What do you think?
Rate this book
The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic
In this original, provocative contribution to the debate over economic inequality, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that a strong and sizable middle class is a prerequisite for America’s constitutional system.
A New York Times Notable Book of 2017
For most of Western history, Sitaraman argues, constitutional thinkers assumed economic inequality was inevitable and inescapable—and they designed governments to prevent class divisions from spilling over into class warfare. The American Constitution is different. Compared to Europe and the ancient world, America was a society of almost unprecedented economic equality, and the founding generation saw this equality as essential for the preservation of America’s republic. Over the next two centuries, generations of Americans fought to sustain the economic preconditions for our constitutional system. But today, with economic and political inequality on the rise, Sitaraman says Americans face a Will we accept rising economic inequality and risk oligarchy or will we rebuild the middle class and reclaim our republic?
The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution is a tour de force of history, philosophy, law, and politics. It makes a compelling case that inequality is more than just a moral or economic problem; it threatens the very core of our constitutional system.
A New York Times Notable Book of 2017
For most of Western history, Sitaraman argues, constitutional thinkers assumed economic inequality was inevitable and inescapable—and they designed governments to prevent class divisions from spilling over into class warfare. The American Constitution is different. Compared to Europe and the ancient world, America was a society of almost unprecedented economic equality, and the founding generation saw this equality as essential for the preservation of America’s republic. Over the next two centuries, generations of Americans fought to sustain the economic preconditions for our constitutional system. But today, with economic and political inequality on the rise, Sitaraman says Americans face a Will we accept rising economic inequality and risk oligarchy or will we rebuild the middle class and reclaim our republic?
The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution is a tour de force of history, philosophy, law, and politics. It makes a compelling case that inequality is more than just a moral or economic problem; it threatens the very core of our constitutional system.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published March 14, 2017
108 people are currently reading
1760 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
November 6, 2017
I'm very glad that this man is an advisor to Senator Warren.
Employing a panoramic view of history, Sitaraman analyzes how previous successful states/empires defined the rights of various classes, and how the American experiment was very much propounded in a land of economic parity, and that the Founders intended/assumed that it would stay that way. Much of the stability required for checks and balances requires a predominant buffer class that can mediate between the rapaciousness of the upper classes and the jealousies of the lower. This sounds all well and good, but it seems that if the importance of a strong middle class were so foregrounded in the minds of the Founders, they would have enshrined it in the text of the Constitution in some way, or would at least have provided for stronger mechanisms for sustaining it.
Ultimately, I find Sitaraman's evidence for his central premise wanting. Much of it is presumed (e.g., the Founders were erudite students of political history and must have appreciated the peril of allowing an upper class or lower class predominate), or inferred (e.g. the lack of a class requirement for the House-of-Lords-manque U.S. Senate indicates our refusal to empower the upper classes). Also, for all of his impressive grasp of American political and legal history, Sitaraman's conclusion about the incompatibility between the Founders' vision and class inequality of political power doesn't exactly hold. After all, this current Gilded Age is not the first our country has suffered through, nor is the Constitution so allergic to massive disparities in wealth that it has been sundered while suffering them.
I would probably give this 3.5 stars, though. Like I said, the author's grasp of legal and political history, particularly of the American type, is impressive. Plus Sitaraman offers intriguing solutions for ensuring that disfavored classes have a say in governance: lottery elections, tribunates, etc. It is to be expected that the gleam of the Founders' vision is dulled in the light of dimmer days, but these are the books we should be reading to understand how we might solve the problems they neither anticipated nor adequately shielded us from.
Employing a panoramic view of history, Sitaraman analyzes how previous successful states/empires defined the rights of various classes, and how the American experiment was very much propounded in a land of economic parity, and that the Founders intended/assumed that it would stay that way. Much of the stability required for checks and balances requires a predominant buffer class that can mediate between the rapaciousness of the upper classes and the jealousies of the lower. This sounds all well and good, but it seems that if the importance of a strong middle class were so foregrounded in the minds of the Founders, they would have enshrined it in the text of the Constitution in some way, or would at least have provided for stronger mechanisms for sustaining it.
Ultimately, I find Sitaraman's evidence for his central premise wanting. Much of it is presumed (e.g., the Founders were erudite students of political history and must have appreciated the peril of allowing an upper class or lower class predominate), or inferred (e.g. the lack of a class requirement for the House-of-Lords-manque U.S. Senate indicates our refusal to empower the upper classes). Also, for all of his impressive grasp of American political and legal history, Sitaraman's conclusion about the incompatibility between the Founders' vision and class inequality of political power doesn't exactly hold. After all, this current Gilded Age is not the first our country has suffered through, nor is the Constitution so allergic to massive disparities in wealth that it has been sundered while suffering them.
I would probably give this 3.5 stars, though. Like I said, the author's grasp of legal and political history, particularly of the American type, is impressive. Plus Sitaraman offers intriguing solutions for ensuring that disfavored classes have a say in governance: lottery elections, tribunates, etc. It is to be expected that the gleam of the Founders' vision is dulled in the light of dimmer days, but these are the books we should be reading to understand how we might solve the problems they neither anticipated nor adequately shielded us from.
August 16, 2017
Highly recommended!!! There have been heaps of books written on inequality in the last 10 years but to my knowledge none that have focused on economic equality as the underlying foundation of our constitution. I'm already due for a rereading though because I can no longer remember his rebuttal to cynics who believe the constitution was written to simply protect the wealthy.
Hopefully this book falls into some conservative hands and let's them put their respect for the constitution and the founders to the test. They might be surprised to hear the framers in their own words address their concern for our country should we ever let wealth concentrate upward at the expense of our middle class, not to mention every other part of our political system. Ganesh covers all of it.
Hopefully this book falls into some conservative hands and let's them put their respect for the constitution and the founders to the test. They might be surprised to hear the framers in their own words address their concern for our country should we ever let wealth concentrate upward at the expense of our middle class, not to mention every other part of our political system. Ganesh covers all of it.
December 15, 2017
This book is a nice sweep of democratic history that contemplates what it means for the democracy to have such stark inequality. Sitaraman's thesis, and it is a provocative one that I agree with, is that drastic wealth inequality threatens the foundations of our constitutional democracy because our founding documents were based on a more equal distribution of wealth. I think we talk about class struggle too little in the US as if not talking about it will make the tension go away. As we've seen, and as Sitaraman points out, if not addressed through the democratic system, it will be addressed by demagogues.
December 16, 2019
Beginning was dense and hard to get through personally but I really appreciated this book. I learned a lot and think everyone as a member of our society and democracy should read this and be concerned about the crisis.
April 12, 2017
Ganesh Sitaraman's book is a study of how economic inequality influences the functioning of a republican form of government. The "inequality" content is well known and draws from the major researchers on the topic such as Thomas Piketty. What is new and interesting here is how Sitaraman draws out the implications of inequality for political society.
The premise of the argument is that political power follows economic power, so that as society becomes more unequal, government will increasingly come to resemble a plutocracy-an oligopoly of the powerful in which government is by the rich for the rich with little influence options open for others. The punchline of this is that those left out of government will not take their exclusion lightly and that civil war and chaos will ensue, ultimately leading to some form of autocracy.
