe for maintaining the continuing viability for a town, state, or country. Companies pre-1980’s were seen as having responsibilities to the community and to the employees just as much as executive wealth. Capitalism teaches that what works for the mutual benefit of both parties (i.e., buyer and seller) is a success. For every business deal there is a third party involved which needs to be considered, and that is the public good – and not short term, but a sustainable good.

It’s hard to imagine republicans in office espousing 80% of the statements in this book. It just isn’t reflected in their voting as well as personal actions (Strom Thurmond provides an interesting example.) I would expect more improvements to the country to occur in the government if some conservative approaches were adopted by the extremes of both parties. Taking a reasonable and informed approach to solve issues sounds good to me. However, conservatives favor a republican view over a democrat view which creates a bias. The author separates republicans into 6 separate groups (financial, Christian, libertarian, etc.). This same level of analysis is missing when he looks at democrats, which are reduced to just two groups: liberal and extreme liberal. There is no “financial democrats” or “christian democrats.” Seems to me there would be.
The conservative platform doesn’t seem to be very popular in the republican party. In the words of Jon Stewart, “can’t we just be reasonable?” In politics, it doesn't seem so. Something else seems to trump (or Drumpf?) it.

The book is full of beliefs and unsupported viewpoints that are couched in “general goods”, but reality is much more complex. If the country’s laws, regulations and politicians were perfect, honest, fair, and everyone always had everyone’s best intentions, and there was no greed and malfeasance that needed to be managed, or rights and people to be protected then perhaps this simplistic view would have merit (the libertarian view). The reality isn't like that at all, nor will it ever be. Embracing that to get votes is a political tactic to win campaigns. Government and leading requires more understanding and attention to details - work, not endless campaigning to win and keep power (politics not governance.)

Question the facts regardless of source and determine what makes the most sense to you. If you don't look into the facts from multiple sources to reduce bias and just parrot a single view source then you do a disservice to yourself, family, and fellow citizens.

Read those who investigate and present facts and not just an attack or character assassination piece: Paul Krugman, Reich, David cay Johnston, David Brock, and Peter Schweizer then read the republican books about the same issues (Coulter, Beck, O’Reilly?) Note the level of detail and data are given, the tone of the author, and who bankrolled the world. Note those differences and side with the one that best represents the best of you.

[Laura Lane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many years ago, during the early years of homeschooling, we read The Book of Virtues aloud to our children. We would skip around from story to story to find the one that fit the moment. Years later, I am again turning to one of William J. Bennett's books, America the Strong, written with John T.E. Cribb. This time the subject is Conservative Ideas to Spark the Next Generation.

Bennett and Cribb recognize the moral, spiritual, financial, and every other "al" crisis this country has come to. Too many years of poor liberal leadership and liberal attacks on conservative values has weakened the country. But Bennett and Cribb still view America as strong and vibrant and full of hope for the future. That future depends on our ability to communicate truth and conservative vision to the next generation.

As the authors state, that's not easily done sometimes. While we may know and believe something, it's not always easy to articulate it, especially when we're on the spot. America the Strong addresses the questions, viewpoints, and values that most conservatives agree on in a direct, clear way.

I have put this book on the required reading list for my sixteen and eighteen year old students this year. Although they already share our values, I want them to be able to understand and be able to explain why they share these values. This will be part of their government curriculum.

I find America the Strong to be a well written explanation of the conservative views that the majority of Americans share but find maligned in the popular media. I think America the Strong has value for all Americans.

I received this book for free for review.

