Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

by Mark R. Levin

From #1 New York Times bestselling author and radio host Mark R. Levin comes a searing plea for a return to America’s most sacred values.

In Rediscovering Americanism, Mark R. Levin revisits the founders’ warnings about the perils of overreach by the federal government and concludes that the men who created our country would be outraged and disappointed to see where we've ended up.

Levin returns to the impassioned question he's explored in each of his bestselling books: How do we save our exceptional country? Because our values are in such a precarious state, he argues that a restoration to the essential truths on which our country was founded has never been more urgent. Understanding these principles, in Levin’s words, can “serve as the antidote to tyrannical regimes and governments.” Rediscovering Americanism is not an exercise in nostalgia, but an appeal to his fellow citizens to reverse course.

This essential book brings Levin’s celebrated, sophisticated analysis to the troubling question of America's future, and reminds us what we must restore for the sake of our children and our children's children.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, American History, Audiobook, Historical

274 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 27, 2017

About the author

Mark Levin has become one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, his top-rated show on WABC New York is now syndicated nationally by Cumulus Media. He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. Mark's radio show on WABC in New York City skyrocketed to Number 1 on the AM dial in his first 18 months on the air in the competitive 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM time slot. Mark's book Men in Black was released February 7, 2005 and quickly climbed to Number 3 in the nation on the New York Times Best-Seller list. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands. In a short period of time, Mark has become one of the most listened to local radio Talk show hosts in the nation.

Mark Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program. "He's smart, witty, and fast on the draw," according to WABC Program Director Phil Boyce. "He has this sharp sarcastic wit that can easily stun his opponents. I know I would not want to debate him." Mark's show follows the ever popular Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on WABC, but everyday he manages to come up with a new twist on the day's top news events, as well as his own unique information. His passion and intellect have made him a favorite of tens of thousands of radio listeners in the New York City area.

Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname "F. Lee Levin." He is perhaps more well-known for his nickname, "The Great One," coined by his friend Hannity.

Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.

Source: http://marklevinshow.com/article.asp?...

Reviews

[Robert · Rating 1 out of 5]

His basic argument: The Bible is what defines the West, and the Constitution, modeled on the Bible, but with more liberties, defines America. Marxism is opposed to the Bible (as it is to all religion) which means it is opposed to the Constitution. He makes a similar argument against science taking a role in determining economic / social positions. Interestingly, he tries to label Marxism and science as religion multiple times -- this reveals his affinity more strongly, as he does not explicitly present himself as a Christian. Let's not get into another one of his major axioms, that humans are endowed with free will, and that justifies inequalities. The freedom to be poor is a more important freedom for Levin than the freedom to be secure from disease, hunger, ignorance, and the rest.

It's funny how the author calls the founding fathers very religious men. Most were deists or closet agnostics, despite being Masons. It's interesting that he uses positivism to smash German Idealism but then dismisses positivism as cultural relativism. (lol wut?)

The examples of communism he cites for the failures of Marxism are not communist systems in line with Marx's writings. You would have thought that someone who spent several pages quoting Marx would have read the man's works, but you'd be wrong. He does not discuss post-scarcity economics at length, despite post-scarcity scenarios being the pre-requisites for an "Authentic" Marxist revolution. Blah blah state socialism blah Maoism blah Lenin blah blah. The author interestingly cites capitalism as the force driving the industrial revolution, rather than the progress of technology. He does not talk about the countless deaths, cryptoslavery, environmental destruction, or waste of resources resulting from free market-style economics, but is happy to blame authoritarian genocides in authoritarian communist regimes for communist deaths. (Typical from libertarians & fundie capitalist WASPs...)

His argument defusing the Marxist tension between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat is that most workers like their bosses. That's a cute sentiment, but it's missing the point by miles.

About half of it is just citations from public domain sources; most of what surrounds these lengthy citations is just framing or snide remarks writing off extensive opposing viewpoints to his hypothesis as being just wrong.


He closes by essentially equating taxation, regulation, and messages of tolerance tyranny. At least he doesn't pull the "Hitler was a communist" card.

You're not a philosopher, Mark, despite quoting philosophers.

If you aren't a crazy, uneducated Christian, or a selfish person willing to use "patriotism" and "Christian ethics" as an emotional appeal, this work will not convince you. This work's tone and presentation is very similar to Christian fundamentalist apologies. If you don't subscribe to the Christian protestant work ethic, you will not find value in this book.

[Charles · Rating 1 out of 5]

Waste of time - I can't figure-out why this book is so highly rated - really confused. First, there's only about 10% original content in here - mostly direct quotes (appropriately footnoted) and many go on for pages. Secondly, his emotional hate for progressives taints his ability to clearly state his thesis (in that 10% original writing). Finally, I was put-off early on by his position that unless you believe in God you don't live by "natural law" ? What???? Maybe his other stuff is better, but save your time and money on this one.