Political thinkers have realized this problem for a long time and one of Sitaraman's early discussions is how this happened in ancient Rome at the time of the Republic and how the growth of inequality led to civil war and Empire.
To avoid such chaos, constitutions are developed that recognize the gross class distinctions in society and attempt to ensure that both haves and have-nots have a say in goovernment. Indeed, the book argues that class warfare constitutions are common throughout history. The American constitution was different, in that it was built around the presence of a large middle class that would balance the interests of rich and poor. Over time, however, economic development puts tensions on the middle class and promotes greater extremes in inequality. Sitaraman shows how this has happened over American history. Economic trends have resembled waves that bring increased or reduced inequality. In addition, government has trouble adapted to changed technological and economic conditions and thus often addresses inequality only at a lag - if it is addressed at all.
The book is clear and well argued. A strength is that it identifies the thinkers who were influential at the time of the US founding (even if they are less well known today), such as James Harrington. The argument linking how economic inequality affects politics which then in turn affects economics, is clear, well drawn, and backed up with lots of interesting statistics.
This book fits in well to the inequality debates in turns of answering the "so what" questions about why inequality is a problem. I am less informed about the legal context of all this, but the discussion of the Supreme Court and critical court decisions is good.
Sitaraman's book contributes to the inequality debate. There might be a temptation to link its arguments to current political debates, but that is less compelling. The 2016 elections fit into this story but the story does not depend on them. The concluding recommendations are reasonable but do not seem likely to be enacted any time soon.
Overall this is a fine book.
The premise of the argument is that political power follows economic power, so that as society becomes more unequal, government will increasingly come to resemble a plutocracy-an oligopoly of the powerful in which government is by the rich for the rich with little influence options open for others. The punchline of this is that those left out of government will not take their exclusion lightly and that civil war and chaos will ensue, ultimately leading to some form of autocracy.
Political thinkers have realized this problem for a long time and one of Sitaraman's early discussions is how this happened in ancient Rome at the time of the Republic and how the growth of inequality led to civil war and Empire.
To avoid such chaos, constitutions are developed that recognize the gross class distinctions in society and attempt to ensure that both haves and have-nots have a say in goovernment. Indeed, the book argues that class warfare constitutions are common throughout history. The American constitution was different, in that it was built around the presence of a large middle class that would balance the interests of rich and poor. Over time, however, economic development puts tensions on the middle class and promotes greater extremes in inequality. Sitaraman shows how this has happened over American history. Economic trends have resembled waves that bring increased or reduced inequality. In addition, government has trouble adapted to changed technological and economic conditions and thus often addresses inequality only at a lag - if it is addressed at all.
The book is clear and well argued. A strength is that it identifies the thinkers who were influential at the time of the US founding (even if they are less well known today), such as James Harrington. The argument linking how economic inequality affects politics which then in turn affects economics, is clear, well drawn, and backed up with lots of interesting statistics.
This book fits in well to the inequality debates in turns of answering the "so what" questions about why inequality is a problem. I am less informed about the legal context of all this, but the discussion of the Supreme Court and critical court decisions is good.
Sitaraman's book contributes to the inequality debate. There might be a temptation to link its arguments to current political debates, but that is less compelling. The 2016 elections fit into this story but the story does not depend on them. The concluding recommendations are reasonable but do not seem likely to be enacted any time soon.
Overall this is a fine book.
April 7, 2018
"The Middle-Class is essential to a non-Totalitarian Republic."
There, now you don't have to read this.
This guy just paints a patently false view of post Revolutionary America. It's annoying. You wanna make your argument, fine, absolutely fine, but leave history out of it. It gets much more accurate post-Civil War, but is always ignoring or handwaving everything that doesn't fit the narrative, while the narrative is constructed almost entirely out of quotes. Pure theory.
In other words it's just typical academia -- loads of attention to the Classics and to theory, and reality is more or less irrelevant to a beautiful story.
Couple obvious cheats early on: Totally ignore Native Americans, pre-Revolutionary America, indentured servitude, all the wealth sized from Britain, and so many other factors that set the stage for anything like equality in the early days. And, totally ignored the history of poor whites. And even in theory, it absolutely fails at important things like distinguishing from landed men and the middle-class. There was no "Middle-Class" before industrialization, by definition. The author even admits this, gives no description of what the differences are, and proceeds to paint a picture of modern Middle-Class living in 1780. It's just bad writing.
Also, just, fucking seriously, Capitalism was founded on Slavery and Genocide -- with a healthy dose of Protectionism. Any story that doesn't even mention them is pure fiction.
I'm 100% on board with the New Human Rights Movement, but, let's not kid ourselves. America was not founded on Human Rights, as we understand the term. America **Today** isn't bounded by Human Rights (see UN reports on our crimes in literally every sphere from healthcare to wages to war crimes and incarceration that is legally torture).
All that said -- if Capitalism was not an inherently repulsive ideology, this kind of right-winger is at least trying to justify human decency. The problem is that it doesn't work in Capitalism. It can work in a Republic, maybe, at least I can't really think why not -- but not the State-Capitalism of the late-20th/21st century. For one thing, Corporations are inherently Totalitarian, and they've subsumed every form of government that exists today. The only real remedy seems to be actual democracy, but the US has been all to happy to murder all the democracies that reject US State-Capitalism since WWII, starting with Italy, Greece and France, where Nazis got put back in charge, to deal with the people craving democracy after being under the Nazis.
And just to get totally off-topic -- Germany lost WWII, but Corporate Fascism won.
There, now you don't have to read this.
This guy just paints a patently false view of post Revolutionary America. It's annoying. You wanna make your argument, fine, absolutely fine, but leave history out of it. It gets much more accurate post-Civil War, but is always ignoring or handwaving everything that doesn't fit the narrative, while the narrative is constructed almost entirely out of quotes. Pure theory.
In other words it's just typical academia -- loads of attention to the Classics and to theory, and reality is more or less irrelevant to a beautiful story.
Couple obvious cheats early on: Totally ignore Native Americans, pre-Revolutionary America, indentured servitude, all the wealth sized from Britain, and so many other factors that set the stage for anything like equality in the early days. And, totally ignored the history of poor whites. And even in theory, it absolutely fails at important things like distinguishing from landed men and the middle-class. There was no "Middle-Class" before industrialization, by definition. The author even admits this, gives no description of what the differences are, and proceeds to paint a picture of modern Middle-Class living in 1780. It's just bad writing.
Also, just, fucking seriously, Capitalism was founded on Slavery and Genocide -- with a healthy dose of Protectionism. Any story that doesn't even mention them is pure fiction.
I'm 100% on board with the New Human Rights Movement, but, let's not kid ourselves. America was not founded on Human Rights, as we understand the term. America **Today** isn't bounded by Human Rights (see UN reports on our crimes in literally every sphere from healthcare to wages to war crimes and incarceration that is legally torture).