[Bruce Dinsman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aside from the Bible, I have seldom seen a book so right and decisive. I like the FLINT moniker that also forms the chapter heads: Free Enterprise, Limited Government, Individual Liberty, National Defense, Traditional Values. The book also unabashedly quotes the Bible frequently which is just fine with me. Well written, this book should be required reading for high schools and colleges. I have had to reeducate my daughter after I found out she disliked President Trump but couldn't articulate why. I heard other such negativity and traced the sources to CNN, NBC, etc. Anyway back to the book. I was encouraged by the approach and delivery and I will look for other titles by the Bennett/Cribb team

[Debbi Huntington · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got this book, mostly for my daughter. We are using it as part of her homeschool curriculum for Social Studies. I created questions for the end of every chapter, but it really didn't need any. I found it to be a good book, full of information (to help clear up the popular misinformation) on what it really means to be a conservative. This is a book we will be taking our time with, and rereading over the years.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

No matter where your views are currently, this is good material to get a proper glimpse of what this country could really turn itself into. As opposed to the way it seems to be steadily drifting away from these ideals.

[Johnny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read for 7th grade level.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Note: This book was provided free of charge by Tyndale House Publishers in exchange for an honest review.]

As a conservative who has read more than my fair share of conservatarian manifestos, it was nice for a change to actually read a book that very closely tracked according to my own political worldview, with proper focus given to issues of virtue, even if this book was written from a more traditional and less strictly biblical point of view than I would normally take as a writer. Having read some of Dr. Bennett’s voluminous work before, this book was a comfortable read–it spoke about virtue, was knowledgeable and open about American history, and presented conservatism as it is and not as it is often parodied by the left. As might be expected, it made a demanding case for the responsibilities of citizens in a free nation like the United States, and also pointed out that the rise of government would not have been possible without the failure of many institutions, like the family and the church. If we do not wish for government to become tyrannical, we must through our neighborhoods and local institutions and households and families seek to take care of the poor, the strangers, and those who are isolated, to the best of our abilities.

This book, which weighs in at 250 pages of core material, is guided around a useful mnemonic device, the acronym FLINT, which stands for “Free Enterprise,” “Limited Government,” “Individual Liberty,” “National Defense,” and “Traditional Values.” Each of these elements in the author’s conservative vision gets its own section, some of which are a lot longer than others. After introducing conservative principles and defending the American record, the first part covers free enterprise, equality and opportunity, and energy and the environment. The section on limited government covers the subject of limited government, the welfare state, taxes and spending, and government debt. The section on individual liberty again examines the rule of law, immigrations, a strong case against the legalization of marijuana, and issues of race, class, gender, and ethnicity. The section on national defense is fairly short, dealing specifically with the subject of Islamic terrorism, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the section on traditional values is the longest, with chapters on marriage and family, faith and religion, abortion, K-12 education, and higher education. Throughout the author is honest and direct, but also generous-minded towards political opponents. It is clear in reading this book where libertarians of various stripes and conservatives agree, and where they differ, and makes it very clear that a genuine conservative is not looking to bring back the past for everyone, nor wishes to preserve all traditions, whether good or bad, but seeks to preserve what is best and desire only gradual change.

Whether one has conservative leanings or not, this book is useful in understanding what is appealing about conservatism to many people, myself included. The appeal of conservatism, in the United States at least, combines a few elements. For one, there is a strong tradition of liberty and a recognition that government is a threat to freedom because of its desires to enforce uniformity and ignore individual and local differences. Additionally, there is a strong distaste in the tendency for large governments to increase inequality within the marketplace by granting favored status to cronies, a form of inequality that is particularly galling to those who are already disinclined to countenance large degrees of government involvement. Despite the strong strain of skepticism for government, though, as well as its power to remake culture, there is a strong degree of support for police and the military, at least insofar as it represents protection from anarchy within and the threat of foreign invasion and terrorism from without. It is the combination of faith, faith in oneself, and not very much faith in authority, but respect for those whose duties are to protect and to serve mostly law-abiding citizens that tends to make one a conservative, someone who is adventuresome but also cautious. This is not an unappealing mixture of qualities, to say the least, and it presents a strong case for a conservative approach, one that combines compassion with a strong sense of the proper boundaries of authority which are not to be exceeded. All in all, this is an excellent book.