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

As with all books written by Mark Levin, Rediscovering Americanism is thought-provoking and extremely well researched. Looking at our Constitution, as well as the writings of our Founding Fathers and the philosophical teachings of Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Aristotle, Locke, Croly and Marx, Levin examines our current expanding role of government. The American Dream is under siege with the increasing prevalence of collectivism. We tell our children to strive to be their personal best..to work hard..to study..to win the race..to practice..to strive for honors...yet we live in a society in which everyone gets a trophy. I fear the road our country is taking in which government controls our personal and economic freedoms with the individual being no longer of importance.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am only on page 19, but already (at this point) think this book is a 5. It is such a crucial issue to be discussing and with the July 4th holiday coming up, wanted to point it out to anyone who may be interested; makes perfect holiday reading, especially for our times.
***As the replies discuss below this review, I need to drop the rating down to a 4 (I have a couple chapters left); primarily because it is a little hard to understand for me. As stated, I definitely attribute that mostly to my deficiency, not to Levin's. I need to continue to read and understand better all the history and philosophy involved in all this. I am leaving it a 4 however based on the seriousness and importance of the information it discusses. Also as stated in the replies below, I believe this to be one of the most crucial problems of our time that all Americans should be thinking about and learning about. We see the fruits of all of this play out every day....the effects of which touch all of us.
***I had to increase the rating back up to a 5...although the middle third of the book was harder for me to understand fully, (which again, I put on me, not him), the beginning and ending third of the book are just spot on in this vital issue.

[Jeanette · Rating 4 out of 5]

The pure scholarship in this book is phenomenal. Superb. It's a critique too in every sense of particular outcome for the future America if Progressive tenets are continued to be applied. They are nearly the antithesis of the Americanism of the Federalist papers and the core of the Constitution. Absolutely the antithesis of the philosophy which formed the USA entity beyond just the written laws and structures.

It's heavy. Too pedantic for me to give it 5 stars; it's a very difficult read because of the exact quotation and research embedded. His is a brilliant mind.

Those readers who gave this book 1 star, did not read this book and if they truly did, they do not understand the history, nor the real Founders' or Levin's language. I think it may be over their head. They must hold a worldview that contains no windows to any other "eyes" but ones of identity based division and more and more overhead and endless top down authoritarian big government control. Not a Republic and not one based on INDIVIDUAL rights as was founded.

This is not a book I would recommend for the light and enjoyment reader. It's a thorough proof thesis and it is worthy of study.

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was my first Levin book.....I think I should've started with some of his earlier writings and I would've appreciated this more. This was a far more complex read than I had anticipated so put your thinkng cap on. It offered a thorough review of the progressive movement and how it opposes the worldview of the framers of our country. He's spot on the progressive movement is destructive to everything that has made our country unique and great. The author mostly failed to connect the book to modern day, to where we are at now in this country and what to do. But at the end I understood that he's offered those ideas elsewhere, so I'm intrigued to read his other books. Plus I've always enjoyed Levin when I've been able to listen to his talk radio show. So if your interested in this book I would read his earlier and seemingly more interesting books first.

[Timothy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I give up. I tried. I really tried to hold out and finish this book. But it now goes to the rare list of books I just couldn't suffer all the way through.

First- The vast majority of the pages of this book are filled with verbatim quotes from The Founding Fathers and in some cases from philosophers hundreds of years before them. Not exactly my cup of reading tea.

Second- It's not even a stretch for me to say; I could have written this book. I mean, seriously. Mark Levin barely wrote it himself. Here's an imitation of the book to prove my claim:

In 1776 Mr Billy Bob said ...' (next 3 pages contain actual LONG quote from Mr Billy Bob). Mr Billy Bob would go on to say...'(2 more full page quotes from Mr Bob.) *Repeat for 226 pages*

Suggestion to Goodreads, make 1 STAR = pure torture to the reader.

I should also point out that I'm actually a fan Mark Levin. Imagine how tough it would be for someone that doesn't like him to make it through this. Oooof

[Ada · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important read for all Americans!

We must review -- or learn for the first time -- the vision our Founders had for the new republic. The philosophical underpinnings of our nation are amazing. What's terrible: how Progressivism is eroding our nation and its philosophical underpinnings and, as a result, our individual liberties.

This book is not an easy read. It's an intense read!

Recommended for all Americans ages 16 and over.

[Mike Heyd · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this book Mark Levin offers an erudite review of the philosophical foundations of American political society, all to the end of exposing the shortcomings of “progressivism.” Unfortunately he never clearly defines what he means by progressivism. Had he done so, and analyzed the specific failings of contemporary progressivism as thoroughly as he covers its philosophical antecedents, the book might be enlightening and instructive. As it is, I’m left wondering why he thinks progressives are against the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Levin seems devoutly dedicated to free-market Capitalism and repeats the anemic Republican mantra that under its reign anyone who wants all of its benefits need only work for them, a gross oversimplification if ever there was one. Levin’s literature review is fairly impressive; his analytical skills are not. And there is scarcely an original thought or statement in the entire book.

[Chris Hart · Rating 1 out of 5]

It really pains me to give this book one star. I think Mark Levin has been a preeminent voice for constitutional conservatism. I've read all his previous books save "Plunder and Deceit", and I've enjoyed and learned from them. This book, however, is basically a string of lengthy quotations from past writers. And I do mean LENGTHY--the longest one I took note of, once I started keeping track, was 3 1/2 pages. Average quotes are over a page long. And there is very little of Mark's original writing in between quotes. I can read deToqueville or the Federalist papers or any of the other sources he quotes on my own; I don't need someone picking out passages. What a disappointment.

[Anders Koskinen · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a collection of quotes. Not just of quotes, but of block quotes some of which span multiple pages of this work. Levin offers next to nothing in terms of original thought, merely cobbling together the thoughts of both progressives and conservatives on the nature of man and of government. This book does not even serve as a good reference book, as the quotes are confusingly stitched together and poorly set up. I have never labored to get through any book so much as I did this one.

[Vader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite being a best seller for weeks, I am amazed at how our press has not done any interviews about this book.

What a shocker.