All that said -- if Capitalism was not an inherently repulsive ideology, this kind of right-winger is at least trying to justify human decency. The problem is that it doesn't work in Capitalism. It can work in a Republic, maybe, at least I can't really think why not -- but not the State-Capitalism of the late-20th/21st century. For one thing, Corporations are inherently Totalitarian, and they've subsumed every form of government that exists today. The only real remedy seems to be actual democracy, but the US has been all to happy to murder all the democracies that reject US State-Capitalism since WWII, starting with Italy, Greece and France, where Nazis got put back in charge, to deal with the people craving democracy after being under the Nazis.
And just to get totally off-topic -- Germany lost WWII, but Corporate Fascism won.
February 1, 2019
When I find myself completely agreeing with a book that has a clear political point of view, I wonder if I am just letting myself be drawn into the trap created by the internet and cable news channels where people see their own often wrong views reflected back on themselves and happily bask in the clarity of their own narrow and poorly conceived vision. So as I read this book I alternated back and forth between smiling in agreement and nagging self doubt, worrying that I had let Mr. Sitaraman fool me by feeding me back a close reflection of my own views. But try as I might, I still got through to the end feeling that this book pretty much nailed it.
I liked the idea that most attempts at republican government before the US Constitution were based on "class warfare" theory where the governmental structure was made to reflect and enshrine the class structure of society, giving each class some measure of a voice in governing, though of course as George Orwell taught us, some pigs are more equal than others. And then we have the American middle class constitution that grew out of a frontier society where there was no aristocracy and few people were vastly richer than others. Of course there are some aspects of our governmental structure that favor the rich or that otherwise promote inequality, but remarkably few. However, a structure that gives everyone an equal opportunity at participation, regardless of class, can only work as long as no single class is able to dominate. Sitaraman describes the efforts that have been made over the course of US history to maintain the underpinnings of this structure, which have come in waves of greater and lesser power, but that over time seem to have been largely successful, at least until recently.
In recent years there has been been a decimation of the middle class with a few people rising out of it to riches and far more pushed down into borderline poverty. Sitaraman discusses how the phenomenon of increased wealth disparity is a self-reenforcing phenomenon -- as the rich get richer, they capture government more and more with the result that they get richer yet again, and simultaniously the people in the middle slowly evaporate and lose their say in governing. I agree that we need to take steps to reverse this trend, not because weath is bad per se but because the concentration of wealth undermines the structure of our institutions which require a broad social equality in order to function as they were intended. As Sitaraman correctly points out, these problems are ones that affect all of us; it's not even good for the rich themselves to become too dominant, so that this is an issue that leaders of all political persuaions should be able to get behind.
As of now, we don't seem to have a meaningful coalition or even a single charismatic leader in the federal government who champions this cause. I hope that we can find one before it is too late.
I liked the idea that most attempts at republican government before the US Constitution were based on "class warfare" theory where the governmental structure was made to reflect and enshrine the class structure of society, giving each class some measure of a voice in governing, though of course as George Orwell taught us, some pigs are more equal than others. And then we have the American middle class constitution that grew out of a frontier society where there was no aristocracy and few people were vastly richer than others. Of course there are some aspects of our governmental structure that favor the rich or that otherwise promote inequality, but remarkably few. However, a structure that gives everyone an equal opportunity at participation, regardless of class, can only work as long as no single class is able to dominate. Sitaraman describes the efforts that have been made over the course of US history to maintain the underpinnings of this structure, which have come in waves of greater and lesser power, but that over time seem to have been largely successful, at least until recently.
In recent years there has been been a decimation of the middle class with a few people rising out of it to riches and far more pushed down into borderline poverty. Sitaraman discusses how the phenomenon of increased wealth disparity is a self-reenforcing phenomenon -- as the rich get richer, they capture government more and more with the result that they get richer yet again, and simultaniously the people in the middle slowly evaporate and lose their say in governing. I agree that we need to take steps to reverse this trend, not because weath is bad per se but because the concentration of wealth undermines the structure of our institutions which require a broad social equality in order to function as they were intended. As Sitaraman correctly points out, these problems are ones that affect all of us; it's not even good for the rich themselves to become too dominant, so that this is an issue that leaders of all political persuaions should be able to get behind.
As of now, we don't seem to have a meaningful coalition or even a single charismatic leader in the federal government who champions this cause. I hope that we can find one before it is too late.
April 24, 2017
Worth a re-read to better understand how each of us contributes to the overall decline of public virtue and what responsibility means to a Republic.
November 5, 2017
Spent most of this wanting to sob but settled on deep sighs. I would love to have copies sent to every Trump supporter who is not a billionaire.
June 10, 2017
finished this one this morning, 10 jun 17, 6:21 in the a.m. 3 stars, i liked it. informative. our government, what can one say? sitaraman ranges from the time of the ancient greeks to our nation's founding to the present day and touches briefly on the election of 2016, describes and defines what type of constitution we have, what it could have been, what it is, makes a distinction between a "class warfare constitution" and what we have a "middle-class constitution" and does not go into much our elected leaders over-stepping the bounds of the constitution. perhaps briefly on a few points, but he doesn't make a distinction--in the way i would phrase it--that at times, numerous times, our elected have gone beyond the powers granted them in the constitution--and we have allowed that to happen.
would things be different if the percentages were different? talking the percentage of the rich, the middle class, the poor? why are there so many lobbyists in washington? because time has taught them their money influences how much, when, and to what degree the elected can be persuaded to over-step the powers granted them in the constitution? would it be different if "x" number of whatever, if "x" percentage controlled "y" percentage of the wealth? what difference would it make? we elect those who serve for life.
meh. focking politics.
informative...some new insight...for me...about various financial problems that have happened at our nation's founding and since. touches on the kind and number of lobbyists in washington. no blue collar. mostly all white collar. and no conclusions about why they are there. there's stuff about lobbyists...this, that, the other. wish there was more nuts and bolts. "x" happened...."y" legislation was the result. some info about meds. say like medicare, the v.a., some other alphabet unable to...how'd he word it...negotiate price. like is done over there, up there, not here. probably not covered in the 24/7 news cycle where we've heard for six months about "russian collusion"...major distractions. nothing here about the role the media plays. big time player...but no analysis of their role in how things happen.
uuummmm...what else? curious info about how much time a newly-elected, or those entrenched for life...how much time is spent on "fund raising". be curious to ask my elected, if ever given opportunity...like that will happen?...ask them, hey bud, how much time in your "work week" is devoted to the nation's business and how much time is spent on raising money? some tidbit here about another that is told one must raise $18,000 a day. yeah, you bet. get to work now. go have a power lunch. ask for green between bites of salad. eat healthy.
nothing here about two-parties. we're pretty much evenly divided, straight down the line, as the song has it. but still...various election cycles...things turn around. the pendulum swings both ways. but nothing about that...two parties. that is the option. the lesser of two evils. touches briefly on the idea of a third party...some populist...possibly the v.p. of william jennngs bryant? briefly on ross perot...92 was it? and what i think was the motivating factor behind "bipartisan campaign finance reform". harps a time or ten on "citizens united". one of the justices said that had "bcfr" been in place in 92, ross perot would have been subject to five years in the federal pen...as i recall...because he used his own money or some such...to finance a run. trump? what's it all about, alfie? elected for life. an elected official can be "the most qualified candidate" to date (hillary, he says)...and have all that baggage, certainly one reason--her personality--that sent foster to suicide...and because the media spins and spins...she wins the "popular vote".