[Just Commonly · Rating 5 out of 5]

"America is Strong"
What does America mean to you? What does it stand for? On what principles was America born and built on? What does being an American mean? What is conservatism? Is it just old-school and outdated traditional principles? Questions, that if you don't know the answer to, find out. For a start, I would recommend "America the Strong" by William J. Bennett and John T. E. Crib, a new book that focus on providing a good and solid understanding of American values and its history. It is with a simple, basic or deep knowledge of these values that can propel this and the next generation of Americans to true freedom.

Bennett and Cribb present to readers five areas of discussion based on the acronym F.L.I.N.T. - Free Enterprise, Limited Government, Individual Liberty, National Defense, and Traditional Values. From each of these F.L.I.N.T. topics, the authors easily and in a straightforward manner discuss what these principles are and why they will benefit America, economically, politically and individually. "America the Strong" provides definitions and descriptions of what conservatism is and even breaks down to different types of conservatives and their ideals. From Social conservatives to Christian conservatives to Traditionalist conservatives to Libertarians, this book will educate you. What's the difference between liberals and conservatives? Well, there's an answer to that too. In fact, for all topics, the different viewpoints will be examined and explained. Hot topics such as immigration, political authority, military power, international "policing", medicare, social security...etc are all topics reviewed and discussed, from its historical background to how present conservative ideas view these issues. From this book, we see the strength in American history, and what it means to be a part of this nation. Bennett and Cribb defends the very ideals of what our Founding Fathers created through the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It is about freedom, and what does that freedom mean.

"America the Strong" is not only for those interested in politics or history. It is not only for conservatives of all types. It is not only for fans of Bennett or Cribb. It is for all. It is for the conservatives as well as liberals. It is for those interested in politics as well as for those who are not. It is for the ignorant to know and understand what conservatism is, and not just from what the media or anti-conservatives say it is. It is for the knowing to see in laymen terms. It is for knowledge and understanding. It is for the young and the old. It is for everyone, because everyone, no matter their age, gender, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or whatever their stands are, needs to be educated to the understanding of the importance of conservative values. It is for our future and future generation.

Release Date: September 22, 2015

NOTE: I received a complimentary copy of this book (not audio) from the publisher, Tyndale House Publishers for an honest review.

http://justcommonly.blogspot.com/2015...

[John Nichols · Rating 5 out of 5]

The oft-heard complaint is we can’t tell where the various flavors of politicians stand on the issues. William J. Bennett and John T. E. Cribb have addressed that concern for the conservatives in their book, America the Strong. On twenty top issues readers of this book will find definitions, penetrating questions on key facets of the topic, and the current conservative stand.

Bennett uses the acronym FLINT to group the issues into five categories - Free Enterprise, Limited Government, Individual Liberty, National Defense, and Traditional Values. In his words (page viii), “Like the stone, the ideas represented by FLINT are sound and durable.” The author acknowledges that some readers may not embrace his viewpoints, but in the spirit of full disclosure he spells out the position he believes to be common to most conservatives.

This authoritative book is well-written with footnotes supporting any quotes and data. That feature increases the book’s value as a reference tool. Given the meaty topics I read the text over several sessions allowing time to digest the material. My favorite chapters are Traditional Values, Marriage and Family, and Faith and Religion.

Who should read America the Strong? A conservative hoping to solidify his position on the issues will find value in Bennett’s logical presentation. Likewise a reader of the liberal persuasion can gain understanding of the opposition’s beliefs through this work.

Note - Tyndale House Publishers provided a complimentary copy of America the Strong to facilitate my review.

[Joshua Hitesman · Rating 5 out of 5]

William J Bennett outlines the basic fundamental beliefs of conservatism with the acronym F.L.I.N.T which stands for, free enterprises, limited government, individual liberty, national defense, and tradition values. Bennett writes that, " Conservatives want to preserve society's best values and wisdom (Bennett 1)." The book describes the importance of preserving the ideas of conservatism in a time when these values are often dismissed and ridiculed as intolerant and extremist by liberal professors, news media, Hollywood. Bennett writes powerful passages about how values like national defense and traditional values have made the United states a great nation. Bennett tackles tough topics like the legalization of marijuana and immigration to abortion and government debt while describing the common misconceptions of republicans. He goes into further detail informing the public that the requirements of being a republican are not christian, rich and white. This book is an amazing and enlightening piece that i will strive to be apart of the values in the book.