5 star - Perfect
4 star - i would recommend
3 star - good
2 star - struggled to complete
1 star - could not finish

[Thomas Mulshine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the book on audible. It was interesting but hard to distinguish the authors words versus quotations.

[Garrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a time when nationalism, populism, cult of personality, and progressivism have emerged as the dominant schools of thought, Mark Levin's book is a well-timed study of the eternal principles embedded in our founding documents that made America special...and a plea for the nation to return to them, before we lose them.

Levin looks to the writings of the Founders and other political philosophers to expound on the revolutionary ideas of natural law and inalienable rights (which Levin has dubbed Americanism) that ultimately made America the most innovative and powerful nation the world has ever seen. Why are these principles so important, so powerful, and why is America abandoning them for something more ordinary and tyrannical?

Have we not already experienced the failure of the Progressive movement, which is reshaping America into a more centralized, primitive, arrogant form of governance?

Levin also examines recent so-called Progressive thinkers like Woodrow Wilson who repeatedly expressed his long-held contempt for the Declaration of Independence and its principles. Other philosophers Levin examines have impacted President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other influential modern Progressives, including members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those who are expecting a rehash of Levin's bracing and oftentimes wildly entertaining radio show may be surprised to be find a more cerebral style pervades his writing. 'Rediscovering Americanism' is on a college level, and I expect many will find its material quite challenging.

I have read all of Levin's books since the inception of his radio show, and I still find that I need to take time to digest his writing. It often takes me several sittings, pen in hand, furiously underlining and marking the passages I find especially impactful or challenging.

As is his custom, Levin's book concludes with a call to action, hoping his work will be impactful in a practical sense.

But the way Levin ends this one is not as inspiring as he has in past books, and I was a bit thrown by its frankness. He expresses exasperation that the D.C. establishment refuses to act to avert the fiscal crisis or do anything meaningful to restore constitutional structures. Although he praises the grassroots volunteers of Convention of States Project (a movement to use the Constitution to restore America's principles which he jump-started with 'The Liberty Amendments'); Levin worries we are losing everything that made America special, and wonders if enough people are willing to do anything about it.

"What will the future hold for our children and grandchildren?" he writes. "Will they be free, happy, prosperous, independent, and secure? What of the civil society? Will it have have frayed beyond repair? What will they say about us? Will they say that we were a wise and conscientious people...or will they say we were a self-indulgent and inattentive people, easily shepherded...who stole the future from our own children and generations yet born?"

Levin is seemingly a voice in the wilderness, a prophet who pleas with his people to turn from the path of destruction and back toward the path of justice and freedom, their true heritage... He's a lone voice with millions of listeners, but more of the listeners need to become activists.

'Rediscovering Americanism' feels like a sequel, or perhaps a prequel, to 'Ameritopia' (which I still believe is his best book, and he has intimated the same). Perhaps the most valuable thing about Levin's books is that he introduces his massive following to great thinkers that we otherwise would never have read or studied, but they were well-read by the Founders.

By more intimately understanding the thinking of our Founders--and the philosophy of those who reject them--the reader is captured by a renewed reverence and deeper belief in the eternal truths that truly make America great.

As President Coolidge once said, (in response to the Progressives who rejected of the Declaration of Independence):

"The Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man--these...are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world..."

"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final."

"No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time where there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people."

"Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

[Stephanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

   Sometimes when I have been marking a lot of places in a book to note in my review, I start typing them up as I go along, so as to re-use my little post-it tabs instead of having thirty sticking out of one book, then finalizing the review when I finish the book. By page 118/the end of chapter 3, I had already put in at least five, so I started typing them up and commenting on them. Normally five isn’t a great number, but that had also been me not marking everything as I came across it to note. After only typing up one big quote with commentary and a shorter second one, and given how frustrating and what a slog it has been to wade through this book, I’ve decided not to finish the book.
   Some other reviews I saw say that the book is just more of the same – Levin extensively quoting others, while adding precious little of his own analysis or even to tie the quotes together in any concrete way. (Of positive note is that Levin does provide ample footnotes for all of the quotes he uses in a handy reference/works cited at the back of the book.) Considering I’m halfway through the book as it is, I don’t see any indication from Levin that these other reviews are erroneous, and indeed, will make this the first book to go on my brand-spanking-new DNF shelf. It’s just not worth my time or energy to wade through something where the author can’t even manage to make a coherent argument.
   Here is a succinct summary of two of his first three chapters (the first half of the book) as follows from my book progress updates:

Chapter 2: Maybe 10% of chapter 2 (which was about 60 pages long!) was Levin's own words. The rest was him quoting 'progressive' figures. When he did comment, it was largely vague fear-mongering and 'Progressivism is bad! It takes away from individualism and encourages collectivism! It adheres to the idea that there is no immutable truth! Bad!'
Chapter 3: So, basically, Levin argues in the chapter philosopher kings that Progressivism is an embracing of communism/Marxism, as well as the path to a constitional monarchy, in neither of which is the individual allowed his/her individuality? That's what he seems to be saying, when he uses his own words at all, anyways.
How much more time is he going to spend/waste quoting others before he starts arguing his own points?

   Levin relies on his readers to read his extensive citations and already see what he does, already be of his mind regarding “Americanism” and “Progressivism” and goodness knows what else he plans to rant about. Because honestly? That second chapter where it seems about 90% of it is quotes from progressive minds about progressivism? I was largely agreeing with the things said in those quotes. It was when Levin offered his vague, fear-mongering, Christian fundamentalist (I think that’s what it is, at least, when he thinks the “Christian ideals” are the one and only means by which the Constitution should be interpreted and life lived? Feel free to let me know if I’m wrong!), anti-progressivism, natural truth is immutable and never-changing opinion that he not only loses me, but he loses any credibility he is trying to establish for his argument.
   Because he doesn’t argue it.
   He resorts to language which is not meant to persuade or even inform/educate, but instead to strike a general, vague fear against the “other”. Often, this is by naming abstract ideas/modes of thought, such as “constitutional republicanism”, without any explanation as to how they apply to what is being said or meant. I mean, if there is any actual argument in the first three chapters, it essentially boils down to “Progressivism is bad! Progressivism seeks to destroy individuality! Progressivism is contrary to the immutable truths of the world!” without presenting any sort of convincing argument or statements to actually support it half as well as those quotes support progressivism. Here’s an example – maybe not even the best one, but one of many similar ones:

In a recurring theme among progressives, Croly condemned the Constitution’s separation of powers, a doctrine essential to averting centralized tyranny, as the main obstacle to progress. “If the people are to be divided against themselves in order that righteousness may rule, still more must the government be divided against itself. It must be separated into departments each one of which must act independently of the others…The government was prevented from doing harm, but in order that it might not do harm it was deliberately and effectively weakened. The people were protected from the government; but quite as much was the government protected from the people. In dividing the government against itself by such high and rigid barriers, an equally substantial barrier was raised against the exercise by the people of any easy and sufficient control over their government. It was only a very strong and persistent popular majority which could make its will prevail, and if the rule of a majority was discouraged, the rule of a minority was equally discouraged. But the rulers, whether representing a majority or a minority, could not and were not supposed to accomplish much. It was an organization of obstacles and precautions—based at bottom on a profound suspicion of human nature.” – page 35-36

   The above passage (bolding my own, to highlight where I draw my conclusions below from), is sandwiched between more quotes which address other aspects and similarly vague/fear-mongering brief statements by Levin. Taken in just the context provided, I do not see how the excerpt as it stands, separate from the full document he is citing from, is sufficient evidence that Levin’s statement regarding Croly’s stance is accurate. If anything, my takeaway from this excerpt of Croly’s is that a decentralized/divided government is as weak as the divided people it governs. That ultimately, the design of the government is that every aspect of government and the people is handicapped and prevented from being able to easily and effectively accomplish tasks (presumably “progress”= these tasks). While Croly may condemn a separation of powers, he in no way links it to any sort of method/doctrine for avoiding centralized tyranny in this excerpt. He condemns the separation of powers because that makes it difficult to get things done (as we have seen, time and time again!). Difficult for the government to do things, but equally difficult for the people to effect change as well – because the design of our system, if anything, has too many fail-safes worked into it to allow a smooth and easy progress or change in, well, anything.
   Later, after continuing to extensively quote Croly, Levin offers up this assertion:

Let us remember, for the progressive, historical progress is said to be a process of never-ending cultural and societal adjustments intended to address the unique circumstances of the time, the ultimate goal of which is economic egalitarianism and the material liberation of “the masses.” – page 37

   So what, exactly, is wrong with everything preceding “the ultimate goal”? (Which I’m not convinced he even understood any “ultimate goal” of progressivism anyways, but that would be too much of a digression) Because the way I see it, that is exactly what historical progress is about, and how we’ll move forward. To put it in terms that maybe even Levin can understand, it is because the Founding Fathers saw the troubles with the monarchy and state they were breaking from, and thus conceived of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that they made adjustments in their proposed way of governing to address the unique circumstances of the time.

“No taxation without representation.”

   A deceptively brief and simple statement that we often take as a sound bite for the American Revolution, but which, in and of itself, is a moment of progress. It represents the Founding Fathers seeing how things work and realizing that they don’t—can’t—work that way anymore, and that a drastic change must happen, that there must be a better way to do things.
   I’ll end with this lovely piece of work, for once straight Levin, in one of the longest strings of original text he has offered as of halfway through this book, with selected commentary – an entire argumentative essay could probably be written about just this paragraph:

Again and again, the goal of the progressives is to unmoor the individual and society from America’s heritage with populist tirades, prodding, and indoctrination, the purpose of which is to build popular support for a muscular centralized government ruled by a self-aggrandizing intellectual elite through an extra constitutional and autocratic administrative Leviathan. Moreover, the individual is to be denuded of his personal traits, “primitive nature,” and “old beliefs,” since his true liberty, satisfaction, and realization are said to be tied to the universality of the state. The government, through “science” and administration—unencumbered by ancient and archaic eternal truths—can alter society in ways that supposedly modernize and improve it. Furthermore, the individual’s focus on self rather than community, and his old habits, beliefs, and traditions, must be altered through socializing education and training, thereby making him the kind of person and citizen whose behavior better conforms to the egalitarian purposes and general welfare of the overall society.
Of course, this is the death of individualism and republicanism. (page 77)

From where I stand, the accusations he levels against progressivism even more accurately describe the blind loyalty of the conservative Republican base he appeals to. The “populist tirades, prodding, and indoctrination” is exactly what is going on in the conservative and Republican circles these days – especially when you realize that populism does not equate solely with “egalitarianism” as he seems to think:

1) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
2) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
3) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc. (taken from Dictionary.com 2/17/2021)

If he wants prodding and indoctrination, he need look no further than the inciting that Trump did of far-right and like-minded people, that they feel comfortable openly and brazenly attacking our very Capitol while Congress was in session to validate the votes for the presidential election.
   Levin also takes issue with a “self-aggrandizing intellectual elite” ruling a centralized government – a very anti-authority point of view – when many of the Founding Fathers themselves were an example of the intellectual elite of their times, easily evidence in the many writings and more they left behind. Benjamin Franklin was a philosopher and scientist, Thomas Jefferson a very intellectual mind, to name just two.
   Not to mention the “extra constitutional and autocratic administrative Leviathan” he claims progressivism is – when you look at the number of executive orders going back to 1994 (the earliest available online on a government website), specifically for the first term of a president, it was the Republican presidents who signed more executive orders than the Democratic ones. Trump signed something like 14 alone in January 2021 before he left office! So please, tell me more how a Democratic president signing a few executive orders is suddenly an autocrat but a Republican doing the same is not?
   He even goes so far as to say that in a progressive world, “the individual is to be denuded of his personal traits” – yet it is the progressives who open their arms and hearts to the diversity of all humankind, wanting people to be able to express themselves as they are, not as society perceives them or tries to box them to fit molds. For example, welcoming and supporting the LGBTQIA+ community for who they are, as they want to show themselves. Yet conservatives (in general, not all, of course, and there are probably some liberals with them) are the ones who think being gay is wrong and sinful, that a queer couple should not be allowed to adopt children or marry even in civil union. Is that not a denuding of personal traits, telling queer people that they cannot be who they are, but instead must conform to rigid “old beliefs” of heterosexuality and monogamy?
   Levin even takes issue with science and what we learn from it. I don’t know about you, but I would much rather a heart surgeon with extensive training and education operate on me/a loved one/anyone instead of some random person off the street handed a scalpel and told “this person needs a triple bypass, you ready to do it?” (Yes this is an extreme example, but extreme examples seem to be Levin’s bread and butter, so what else is there to do but meet him on his own turf?) It also applies to his problems with “socializing education and training,” even though the point of that statement is against such a small thing as “making him the kind of person and citizen whose behavior better conforms to the […] general welfare of the overall society.” I mean really, who on earth would want there to be any sort of general welfare of the overall society? It’s really much preferable to have some people eating off golden plates while many others are scraping at bare earth to find food to eat. Okay, I’ll stop with the sarcasm now. But as you can see by just this paragraph and these few examples, it is arguable that the very things Levin accuses and condemns progressivism for are things which are supremely present in the conservative Republican methodology.
   He’s just too indoctrinated with and by his own falsehoods to see it.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have enjoyed all of Levin's books and I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from reading any of them, but this is my least favorite. There are just too many long quotes. It disrupts the flow of the book. I admit it's the way I would be tempted to write a book. I'd think to myself, "I can't say this any better than Montesquieu did in this long passage, so I'll just quote him. Then this passage by Madison, and this one by Tocqueville..." But Levin is too talented to rely on this technique. I understand the value of an appeal to authority, but there was just too much of it here.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has messed with my mind. I just could not stop thinking about the structure of government, democracy, and freedom.

Levin explained the American Declaration of Independence in great detail. I now understand why there will never be gun control in America as the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. The important thing is for the state to leave people alone for the pursuit of happiness. The separation of the executive (president), legislative (congress), and judicial (courts) was totally intentional, preventing any branch taking too much power. To people outside America the federal government can sometimes seem impotent; however that was rather intentional from the founding fathers.

Levin has a dim view of Progressives, who believe in Science trumping traditional and the 'inalienable fundamental natural laws' which is God-given. According to Levin, Progressives want to centralise power so that a small group of elites will run the country, making everyone the same.

Levin thinks that the federal government intervention is necessary, to provide some education, some health coverage, defence and rules to promote Capitalism and competition. Other than those, it should just back off and allow the market to decide most stuffs.

I finally understand why the Republican party has won back control of both the Houses and the Presidency. I understand now why a lot of Republicans question Global warming. Americans have spoken and they want to go back to Americanism. The world, beware.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark Levin has written an excellent critique of almost every work I read in the first year of post graduate studies. He appears to hold Marx, Hegel, Croly, Dewey, and Wilson In an even greater degree of disdain than I do. His thoughts and mention of Tocqueville, Smith, Hayek, Mill, Friedman, Bastia, and the Federalist was a refreshing reminder of the extracurricular reading I did just to keep my sanity.

The last page of the epilogue... "those of us whose eyes are open, whatever our numbers, have a moral obligation to try to rouse our fellow citizens to take a sober and critical look at the decaying societal conditions, from which a truthful conclusion can be drawn and perhaps improvements made." This statement is the logical conclusion and justification for the entire book. It is a call to action for likeminded individuals to discuss liberty and conservatism to our friends and neighbors, especially those that don't want to listen.

[Jackie White · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very heavy and difficult book to get through, but in a good way. The author touches on everything from America’s Christian heritage to our most undeniable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...and brings it home with words of our Founding Fathers. Very inspirational and hopeful. Another reason Levin is one of my favorite conservatives.

[Owlseyes]

[Lee Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to the audio-book two times, but obviously didn't ingest it as much as I would have while reading a copy. It's a hard listen!

This is an interesting take on what it means to be an american, and what are the core principles the country s built on. It takes the progressives (Hegel, Rousseau, Mark, Dewey, etc) as "Stateists", who want an elite, centralized command to systematically control our lives, for the benefit of the collective. This group sees themselves as "philosopher kings", whose specialized intelligence and expertise can address all of our problems. While I am sure people think this way, I am not sure they are as nefarious as Levin makes them, perhaps they are even well meaning.

This said, Levin makes interesting points about natural laws, tynranny of centralized command, how the government is for giving citizens rights (not dominating), and the idea that people should have property. He traces these arguments through the founding fathers, and the author's they read, such as John Locke, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas.

I couldn't quite parse the chapters about the structure of the government, it's a pretty nuanced argument, but the most interesting thing he points out is natural laws. IE: Are our morals intrinsic to nature, or are they arbitrary that we can make up. Some of the great societies thought that there was such thing as natural law: The stoics (live according to nature), buddhists, John Locke, Christianity, and the founding fathers. I tend to believe there is something universal underlying how we act. For instance, why do we feel bad when we lie? And why do most cultures feel bad when they lie? There is a "natural law" against it, and through reasoning we can some to understand it better.

Anyways, given the political scene, I think it's a good idea to look back into the origins of America to understand the ideas behind what made us such a successful and prosperous nations. Although there are obvious downsides, life has improved across the board, and other systems (monarchies, socialism) always seem to crumble.

Some of the concepts were pretty nuanced (negative and positive liberty, how the government controls people, then itself, etc.) so I will probably have to listen again or read it to undersatand these points better.

[Dan DalMonte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Levin does a great job laying out the various thinkers who propelled both constitutional republicanism and the progressive movement. You will understand the roots and central ideas of these movements much better after reading this book. One issue with this book is that it is about 70-80% quotes. Levin will write a brief introductory sentence to organize the quotes, but sometimes the quote will go on for most of the page and veer into topics that Levin did not introduce. The book is basically meant to whet your appetite to explore the primary texts that are cited, to really penetrate to the original thinkers who drive the movements we see today. I am inspired to read more Locke, to understand the natural law, and also Hegel, to understand how the individual is supposed to find his or her true freedom in the state.

[Allen Bagby · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can I say? Another home run from a true liberty-loving scholar. I listen to Mark's radio program a lot. He is, as they say, the thunder on the right. He is very passionate on his program. I love it. But in his books, he is a professor. Great stuff and I love that too. Can't recommend his books enough.

[Tracey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed listening to this book while on a very long drive. I enjoyed hearing about our country's history from the very beginning and how it has changed over time, while I may not like the changes. Mark Levin is a controversial political radio talkshow host Who addresses many interesting points to ponder.

[Dan Riolo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read. Took me a while to get through it because of how in-depth it was, but worth the work. If I didn't have a background in history and economics then I don't know if I would have made it all the way through though...

[Ash · Rating 2 out of 5]

what the actual fuck is this dude on about??

and waaaayy to many (and long) quotes

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love Mark Levin. His books are always worth reading. Intelligent & educational

[Feng Ouyang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism
by Mark R. Levin
This book, written by a conservative radio show host and author, is a systematic statement of the conservative political view. The book can be roughly divided into three parts.
The first part (chapters 1 to 3) reviews the positions of conservatism and progressivism. In the author’s framework, conservatism refers to the founding father’s views, as reflected in the U. S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, of a limited government, rooted in John Locke’s social contract philosophy. He also calls it Americanism. To the conservatives, a just society is based on human nature, which is permanent. Therefore, the guiding principles of the Government, as stated in the U. S. Constitution, remain valid throughout the ages. Progressivism, on the other hand, believes that a society is in continuous progress, and so should be its guiding principle. As society becomes more sophisticated, more power should be concentrated on the Government for effective managing. Therefore, they view the U. S. Constitution as an outdated document made for a particular era. Progressivism stems from the European philosophy that views society (and thus government) as the fundamental entity. The “common good” and “collective interest” trumps individual rights.
The second part (chapters 4 and 5) deals specifically with the relationship between Government and individuals. In this sense, the author labels his position as liberalism, since it values individual rights advocates a limited government. In particular, he argues that even with a government with a democratic process cannot cross the boundary of individual liberty. He bases the argument on three grounds. First, philosophically, individual rights are the most fundamental one, while Government power is derived from personal liberty: people willingly give up some rights to better pursue the basic rights of justice, liberty, and happiness. Therefore, the Government only has the powers that people give it. Second, knowledge, especially economic ones, are distributed among all participants of a free market. The notion of running the country by a “scientifically minded” administrative class does not work. Third, a democratic process has the nature of depriving the minority of their rights and lead to inefficient and unjust operations in society. Therefore, we need to put a limit on the power of a democratic body.
The third part extends the argument to property rights. The author pointed out that property rights do not just mean ownership (excluding others from using the property), but also the rights to use the property for productive use. Therefore, a well-functioned free market (including capital market) is required for property rights. On the contrary, a centrally controlled economy in any form deprives property rights. It leads to disastrous consequences, as proven by the history of both the Soviet Union and the U. S. (the New Deal).
This book is very similar to “The Conservative Sensibility” by George F. Will. They are both meta-studies of past thinkers. In these books, conservative thinking is explained through numerous citations of past work. But it is not supported by evidence and logic. The book does a great job of highlighting the difference between conservatism and progressivism. This helps in energizing the conservative base. However, it does not convince people who do not subscribe to conservative philosophies in the first place.
The book also frequently refers to contents in other books written by the same author. Therefore, it might be helpful to read the other books, as well.

A more detailed summary follows.
1. Americanism
● The basic concept put forward by the Declaration of Independence: everyone has natural rights, which is the foundation of building a society. This idea appeared in many other political documents at the time. So it is the consensus during the founding period.
● The concepts originate from John Locke’s philosophy. It can also be traced back to Aristotle and early Roman philosophers.
● People’s natural rights are the most fundamental. Natural rights lead to natural laws, which are the ideas of justice and rightness. As with natural rights, natural laws are universal and perpetual.
● The states are established on the bases of natural rights and natural laws. Their purpose is to protect and facilitate natural rights.
2. The Progressive Masterminds
● American progressivism started in the late 19th century. Notably by Herbert Croly (1869-1930), founder of the New Republic.
○ The basic idea is that human society is in a process of constant progression.
○ The states are established to advance such progression.
○ The laws and the ideas of justice evolve with the progression. So they change as society changes.
○ Croly especially despised individualism. He thought people are inseparable in creating common goods for society. His views were echoed by Barak Obama in his “you didn’t make it” speech. Croly also disagreed with the idea that individual freedom enables people to pursue equal economic opportunities. Instead, he considered equal economic opportunities (more like equal outcomes, as he advocates government regulation of wealth distribution) is a prerequisite for individual freedom.
○ Croly was against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on several grounds.
■ They don’t dictate American values, which come from multiple sources.
■ They are not permanent but were based on social situations at the time.
■ They are not democratically drafted but the product of a small group of elites.
○ Croly has a different view of the government
■ The check and balance process and the Consitution amendment hurdles prevent the Government to represent the will of people. Only overwhelming public tendency can change the course of Government.
■ On the other hand, Croly thought that the Government should not run by people but by a group of highly educated experts. They should be free to conduct social experiments and social engineering to advance progressive courses.
■ To gain popular support for progressive courses, people need to be educated. So spreading higher education is an important progressive agenda.
○ Croly’s positions are closer to revolutionaries than to democrats.
■ He thinks capitalism produces a class society, which is unjust.
■ The current two parties are too weak to change anything. We need a third party, which is similar to Marx’s communist party with clear canons like The Communist Manifesto.
■ He was impatient about changes following the democratic process. Instead, he wants radical actions akin to a revolution.
● Teddy Roservolt (1858-1909) is a follower of Croly.
○ He did not agree with the idea of natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
○ Another component of progressivism from Roservolt is nationalism, which moves more power from states and local governments to the Federal level. Their justification is that national popular votes should determine public affairs. But another purpose is to move government affairs away from people and into the hands of “experts.”
● Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was another prominent progressivist
○ He also stresses the variable nature of laws and principles. He viewed the founding documents as obsolete.
○ He advocates a highly efficient and powerful bureaucratic state to deal with the challenges of today’s complex society. He views the state not as a guarantor of people’s rights but as a facilitator.
● John Dewey (1859-1952) is the consummation of progressivism
○ He criticized John Locke’s idea of natural rights, which precedes human society. He does not believe in absolute and permanent human nature.
○ He thought capitalism was outdated. In the complex society today, we cannot rely on the market to coordinate things. Instead, we need central planning and control from the experts.
○ He was against individualism. He thought individual values can only be realized in a collective context, just as a spec of color is meaningful only when considering the whole painting.
○ His view of social science is social experimentation. We need to explore and test out new methods of running a society in response to the changing conditions. And since society changes fast, our responses need to be drastic.
○ Dewey is also set to reform American education. He views education as a social tool to shape the ideas of students. He advocates teaching science as a distilled set of laws and facts, not a way to understand and handle things in daily lives. He removes common sense and traditions (rules of thumb) from the education contents. He also envisions having other social institutions serving the roles of educators to promote collective ideology.
● Walter Weyl (1873 - 1919), nationalist
○ Weyl thought America had the wrong past (Declaration and Constitution) and miserable present. It pretty much should start afresh.
● As Tocqueville pointed out, a strong and overbearing government engaging in social engineering is harmful in many ways.
○ It breaks down the community as spontaneous cooperations become unnecessary and impossible. People rely on the government instead of neighbors for help.
○ It degrades and destroys individuals. The ever-increasing roles stiffen out innovation and adventurism. People become less vital and less innovative.
○ It turns democracy into tyranny. When a government has to deal with small decisions that are used to be left to individuals, people find governing overwhelming and give their power to the “professionals.”
3. The Philosopher-Kings
● Progressive thoughts about the role of states in Europe in 18 centuries onward
○ Economically (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), inequality tends to grow. A small inequality of results leads to inequality in opportunity, which leads to even larger inequality in results. Therefore, a government is needed to limit inequality by redistribution.
○ Politically (also Rousseau), a state is needed to represent the “common will”, which is different from the collection of individual wills. Since a common will is not simply an aggregate of the individual wills, the state cannot simply be ruled by the majority. Instead, we need wise and knowledgeable “kings” to execute the common will.
○ Philosophically (Hagel and Marx), the state is the real essence of existence. Individuals are only meaningful when they “advance” to members of a state. Furthermore, history evolves according to its intrinsic track. So individuals don’t really have any roles to play.
4. Administrative-State Tyranny
● This section is about the practice of American progressives in governing.
● Society precedes government (the constitutional order), which is established to serve society. This is the social contract idea stated in the Declaration of Independence.
● Progressive thinks as a society becomes more advanced and complex, its government should be controlled by elites, not the people.
● Hayek (1899-1992) pointed out that even for the truly knowledgeable, power gives them the wrong incentive. They care less about the truths than about attractiveness by “newness” of the ideas.
● While the progressives derive their legitimacy from “science” and “intelligence,” the fact is that most governments and government programs are run poorly, and administrative science is no science at all.
● Progressives grab power for their ideology. So they must deny the natural laws and with that, the US constitution.
5. Liberty and Republicanism
● This section discusses some more theoretical issues.
● John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) provides excellent writings on the meaning of liberty. [He is a utilitarian, believing happiness to be the highest value.]
○ On the boundary between individual and society rights, Mill’s answer is that society protects individuals from infringement by others. In other words, the domain of personal freedom is limited only by the interest of other people.
○ Although Mill values happiness the most, he considers virtue as an important component of it. Such a point is consistent with Jefferson’s view. Virtue is human nature and the foundation of society. The government cannot replace virtue and cannot operate without virtue.
○ Since virtue, as human nature, is fundamentally important to all forms of society, laws should be judged on the basis of virtue. There are good laws and bad laws, therefore.
● Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) talked about the issue of liberty
○ Berlin proposes positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty means the absence of barriers that prevents you to do something. It is more related to individuals. Positive liberty means the resources and power that enable you to do something. It is more related to collectives.
○ Berlin clarifies that it may be righteous and justified to ask people to sacrifice their freedom for equity (or “positive liberty”). However, we must recognize that this is a sacrifice. We do not end up with more freedom by such sacrifice.
○ Another danger of stressing positive liberty is to confuse people with the collective. With “common goals”, we stop to be individuals.
● Philip Pettit (1945-) on freedom
○ He distinguishes between the good interference and the bad one. The republican governing is “good interference,” because it uses just laws without overstepping into personal freedom. Good laws relieve people from domination. For this, the Bill of Rights is a good example.
○ There is a difference between intervention and dominant. Intervention is governing according to people’s will. Dominant is governing according to the will of a small group (e.g., the scientists).
○ Comparing with Berlin, who advocates nonintervention (or minimum intervention), Pettit accepts intervention as long as it is not dominant. However, the difference may not be essential. Pettit’s “right intervention” can actually assure liberty, as the Bill of Rights did.
● The progressive views on the issue are represented by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) and his philosophy of positivism.
○ Positivism elevates science to the position of the supreme law. Permanent truths and transcending laws such as Human nature and natural justices are relegated to irrelevance with religion.
○ According to the concept of positive law, society should be governed by science, or more specifically, by those who understand science. The wills of the people are not supreme. Instead, they are to be shaped and controlled by science.
○ However, eventually, the “science” becomes the new dogma (e.g., the climate change theory) and the “wisdom” becomes tyranny.
● The republican view of government is based on the philosophy of Montesquieu.
○ Montesquieu is definitely against the despotic governments, which concentrates the power into the hands of a small group. Although despotic governing is against human nature and ideals, it is nevertheless th

[Dr. David Steele · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important re-examination of the essential ingredients of the American experiment and the consequences of embracing a progressive agenda.

[Simon Mee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rediscovering Americanism is a throwback to the hottest book craze of the early Middle Ages: The compilation.

At a minimum, two-thirds, two-thirds of Rediscovering Americanism is block quoting from other texts. Perhaps Levin is expecting an apocalyptic destruction of the Internet, audiobooks and libraries. Rediscovering America will then serve as a link to the past, apparently unfillable by an encylopedia or a photocopier.

Because otherwise, I have to ask, what the **** is the point of this book?

The Point?

There is this concept of "natural law", derived from external, objective sources. According to Levin, natural law is good and America's founding documents have a lot of it.

In effect, the United States is blessed with "big naturals".

In contrast, Progressivism is legal positivism, and that is bad:

Berlin was also well aware of the calculating psychology and behavior of the autocratic masterminds, among whom I include the progressives.

These dastardly progressives are not even principled about it:

For the progressive, the answer is the centralized administrative state, where the individual is coerced in infinite ways, as willed by the machinery of the state. As such, reason transforms into will, which in turn transforms into an ideological pursuit of control and power.

The problem with Rediscovering Americanism is that it’s all text and no context. Levin throws spaghetti on the wall then asks you to decipher the tomato sauce dripping down. Lengthy extracts without explanation just reminds the reader that they could obtain the contextual clues by reading the full set of texts directly.

By way of example, Levin includes a letter by Jefferson from 1826 where Jefferson toots his own horn about the amazingness of the Declaration of Independence as a piece of natural law. This letter is 6 years after the Missouri Compromise, an arrangement that Jefferson himself foresaw (and wrote about!) as destructive to the Union. With the Missouri Compromise, concepts of "natural law" ran up against political reality. It is negligent for Levin to pretend that history was unfolding in a different direction than as portrayed by a man on his deathbed. Jefferson writing about how good a job he did is not a permission slip to ignore the context in which he wrote.

The Point?!

As most of the texts Levin block quotes are well past copyright expiry, “natural law” is not new. Levin fails to advance the discussion from 1792’s neighbour, who manufactures woollen cloth. Levin, how about having some guts and show us how natural law can be applied in a relatively contemporaneous situation, such as, I dunno, an ectopic pregnancy? No one needs Levin to reproduce the first ten Constitutional Amendments in full and tell us they are a set of negative liberty directives. That’s just some weak tea.

The point of Levin's book is that it is an argument from those he deems to be authorities, be it Jefferson, Locke, or Rousseau. Yes, Milton Friedman was a Nobel Laureate and prominent free market economist but capitalism is a necessary condition of political freedom is not correct just because Friedman says it.

Hilariously Levin gets himself lost on this economics point. While all these superb thinkers are right (so much so their thoughts need to cover several pages) natural law is even more critical to understanding the American revolution. Thanks Levin for letting us know that you cannot find a text linking free market capitalism to natural law. We all know you would have reproduced it at length if you could. The values and workings of free market capitalism does not fit the point of his book. He risks engaging in, dare I say it, moral relativism.

Thanks for the compilation, but these aren’t the Greatest Hits.