touches briefly on the idea of making the vote mandatory. like in australian? though one can "protest vote"? turn in an empty ballot? so easy answers, alfie. we elect them for life.
nothing here about "term limits"....one justice called "bcfr" an incumbent protection plan. what options does the electorate have? the constitution says free speech. the ussc upheld "bcfr" and struck down "citizens united". was money, the moneyed-elite involved in that decision? 5-4 decisions, both. one coming out within days of finding sadam hiding in a hole...and the story changes, the world moves on.
be curious to read an analysis of why we've only a small percentage of people who actually go to the polls. and don't give me a bunch of crap about tuesday...afternoon...i'm just beginning to see! now i'm on my way!...why? because they'll do what the hell they want anyway, damn the constitution and the bounds written therein that are ignored...and why not? they're in for life. they know they can pretty much do whatever the hell they please. a new story will come up, move along, nothing to see here.
and there is some here about how that happens---has happened---in our history. things were beginning to happen...say like before the world war numbered two. an idea was brewing...but things happened. hitler and company. the idea passed.
what else? i dunno....good read...three stars. i liked it.
would things be different if the percentages were different? talking the percentage of the rich, the middle class, the poor? why are there so many lobbyists in washington? because time has taught them their money influences how much, when, and to what degree the elected can be persuaded to over-step the powers granted them in the constitution? would it be different if "x" number of whatever, if "x" percentage controlled "y" percentage of the wealth? what difference would it make? we elect those who serve for life.
meh. focking politics.
informative...some new insight...for me...about various financial problems that have happened at our nation's founding and since. touches on the kind and number of lobbyists in washington. no blue collar. mostly all white collar. and no conclusions about why they are there. there's stuff about lobbyists...this, that, the other. wish there was more nuts and bolts. "x" happened...."y" legislation was the result. some info about meds. say like medicare, the v.a., some other alphabet unable to...how'd he word it...negotiate price. like is done over there, up there, not here. probably not covered in the 24/7 news cycle where we've heard for six months about "russian collusion"...major distractions. nothing here about the role the media plays. big time player...but no analysis of their role in how things happen.
uuummmm...what else? curious info about how much time a newly-elected, or those entrenched for life...how much time is spent on "fund raising". be curious to ask my elected, if ever given opportunity...like that will happen?...ask them, hey bud, how much time in your "work week" is devoted to the nation's business and how much time is spent on raising money? some tidbit here about another that is told one must raise $18,000 a day. yeah, you bet. get to work now. go have a power lunch. ask for green between bites of salad. eat healthy.
nothing here about two-parties. we're pretty much evenly divided, straight down the line, as the song has it. but still...various election cycles...things turn around. the pendulum swings both ways. but nothing about that...two parties. that is the option. the lesser of two evils. touches briefly on the idea of a third party...some populist...possibly the v.p. of william jennngs bryant? briefly on ross perot...92 was it? and what i think was the motivating factor behind "bipartisan campaign finance reform". harps a time or ten on "citizens united". one of the justices said that had "bcfr" been in place in 92, ross perot would have been subject to five years in the federal pen...as i recall...because he used his own money or some such...to finance a run. trump? what's it all about, alfie? elected for life. an elected official can be "the most qualified candidate" to date (hillary, he says)...and have all that baggage, certainly one reason--her personality--that sent foster to suicide...and because the media spins and spins...she wins the "popular vote".
touches briefly on the idea of making the vote mandatory. like in australian? though one can "protest vote"? turn in an empty ballot? so easy answers, alfie. we elect them for life.
nothing here about "term limits"....one justice called "bcfr" an incumbent protection plan. what options does the electorate have? the constitution says free speech. the ussc upheld "bcfr" and struck down "citizens united". was money, the moneyed-elite involved in that decision? 5-4 decisions, both. one coming out within days of finding sadam hiding in a hole...and the story changes, the world moves on.
be curious to read an analysis of why we've only a small percentage of people who actually go to the polls. and don't give me a bunch of crap about tuesday...afternoon...i'm just beginning to see! now i'm on my way!...why? because they'll do what the hell they want anyway, damn the constitution and the bounds written therein that are ignored...and why not? they're in for life. they know they can pretty much do whatever the hell they please. a new story will come up, move along, nothing to see here.
and there is some here about how that happens---has happened---in our history. things were beginning to happen...say like before the world war numbered two. an idea was brewing...but things happened. hitler and company. the idea passed.
what else? i dunno....good read...three stars. i liked it.
January 12, 2020
As I'm discussing this book with my husband, he remarks, "It's a bit like a textbook, I guess." His commentary isn't far off the mark. But, it is the antithesis of what both of us decry in our current national discourse: bumper sticker thinking. Not everything can be distilled into the three to ten word commentary that can fit onto a bumper sticker. No less than the fate of our republic is at stake.
I gave it four stars; because, at times, it is a bit of a slog. But, if you want to think deeply about the issues facing the American Experiment, this is the book to read. He draws from sources as diverse as Aristotle, Polybius, Macchiavelli, Harrington, and, of course, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.
His closing quote is indicative of his thesis (that a large and secure middle class is crucial to the success of the Republic), "Is there 'such a rage for Profit and Commerce; that we no longer have 'public Virtue enough to support a Republic?'" (John Adams)
I gave it four stars; because, at times, it is a bit of a slog. But, if you want to think deeply about the issues facing the American Experiment, this is the book to read. He draws from sources as diverse as Aristotle, Polybius, Macchiavelli, Harrington, and, of course, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.
His closing quote is indicative of his thesis (that a large and secure middle class is crucial to the success of the Republic), "Is there 'such a rage for Profit and Commerce; that we no longer have 'public Virtue enough to support a Republic?'" (John Adams)
June 20, 2018
After taking a break from this for some classwork, I managed to finish it up. It's a well sourced, well written, and well argued book about the past, present, and potential future of our republic based in the economic system we experience. I'm a bit of a policy wonk, and so while a lot of what was in here was not news to me it provided a good compilation of the information. I was also very pleased with the section on ideas for the future of our democracy.
In all, this book got me pretty fired up about socioeconomic inequality in this country, especially knowing that some of the changes since it was written have done nothing but worked to push us further down the path laid out within.
In all, this book got me pretty fired up about socioeconomic inequality in this country, especially knowing that some of the changes since it was written have done nothing but worked to push us further down the path laid out within.
February 16, 2018
If you're expecting a typical liberal lament about the passing of the good old days of the 1950s - early 1970s with the strong unions, high top tax rates, and heavy regulation ... well, you won't be entirely disappointed. But this book is a lot more than that. Sitaraman's look at constitutional theory is fascinating and should be of interest to both liberals and conservatives. I've been a political scientist for 20 years, and it's rare that a book written for a general audience has so much in it that surprises me and informs my views. I'm very glad I read it.