[Shelly Hendricks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a treasure I stumbled upon! I knew it would be interesting, but it really strengthened my gratefulness for being an American. The country's history, as well as the principles it was established and built on, are the foundation for Conservative values that, despite what the media would have us believe, are still just as relevant today as they were 200 years ago.
This book is perfectly timed in our country today. Especially our young people are under attack, as are we all, for our Christianity and our Conservative standards. I loved that the authors framed this book in an easy-to-understand manner that answers common questions. What is the difference between different sorts of political ideologies? What is American Exceptionalism? Should we legalize marijuana? All of this and so much more is covered in this great book.
Take your time reading this book. It is a great reference and a great gift for anyone from teens to seniors.
** Tyndale House Publishers provided me with a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. 

[Kim Richeson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent overview of conservative thinking. It is primarily intended as a basis for describing conservatism to the next generation, but I think it is useful to anyone. It defines a simple framework for organizing conservative principles using the acronym “FLINT”:
• Free Enterprise
• Limited Government
• Individual Liberty
• National Defense
• Traditional Values
It steps through a discussion of each of these principles and then provides examples of how these principles apply to important current issues (e.g., “What’s wrong with having an open border?” It didn’t tell me anything that I hadn’t already known or thought about before. But it was a nice, systematic summary of what I think conservatism means. It is not inflammatory, so I think it would be useful to liberals who are sincerely interested in learning about another point of view. I hope to find a comparable book that summarizes liberal/progressive principles and positions on issues.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received this book from Tyndale Blog Network in exchange for my honest review.

America the Strong is a book about what the next generation of Americans must consider for America to remain a strong nation. By using the acronym F.L.I.N.T. which stands for:

-Free Enterprise
-Limited Government
-Individual Liberty
-National Defense
-Traditional Values

Each section discusses various subject within the five major topics. I found each topic to very engaging and intellectually stimulating. The arguments were well presented and easy to understand. What was also present was a logical extension of some bad ideas taken to their conclusion.

I highly recommend this book for anyone entering the political science and would encourage all others to read this if you must take a general education course on government or something akin to it.

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a good book for those who are wanting to know what conservatives believe. It is broken down into easy to read sections, in a question and answer format. It has the question in bold print and then the answer underneath. The questions are not just answered in yes or no terms, some answers are several paragraphs.

Over all I thought the book was good and brought out some interesting things that made me think.

Tyndale provided me a copy of this book for review purposes only. All opinions are my own.

[Amy Talbott · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is exactly what it claims to be, about what conservatives believe. I did find this book informative, but I disagree with the authors that young college students will be reading content like this book unless they desperately need extra credit for a government class. A potentially useful book.

[Wendi Lau · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is organized around questions about conservatism. I like that method. Makes it easy to follow. Interesting. It is probably a good idea for conservatives to read to confirm that those are indeed their ideals, and for liberals to read in order to condemn or criticize conservatives and conservatism accurately. I probably should read it again at some point. There was a lot in it.

[Trevor Carlsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Can serve as an intro to conservatism or a quick reference guide for answers to common questions for conservatives. A relatively quick read, it’s not a comprehensive tome of conservatism, but it covers the basics.

[Tom Woodard · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was an awesome read. I cannot see anything misrepresented.

[Fermentum · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a book club read. this read wont upset a non-conservative in any way.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book. It serves as a good basis on conservatism and conservative thinking. Recommend.

[Rosemary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent treatise on conservatism.

[Ward Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book, I couldn't put it down! Bill has a way of taking the complex and putting it into the perfect bite size chunks that are easy to understand.

[Michael]

Yeah...fuck this guy, too. He writes a whole book called The Death of Outrage about how essential good character is in leadership, then shills for Trump. Enjoy AM radio, hypocrite.

[Willow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent for middle/high school students. Pre-read for the upcoming school year.