September 28, 2020
You'll quickly realize most of what you're fed on the intentions of the Founding Fathers is wrong. A brilliant book for the people.
April 18, 2017
Factual & well-written but the theme by now is more than familiar. Money has a gravitational effect on politics. The wealthy have more influence than the poor and as inequality increases, the effect grows & becomes more pernicious. The U.S. at the beginning was a nation of yeoman farmers with negligible extremes of wealth & poverty. Its constitution was conceived, written & adopted in that context & it has functioned as long as those conditions prevailed. When inequality became prevalent - the gilded age, the roaring twenties & the present - our government ceased to work for our population in total and conditions are likely to continue to deteriorate as long as corporations & the wealthy are able to use their financial resources to dominate governance.
April 12, 2022
One of the best books I've EVER read, and by far THE BEST [economic] history book I've ever read!!! The fight for economic equality is not just a present concern; it has existed since before America's constitution and was even a massive contributor to its conception! This book should be mandatory reading in all history classes. It's incredibly dense (I found myself wanting to take notes almost every other page) so I found myself having to pause and read other books simultaneously while trying to finish this one.
The premise of the book is that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a [relatively] few massive corporations is directly related to the demise of the average person's economic welfare. Seems pretty obvious to any person not steeped in capitalist brainwashing, but this book gives an incredibly detailed account of America's battle for economic equality for the average working person.
Some quotes from the book that I found particularly interesting: Most of these don't have context so they might not be too clear, but hopefully they're enlightening / give you a gist of this book.
The premise of the book is that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a [relatively] few massive corporations is directly related to the demise of the average person's economic welfare. Seems pretty obvious to any person not steeped in capitalist brainwashing, but this book gives an incredibly detailed account of America's battle for economic equality for the average working person.
Some quotes from the book that I found particularly interesting: Most of these don't have context so they might not be too clear, but hopefully they're enlightening / give you a gist of this book.
In 594 BC, Solon adopted 2 major reforms that fundamentally changed the relationship between the rich and the poor in Athens. First, he abolished debt bondage and forgave existing debts. The poor could never be truly equal citizens if they were at risk of needing to sell themselves into slavery. Ending debt bondage meant that over time, poverty would not lead to political inequality. ...
He [Cleisthenes] also introduced the practice of ostracism, by which the assembly could exile a member of the city. In the 5th century, Athens used ostracism 15 times, largely to exclude people who were feared to have grown too powerful and were suspected of wanting to become tyrants. Ostracism ensured that the people writ large had a check on the wealthy and powerful.
Within the Council of 500, which set the agenda for the assembly, a tenth of the members composed the executive body, whose rotating chair was selected by lottery and only served for 24 hours, to prevent the chair from accumulating inordinate power.
Only about 5-10% of citizens were in the highest echelon of economic class where they did not need to work at all. Athens was remarkably wealthy and surprisingly equal in its distribution of wealth. Our evidence of housing patterns corroborates this evidence. If ancient Greece was severely stratified by wealth, we would expect to see archaeological evidence of mansions for the rich and small huts for the poor. But the archaeological record instead clusters around the middle, with few extremely small or large houses. As the classicist Josiah Ober has concluded, "Wealth was distributed realtively equitably across Greek populations; there was a substantial middle class of people who lived well above bare subsistence yet below the level of elite consumption."
To enable the many working middle-class citizens to participate in politics, the people of Athens made a 2nd policy choice. They did not assume that (temporary) relative economic equality would prevent those who were on the wealthier side from dominiating politics. To make democracy work, they paid for widespread participation. Starting in the mid-5th century BC, Athens paid citizens a per diem for attending the assembly and later expanded the per diem to include jury service. Normally, men, women, and children all had to work simply to sustain the family. The payment for political participation offset the losses that accompanied being absent from a day of work. The result was to expand who could govern the Greek city-state to those even of modest means.
Perhaps most important, Athenian democracy did not rely on elections. If leadership was determined by election, the wealthy would be more likely to get elected; they'd have the skills, time, and financial resources to dedicate themselves to public business. Athens solved the problem of the aristocratic advantages of elections through the widespread use of lotteries. Yet, in debates after the American and French revolutions, lottery is almost completely absent.
From the Athens of Aristotle to Republican Venice in the 18th century, political philosophers believed that elections were inherently aristocratic, and lotteries inherently democratic.
However, economically, the American colonies were far more economically equal than European countries. In 1759, England and Wales had a Gini coefficient of 0.522. By 1802, it had risen to 0.593. Holland in 1732 was even more unequal at 0.610, though by 1808 the Dutch were slightly better off at 0.563. To put that in perspective, European countries in this time were about as unequal as Brazil, Haiti, or South Africa in the 21st century. America was substantially more equal in this time, with a Gini coefficient of 0.441. Where the top 1 percent in 1774 America picked up 8.5 percent of income, the top 1 percent in England and Wales in 1759 took more than twice as much -- 17.5% of income. America's middle and upper-middle classes were also doing far better than their English counterparts. The 40th-80th percentile took 39.6% of the income in colonial America, compared with only 30% percent in England in 1759. As Lindert and Williamson conclude, "During that time, there was no documented place on the planet that had a more egalitarian distribution in the late 18th century."
Tocqueville saw a looming threat to the American republic. In a chapter titled "How Aristocracy could issue from Industry", Tocqueville described how industrial change might undermine the Republic. "As the principle of the division of labor is more completely applied" and workers take on narrower, routinized roles in factories, " the worker becomes weaker, more limited, and more dependent." Over time, as employers and employees would become less and less similar, the division between them would grow. The consequences were self-evident. "What is this if not aristocracy?" Tocquevilled asked.
Wage laborers were dependent on other people for their economic survival, and that dependence conflicted with republicanism's requirement that citizens be free and independent. As historian Eric Foner has said, for many late 19th century Republicans, "A man who remained all his life dependent on wages for his livelihood appeared almost as unfree as a southern slave." For citizens to be free, they needed a measure of economic independence, which had generally been linked to ownership.
The second problem was that in an industrial system, economic gains would accrue disproportionately to a small few - the owners. Relative economic equality was at risk in a system in which wage laborers earned little while big profits went to their bosses. Years later, the Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan remembered how widespread this understanding was in the 1880s: "The conviction was universal that the country was in real danger from another kind of slavery … that would result from the aggregation of capital in the hands of a few individuals controlling, for their own profit and advantage exclusively, the entire business of the country."
These days, most scholars think the purpose of antitrust law is to promote consumer welfare through efficient markets. Restrictions on trade are evaluated almost exclusively on economic grounds, with a focus on "their overall effect on the efficiency underlying markets." As leading scholar Herbert Hovenkamp has said, antitrust has no "moral content"; its "sole purpose is to make the economy bigger." Brandeis, Wilson, and other decentralizing Progressives would have disagreed. In the Progressive Era, antitrust was focused on the fact that "the vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of conrporations and individuals [could] oppress individuals and injure the public generally." The problem with big corporate entities is that they "threatened self-government in 2 ways - directly, by overwhelming democratic institutions and defying their control, and indirectly, by eroding the moral and civic capacities that equip workers to think and act as citizens." Antitrust was a way to break up these big institutions, enabling democratic control of society and the economy. In Liggett v. Lee, a 1933 case involving a Florida anti-chain-store law, Brandeis recognized that the "concentration of economic power" was so great "that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state." He worried that the corporate system was becoming akin to the "feudal system" and that "this 'master institution of civilised life' is committing society to the rule of a plutocracy."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 19, 2025
Sitaraman’s thesis is that a robust middle class is a necessary requirement for a constitutional republic. Rising economic inequality must therefore be reduced to preserve our democracy. I think this is true as a factual matter. But Sitaraman tries to turn this into a legal argument. He argues that the framers originally intended the Constitution to require a strong middle class. As such, reversing inequality is not only politically desirable, it is also mandated by both the history and intent of constitutional law.
This sounds great in theory (and conveniently supports progressive political goals), but to me there are three major problems with this theory as a legal argument.
The first is with its historical analysis. Sitaraman overwhelmingly focuses on how America’s open frontier enabled economic parity. Because any able-bodied person could become a land owner and self-sufficient farmer, he argues, the foundation of the republic rested on a strong middle class. The problem is that the open frontier was open only open to white males. In addition, Sitaraman almost completely ignores the slavery of African Americans and the genocide and expropriation of Native Americans. His refusal to seriously engage with these obvious contradictions weakens his argument and reduces the book’s credibility. (For a much more grounded interpretation of our unequal constitutional history, I instead recommend The Two Faces of American Freedom by Aziz Rana. Rana frames the encouragement to settle the open frontier as a colonial necessity by outnumbered Anglo settlers).
Second, the way the book attempts to prove the framers’ intent is unconvincing. Most of the argument is through inference. For example, Sitaraman argues that since the U.S. Constitution does not expressly categorize based on class (such as by establishing a House of Lords and a House of Commons), the framers must have assumed there would be relative economic equality. This is just not convicting, either logically or factually, as members of both chambers have mostly come from the upper class throughout history. Sitaraman also seems to credit philosophy too much when writing about how constitutional design choices were made, while downplaying the role of class dominance, realpolitik, and compromise.
The third, more fundamental, problem with the book is that it elevates history and intent to make its legal argument above all other constitutional modalities. Like Akhil Amar and others, Sitaraman is a progressive who is trying to make originalist arguments in order to advance his preferred theory of constitutional interpretation. The problem is that the historical argument is so weak—as discussed above—that it neuters the force of the argument compared to if it were made from a different constitutional lens, such as consequentialism, ethos, or legal realism.
More generally, I wish that progressives would stop conceding that originalism is the only valid mode of constitutional argument. More often than not, originalism will undercut progressive arguments because, by definition, the original intent and history of 1787-1788 America is extremely regressive relative to the social needs of today. Progressive scholarship would be much better spent developing arguments from a stronger lens to not only advance concrete goals on specific issues (such as class, race, and gender), but also establish the validity of different interpretive methodologies and displace the dominance of originalism altogether.
Despite these issues, Sitaraman’s book is still worth reading as an erudite examination of how economic inequality threatens democracy. Reversing that inequality is a crucial goal that should be tackled through law, politics, and policy. I just think this book is better as intellectual history than legal argument.
This sounds great in theory (and conveniently supports progressive political goals), but to me there are three major problems with this theory as a legal argument.
The first is with its historical analysis. Sitaraman overwhelmingly focuses on how America’s open frontier enabled economic parity. Because any able-bodied person could become a land owner and self-sufficient farmer, he argues, the foundation of the republic rested on a strong middle class. The problem is that the open frontier was open only open to white males. In addition, Sitaraman almost completely ignores the slavery of African Americans and the genocide and expropriation of Native Americans. His refusal to seriously engage with these obvious contradictions weakens his argument and reduces the book’s credibility. (For a much more grounded interpretation of our unequal constitutional history, I instead recommend The Two Faces of American Freedom by Aziz Rana. Rana frames the encouragement to settle the open frontier as a colonial necessity by outnumbered Anglo settlers).
Second, the way the book attempts to prove the framers’ intent is unconvincing. Most of the argument is through inference. For example, Sitaraman argues that since the U.S. Constitution does not expressly categorize based on class (such as by establishing a House of Lords and a House of Commons), the framers must have assumed there would be relative economic equality. This is just not convicting, either logically or factually, as members of both chambers have mostly come from the upper class throughout history. Sitaraman also seems to credit philosophy too much when writing about how constitutional design choices were made, while downplaying the role of class dominance, realpolitik, and compromise.
The third, more fundamental, problem with the book is that it elevates history and intent to make its legal argument above all other constitutional modalities. Like Akhil Amar and others, Sitaraman is a progressive who is trying to make originalist arguments in order to advance his preferred theory of constitutional interpretation. The problem is that the historical argument is so weak—as discussed above—that it neuters the force of the argument compared to if it were made from a different constitutional lens, such as consequentialism, ethos, or legal realism.
More generally, I wish that progressives would stop conceding that originalism is the only valid mode of constitutional argument. More often than not, originalism will undercut progressive arguments because, by definition, the original intent and history of 1787-1788 America is extremely regressive relative to the social needs of today. Progressive scholarship would be much better spent developing arguments from a stronger lens to not only advance concrete goals on specific issues (such as class, race, and gender), but also establish the validity of different interpretive methodologies and displace the dominance of originalism altogether.
Despite these issues, Sitaraman’s book is still worth reading as an erudite examination of how economic inequality threatens democracy. Reversing that inequality is a crucial goal that should be tackled through law, politics, and policy. I just think this book is better as intellectual history than legal argument.
May 19, 2017
There are no surprises here: wealth influences politics. In the US, most elected officials to national office spend more time raising money for their next election than they spend in the committee rooms of government. It's safe to say the donors will have a say in just about everything. As will the corporate lobbiests, the Goldman Sachs financiers appointed to Cabinet positions, and (although Sitaraman does not mention it) professors at elite institutions.
In this miasma of corruption, Professor Sitaraman conjures up an innocent time when American public servants devised a constitution intended to foster a polity based on a fair distribution of wealth and income in the economy. He cites proof that the framers of the Constituion were influenced by traditions of political thought grounded in economic fairness, that they avoided models of class warfare and instead found a balance of competing influences in the polity.
The assumption here is that a reasonably strong middle class will govern fairly and effectively.
That's a pretty big assumption. What if you think it's the middle -- or the middling -- classes which got America into the fix it's in now? Stalemate on Capital Hill. A White House occupied by a lunatic. A judiciary controlled by people who want to purify the law according to the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution, whatever those were.
I honestly don't believe that the Constitution was grounded in an economic model of fairness at all. It came about in an era of political crisis and was intended to improve upon the political articles of Confederation which themselves were direly incomplete.
Moreover, it was drawn up in a country of seven million inhabitants, not 350 million inhabitants.
And today Americans stick to their amendments like flies to flypaper. As if they came from the mouth of God.
American political history is grounded, whether you like it or not, in an unfair system of slavery, the genocide of aboriginal peoples, and the rape of countryside. Did I mention systematic disenfranchisement of women and the working poor?
I personally don't agree that the American Constitution is place to look for agreement on fairness in the political decision making. The Constitution is a very living document to help protect the government against the very real problems abuses in political power. Americans are faced with just such a challenge now.
Democracy is sustained by participation. The US Constitution is but one expression of that participation. Neither Rome nor Athens are such great examples of participation, certainly not in light of contemporary communications, mobility, or social thought. Things are much, much different today.
I find the American obsession with their Constitution, much like their obsession with the Presidency missing the point. And It annoys me to no end to listen to political commentators complain about "elites" who supposedly make all the decisions but don't work for a living. Everybody works in that goddamned country, except maybe my Auntie Sadie.
These people are simply going to have to compromise because they are never, ever going to agree with each other on some fundamentals.
This is not political science. (How scientific is "political science" anyway?)
This is common sense.
In this miasma of corruption, Professor Sitaraman conjures up an innocent time when American public servants devised a constitution intended to foster a polity based on a fair distribution of wealth and income in the economy. He cites proof that the framers of the Constituion were influenced by traditions of political thought grounded in economic fairness, that they avoided models of class warfare and instead found a balance of competing influences in the polity.
The assumption here is that a reasonably strong middle class will govern fairly and effectively.
That's a pretty big assumption. What if you think it's the middle -- or the middling -- classes which got America into the fix it's in now? Stalemate on Capital Hill. A White House occupied by a lunatic. A judiciary controlled by people who want to purify the law according to the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution, whatever those were.
I honestly don't believe that the Constitution was grounded in an economic model of fairness at all. It came about in an era of political crisis and was intended to improve upon the political articles of Confederation which themselves were direly incomplete.
Moreover, it was drawn up in a country of seven million inhabitants, not 350 million inhabitants.
And today Americans stick to their amendments like flies to flypaper. As if they came from the mouth of God.
American political history is grounded, whether you like it or not, in an unfair system of slavery, the genocide of aboriginal peoples, and the rape of countryside. Did I mention systematic disenfranchisement of women and the working poor?
I personally don't agree that the American Constitution is place to look for agreement on fairness in the political decision making. The Constitution is a very living document to help protect the government against the very real problems abuses in political power. Americans are faced with just such a challenge now.
Democracy is sustained by participation. The US Constitution is but one expression of that participation. Neither Rome nor Athens are such great examples of participation, certainly not in light of contemporary communications, mobility, or social thought. Things are much, much different today.
I find the American obsession with their Constitution, much like their obsession with the Presidency missing the point. And It annoys me to no end to listen to political commentators complain about "elites" who supposedly make all the decisions but don't work for a living. Everybody works in that goddamned country, except maybe my Auntie Sadie.
These people are simply going to have to compromise because they are never, ever going to agree with each other on some fundamentals.
This is not political science. (How scientific is "political science" anyway?)
This is common sense.
July 5, 2018
Ganesh Sitaraman's book feels like a convenient thesis in search of greater meaning. Trying to dead-lift the depressing economic reality of modern America into a constitutional crisis feels like a cul-de-sac. Sitaraman's descriptions of income inequality and government capture by the wealthy is disheartening in the extreme (with good reason), and he delivers it with a certain amount of panache. But I could never shake the tedium, because it left me with the question of "so what?" And I don't mean "so what if there's income inequality?" I mean "so what if you are able to cobble together a theory that history shows our constitution wasn't meant to operate with these levels of income inequality?" The facts you lay out make the point that government and the economy are broken. Trying to also spin up this abstract and high-minded historical thesis doesn't make that point any more convincing. And that's if it's accurate to begin with. Pleasant at first, this book sours the longer it goes. Subject matter this depressing deserves better.
December 31, 2017
A must read for all
This is a great book that offers succinct historical insight to help understand where we came from, how we got here, and where we should go. Readers of all political leanings would greatly benefit from reading this book, except for perhaps the economic elites who live to only maintain their wealth, and not promote the existence of our republic. At the very least, some chapters of this book should be required reading for high school students.
This is a great book that offers succinct historical insight to help understand where we came from, how we got here, and where we should go. Readers of all political leanings would greatly benefit from reading this book, except for perhaps the economic elites who live to only maintain their wealth, and not promote the existence of our republic. At the very least, some chapters of this book should be required reading for high school students.
November 27, 2025
A well thought-out and articulated view of the main source of what the author sees as America’s main ailment - the decline of the middle class and lack of economic mobility. This book really got me thinking and now I feel informed about several areas: anti-trust laws, campaign finance reform, progressive tax and inheritance reforms, among other things.
February 10, 2019
An ambitious of overview of the history of democracy, from the Greeks onward, and lessons for today where wealthy corporations and financial elites have effectively captured all the levers of power (legislatures, courts, corporations, elite universities, and the executive branch) in the US and the threat that this holds for a functioning democracy. Over time power has become more and more concentrated at the top. He writes "Less than 2% of members of Congress had working class jobs before entering public life. And only 20% were raised in working class households”. And as colleague M. Gilens writes and research has shown, “The views of of the richest 10% are highly predictive of policy outcomes.”
In the early US, there was a very large middle class where, if stifled in one location, citizens could move to the still open frontier where land was almost free and hard work paid off. That safety valve is gone. Unless there are changes in the current structure this will get worse.
In the words of progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
The founding fathers worried most about the concentration of power, not just political but all types of power, including financial and corporate. Sitaraman closes with the words of John Adams, our brilliant 2nd president. Is there "such a rage for Profit and Commerce" that we no longer have "public Virtue enough to support a Republic?"
I'd suggest reading this book if you are interested in the future of democracy in America (as we all should be). There are specific policy recommendations to help reverse the trend he describes.
In the early US, there was a very large middle class where, if stifled in one location, citizens could move to the still open frontier where land was almost free and hard work paid off. That safety valve is gone. Unless there are changes in the current structure this will get worse.
In the words of progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
The founding fathers worried most about the concentration of power, not just political but all types of power, including financial and corporate. Sitaraman closes with the words of John Adams, our brilliant 2nd president. Is there "such a rage for Profit and Commerce" that we no longer have "public Virtue enough to support a Republic?"
I'd suggest reading this book if you are interested in the future of democracy in America (as we all should be). There are specific policy recommendations to help reverse the trend he describes.
September 26, 2017
This is a more challenging read, as the author lays out his assessment of the history of constitutional government and makes a case for our Constitution as a "middle-class" vice a "class-warfare" constitution, with many direct quotes from the founders that they intended to not have concentrations of wealth and create a neo-royal class of entitled elites. Mr. Sitaraman reviews the history of constitutions from ancient Greece on, and presents suggestions for a way forward.
It will be a tough fight to draw the nation back from the brink of oligarchy; I'm not hopeful, my country seems to swing back and forth from having a strong middle class, to what we have now. Will we swing back to growing or supporting the middle class, or will the oligarchs be able to entrench themselves for a long while? History predicts the latter, followed by revolution, or an intervening cataclysm, to break the oligarch's hold.
Another review, by "Myles," suggested that focusing on the Constitution, or any other one thing (e.g. the President, or, I would infer, the Congress or the Judiciary) is missing the point, that the lack of participation in American democracy is more worrisome. I agree.
We live in interesting times, to adapt the ancient Chinese curse.
It will be a tough fight to draw the nation back from the brink of oligarchy; I'm not hopeful, my country seems to swing back and forth from having a strong middle class, to what we have now. Will we swing back to growing or supporting the middle class, or will the oligarchs be able to entrench themselves for a long while? History predicts the latter, followed by revolution, or an intervening cataclysm, to break the oligarch's hold.
Another review, by "Myles," suggested that focusing on the Constitution, or any other one thing (e.g. the President, or, I would infer, the Congress or the Judiciary) is missing the point, that the lack of participation in American democracy is more worrisome. I agree.
We live in interesting times, to adapt the ancient Chinese curse.
October 24, 2018
An extremely comprehensive explanation on how government has contributed and supported the middle class, the fall of those ideals, and potential solutions. It starts with a history of our proto-government system (Rome), continues to the intentions of the founding fathers when writing the constitution, and then chronicles the economy and various policies that were born from those times.
I think if you are at least moderately politically active, you've probably at least heard of some of these policies and theories. What I got from this book was a grounding: having a more solid conception of all these systems in play. Yes, I was aware of lobbying but I think given the statistics and the social explanation, I got a clearer picture of what is actually happening other than this politician is a crook (1. They still are, 2. This administration only seems to respond to lobbying) This gave me a better direction of what I'd like to support in the future.
While this book is dense with information, it does remain easy to read and understand, so I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in being more in politics but doesn't have those backgrounds.
I think if you are at least moderately politically active, you've probably at least heard of some of these policies and theories. What I got from this book was a grounding: having a more solid conception of all these systems in play. Yes, I was aware of lobbying but I think given the statistics and the social explanation, I got a clearer picture of what is actually happening other than this politician is a crook (1. They still are, 2. This administration only seems to respond to lobbying) This gave me a better direction of what I'd like to support in the future.
While this book is dense with information, it does remain easy to read and understand, so I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in being more in politics but doesn't have those backgrounds.
January 1, 2019
The premise of this book is that relative economic equality is necessary for republican government. It begins with the history of the idea going back to Greek and Roman republics and writings from Machiavelli (not The Prince) and other who influenced the American founders. Then we have American history where in the early years this was the most equal nation in the world (excluding blacks and natives, as noted in the book) due to having enough land for anyone to make it on their own. James Madison and others saw a future problem when the land ran out which he thought would be 1930. The problem is twofold as the powerful never seem to have enough and the resentful poor are a threat of riot and revolution. As many feared, we no longer have farmers in Congress and it’s difficult to even meet your representatives without offering them lots of money. This effects the laws. The second part of the book which was suggestions for making things more equal and representative was not as compelling. So we have a problem but what to do? John Adams asked whether there was “such a rage for Profit and Commerce that we no longer have public virtue enough to support a Republic.” Hopefully not.
July 3, 2021
I read this book a long long time ago probably right when it was published. At the time I really liked it, but looking back on it now, it is pretty much completely bourgeois propaganda. It has some interesting political theory/history in the first section. But none of it really stands the test of materialism. Further Jose Maria Sison debunks the concept of a non class based constitution being good for the proletariat, as they are written like that so that it is easier for the bourgeoisie to exploit the working class. No mention of class means no protections for the working class. This book is centered on worshipping a bunch of white men who started a nation so that they could become rich and powerful. The constitution did not ensure rights to black people or women, and originally was going to limit who could vote even further to those that held property. I don't know why we should support it in this day and age.
August 30, 2020
This book is a must read.
It should be a required read for all high school curriculum.
I have a hard time with history books names & years get very mixed up— parts 1 & 2 were slow reads / listens for me but the incredible gem of this book is part 3. Phenomenal to make the majority of the country understand how a shrinking middle class impacts the economic stability of the entire country as well as where the power lays in different types of governments and in the US. The USA was built in the premise there would be an even distribution of wealth with the largest class being middle class — this is where we saw periods of the most economic prosperity.
This book is a great read for independents, republicans democrats wherever you are on the spectrum. May I also suggest after reading you reading you read “The War on Normal People” by Andrew Yang.
It should be a required read for all high school curriculum.
I have a hard time with history books names & years get very mixed up— parts 1 & 2 were slow reads / listens for me but the incredible gem of this book is part 3. Phenomenal to make the majority of the country understand how a shrinking middle class impacts the economic stability of the entire country as well as where the power lays in different types of governments and in the US. The USA was built in the premise there would be an even distribution of wealth with the largest class being middle class — this is where we saw periods of the most economic prosperity.
This book is a great read for independents, republicans democrats wherever you are on the spectrum. May I also suggest after reading you reading you read “The War on Normal People” by Andrew Yang.
July 17, 2019
It's rare for a book to actually change one's POV, but I could actually feel my mind expanding as I dug through this dense read. I don't think this is a case of me staying in my political bubble and hearing what I want to hear. This is a deep dive into how our constitution differs from all those that went before it, what makes it great, what makes it vulnerable, and the political and economic forces that have buffeted and shaped it over its 240+ year history. It's not for the faint of intellect. Very text-book-y. I had to re-read almost every paragraph to make sure I understood. But as it says on the cover, every American should read this. Glad I did. It's shaped my thinking. (Thank you, Drago)
May 5, 2017
This is an excellent historical and social analysis of how we reached the levels of economic inequality that threaten the existence of the Middle Class. The author presents a strong case that the concentration of wealth in the top levels of society threatens the very nature of our government. He shows how this tendency for wealth to concentrate has been dealt with in the past and offers some suggestions for future redirection. This is a book Americans need to read if they want to keep living in a democracy (or, as cynics might say, if they want to return to democracy from the oligarchy we presently endure.)
July 8, 2017
I really liked this book. I skimmed through much of the historical Greece stuff but really got into the later chapters that deal with our own time.
Here's just one passage that stood out to me:
“In fact, 56 percent of all disclosed spending on lobbying in 2012 came from just 3,587 corporations. If we add trade associations and business-wide associations, the number jumps to 78 percent of all lobbying money. Between 1998 and 2010, corporations increased spending on lobbyists by 85 percent (to $2.09 billion) while trade associations increased spending by 53 percent (to $590 million).” (p 251)
Here's just one passage that stood out to me:
“In fact, 56 percent of all disclosed spending on lobbying in 2012 came from just 3,587 corporations. If we add trade associations and business-wide associations, the number jumps to 78 percent of all lobbying money. Between 1998 and 2010, corporations increased spending on lobbyists by 85 percent (to $2.09 billion) while trade associations increased spending by 53 percent (to $590 million).” (p 251)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews