Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party

by Dinesh D'Souza

In Death of a Nation , Dinesh D'Souza tackles the biggest lie of the left―that America is a society based on white supremacy. Now a major motion picture.

Who is killing America? Is it really Donald Trump and a GOP filled with white supremacists? In a major new work of historical revisionism, Dinesh D’Souza makes the provocative case that Democrats are the ones killing America by turning it into a massive nanny state modeled on the Southern plantation system.

This sweeping alternative history of the Democratic Party goes back to its foundations in the antebellum South. The slaveholding elite devised the plantation as a means of organizing labor and political support. It was a mini welfare state, a cradle to grave system that bred dependency and punished any urge to independence. This model impressed northern Democrats, inspiring the political machines that traded government handouts for votes from ethnic immigrant blocs.

Today's Democrats have expanded to a multiracial plantation of ghettos for blacks, barrios for Latinos, and reservations for Native Americans. Whites are the only holdouts resisting full dependency, and so they are blamed for the bigotry and racial exploitation that is actually perpetrated by the left.

Death of a Nation' s bracing alternative vision of American history explains the Democratic Party's dark past, reinterprets the roles of figures like Van Buren, FDR and LBJ, and exposes the hidden truth that racism comes not from Trump or the conservative right but rather from Democrats and progressives on the left.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, Cultural, American

336 pages, Paperback

Published September 24, 2019

About the author

Dinesh D’Souza is a political commentator, bestselling author, filmmaker and a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza writes primarily about Christianity, patriotism and American politics.

Reviews

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perspective: I am 73 years old, went to public schools in the 50’s and 60’s and like most kids of that era we took classes on history and civics. My history classes consisted mostly of American history, in fact I do not remember ever taking any courses on World History. Our civics classes dealt mostly with government organization as it was in the 50’s and 60’s, not how it grew to the massive government we now live with. With that being the case, I can assure you that nowhere in my recollection of my training in history was I ever exposed to some of the details contained in D’Souza’s book(s). For me it was an eye-opener! The following paragraphs in quotes are taken directly from the book. I thought that a direct quote referring to something you the reader may or may not know would be the best example of the facts contained in the book. The following six paragraphs are as they appear in the book in the order they were presented. Fact check them if you don’t believe them.

“The magnificent scope of Republican Reconstruction can be seen in three landmark constitutional amendments: the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment extending equal rights under the law to all citizens; and the Fifteenth Amendment granting blacks the right to vote. These amendments went beyond unbinding the slave and making him a freeman; they also made him a U.S. citizen with the right to cast his ballot and to the full and equal protection of the laws.

These amendments represented the most important moment for American constitutionalism since the Constitution was first drafted and ratified. The entire civil rights movement of the 1960s would be impossible without them.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 relied heavily on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the Fifteenth Amendment.

Yet progressive (those left of the political center) historical accounts as well as progressive textbooks say very little about the debate over the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The reason becomes obvious when we break down the partisan vote on those amendments. One might have thought that after the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment would be a fait accompli. One might expect that every Democrat—at least every Northern Democrat represented in Congress—would now vote for it. In fact, only sixteen of eighty Democrats did.

Let’s pause to digest that for a minute. Even in the aftermath of the Civil War, so strong was their attachment to the plantation that an overwhelming majority of Northern Democrats refused to vote to permanently end slavery. Again, we are speaking of Northern Democrats; Southern Democrats who may have been expected to vote against the amendment were not permitted to vote at all. And when the Thirteenth Amendment went to the states for ratification, only Republican states carried by Lincoln voted for it; Democratic states that went for McClellan all voted no.

On the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Democratic Party’s performance was even more disgraceful. Not a single Democrat, either in the House or the Senate, voted for either amendment. To repeat, these were not Southern Democrats who were excluded from voting; these were Northern Democrats so averse to extending equal rights under law or voting rights to blacks that not a single one of them could bring himself to vote for either measure. So the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments can be considered exclusively Republican achievements, since no Democrats contributed to making them part of the Constitution.”

The book is filled with such FACTS that anyone can fact check. The Death of a Nation is a history book that I doubt a great many Americans such as me have ever heard before. I remember the Civil War taking up a short section in our text books and it basically read that there was a war where a lot of people were killed and it involved the North fighting the South and visa versa over the subject of slavery and that the North won the war. Before you say I am wrong on the brevity of that statement, ask yourself about how much YOU know about the Civil War as it was taught in schools not what you might have later read in books or watched in a documentary?

This is a tremendous read! It is also a disheartening read. It shows America as it was as it was being built and molded. What you read about on almost every page will turn your stomach.

If you consider yourself left of center you probably will NOT read the book or watch the movie and therein is the problem. Those who make that decision will continue with a belief system that may be based on flawed and misleading information. Those to the right of center will read and/or watch the movie and they may be surprised as I was as to how bad American history was “back in the day.” After all these years, a lot has not gotten much better as D’Souza points out.

I have read many Twitter posts of people who criticize the book/movie claiming that the facts contained in each are lies told by D’Souza. But in all of their posts, no one has ever given even one example of such a lie contained in the book/movie. They assume he is lying but provide no proof and that is the worst kind of criticism. People do not seem to understand that he pendulum swings in both directions. What people on the Left of Center believe to be permissible behavior by those Left of Center could very easily be on the receiving end of such treatment when the pendulum evenutally swings in the other direction.

Who should read the book? Every American from the 5th grade and above and especially those who call themselves Democrats. I grew up in a Democratic city in Ohio. I actually liked what I saw in JFK but the Democratic Party depicted in this book is NOT the party of JFK but instead has become an extension of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and more recently LBJ and Obama. If you fact check the book you will understand why that particular legacy is not a good thing. Would I read the book again? Probably not; don’t need to read it twice to understand it. I will go see the movie. Would I give the book as a gift? That is a great question because someone buying it as a gift may be just wasting their money if the recipient makes no attempt to read it. Again, anyone left of the political center will most likely choose NOT to read it and some will even criticize it; both definitely their loss.

[Perry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a biased review from a person who has been a conservative since his early twenties, nearly 30 years. I make no claim to be a history buff, or a person who is constantly tuned into politics. This book, however, resonates very deeply with what I observe and it makes perfect sense through the lens that I interpret the world. What I see in my casual observance is that Democrats use people. They use people under the subtle guise of helping people. Trying to solidify support and future votes and thus securing power. Without any compunction they pit race, class, gender, sexual preference, you name it against each other. The problem is it isn’t working and their policies do not work in governance of a free people. There are no ideas from the Democrats that promote self-reliance, growth, and personal success. Theirs is a victim mentality politics. Constant scheming to redistribute wealth, build dependence all of it is beginning to collapse. Social engineering is a recipe for disaster. How intentional is the ill will of the Democrats? Well that is what Dinesh D’Souza lays out; as well as the intentional historical cover up of the true political extortionist Democrat party. I think the case was made very well. Is the political goal of the Democrats to actually keep the old south plantation in full operation? I am not sure that can be definitively stated. If I had anything critical to say about this book maybe the plantation intention is a stretch but the comparison is effective. Whether wittingly or unwittingly the Democrats are keeping this system in place to the untold detriment of millions of people. The upside is I think the paradigm is changing and the veiled intention of the Democrat party is being lifted. Yes, I definitely recommend this book.

[David Kudlinski · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book, Death of a Nation, is an interesting and offbeat read for those who follow politics. I am a political centrist and Libertarian, and I like to read what’s going on the far left and the far right – usually to rebut it. I’ll tell you what is good, and what is bad about this polarizing book.

The D’Souza book is very well written with few typos. It is very cogent and organized around the theme of attacking Democrats. There are numerous literary citations to validate claims. The author has done a great job of thoroughly digging up every skeleton in the Democrat graveyard. The author identifies key turning points in American history where Democrats allegedly keep reinventing and re-establishing the metaphorical plantation by keeping folks helpless in a servant-master relationship.

Few people today probably know the political structure during the Civil War, and it is certainly bad news for the Democrats to be associated with slavery. The Republicans were the new party on the scene to oppose slavery, and therefore it did not have either a good or bad history at that time. D’Souza white washes the points that the Founders went along with slavery, and so would have Lincoln, to preserve the Union, if slavery could have been contained. D’Souza lionizes how shrewd our ancestors were in doing so. I’m not so sure about that; maybe “pragmatic” is the kindest word.

Problems with the book are numerous. First, his time-line hops through history. The author looks for turning points history, to be sure, but what is happening in the gaps? More specifically, are the Republicans perfect and without scandal? There is no focus on Republican follies, such as The Great Depression, Watergate, Iran Contra, the Gulf War, and the Great Recession of 2008.

The author blames Democrats for exploiting laborers, but Republicans are historically more favorable to corporations and the rich over concerns of the poor. D’Souza does not acknowledge that labor choses to have political counterbalances to hedge against the power of the rich. Without Democrats to counterbalance Republicans, there would be no strong check on the environment, worker safety, product liability, health care coverage, union busting, discrimination, and on and on. As we see in the age of Trump, establishment Republicans provide no Congressional checks and balances on him.

A second weakness in the book is primary focus on extreme authors or leaders throughout history to cherry pick quotes, lampoon and to presume their motives. The author takes no pains to explain what rank-and-file Democrats believed. Do all Democrats believe in slavery, uncontrolled immigration, and a permanent welfare state? No, none do. Perhaps some bad Democrats were or are just plain bad people.

The third red flag in this book is the non-relevance of time. Political platforms change with every election cycle. Slavery was 150 years ago. Who would have believed that Republicans, for example, are now embracing family leave, LGBTQ, and marijuana in 2019? Ironically, a common belief of skeptics in 2019 is that the major political parties are essentially the same – both embrace corporatism, but they are just differentiated on moral wedge issues to divide and rule the country. Another plausible theory is that the parties flipped platforms: Democrat became liberal and Republican became conservative.

“No Republican ever owned a slave.” Well, most likely not, since the Republican party was formed in states that had already outlawed slavery. That statement is impossible to prove without a time machine. At that time, few people were Republican, and the country was a mixture of Whigs, Democrats, No Nothings, and Independents. Most Americans don’t think secular party affiliation means everything in the world, except for partisans, like D’Souza. Also, I contend that no Republicans fought in the Revolutionary War.

Finally, this book is destined for the scrap heap based on some laugh-out-loud and embarrassing errors. D’Souza is not an expert in WWI and WWII. The author is so desperate he falls for a common trap – using a nut like Adolf Hitler to prove political science axioms. D’Souza claims Nazism was based on the USA Democrat platform. Should history reframe Hitler as a USA Democrat? This is preposterous. Hitler wanted to Make Germany Great Again, and his blustery speeches certainly did not emphasize that Woodrow Wilson of all people was his role model.

He claims that the Nazis were actually liberal socialists who killed Jews just because they were jealous of their wealth. I know this is false. Hitler hated Jews because they were liberals, who did not support German aggression in WWI and because Jews embraced communism and labor strikes during the war. Hitler was the biggest anti-communist (left wing) foe in human history. He marshalled his whole country to fight it. Conservative capitalists were the ones who embraced Hitler as the boss because they feared powerful trade unions, socialism, and communism.

A novel trick conservatives employ is to say that Hitler was actually a liberal, like Bernie Sanders. They want us to believe what Hitler really cared about was healthcare, college, and pensions. LOL. Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Does this sound like Hitler or Bernie Sanders?

Another howler flows from D’Souza’s pretzel-twist mind. “President Trump is the new Lincoln.” LMAO. Honest Abe had experience working with his hands, was a humble academic, and walked two miles to return three pennies. Enough said. And while he paints Trump the saint, he paints FDR (who guided us through WWII and the Depression), as a great and shameful sinner.

The book is interesting because of its oversimplification. Science craves simplicity and universality. That is why social scientists have tried to identify simple motivations for people that explain complex phenomena. Sigmund Freud thought everything was based on early parenting. Hitler thought everything revolved around race. Karl Marx believe economics controlled everything. D’Souza comes along and believes Democrats are responsible for everything bad in America - and nothing good. Maybe his next book will be more kind.

In summary, I’m glad I read this book, I suppose, to know what a mouth-foaming right winger thinks. We could perform this one-sided exercise with every group. Men are more likely the rapists and criminals; white men are more likely the ones that killed American Indians; most witches are women, the Catholic Church had the inquisition, Protestant self-help preachers are often grifter thieves; Christians killed Muslims during the Crusades, etc. Should all history be like the National Enquirer, a contest to expose the dark underbelly of everything? We could not get educators to agree on a fair beat down on every historical demographic.

So, I am glad D’Souza has his freedom of speech to write this extreme book. One could pick up a book in Barnes and Nobles that roasts Republicans similarly. The significance of this book is twofold in my opinion. It provides the raw meat and confirmation buzz for extreme Republicans, but paradoxically it also informs everyone else on the importance of fairness and balance in political history. D’Souza is quirky for sure. Would I go to his country of origin, India, and write an extreme book about what wrong with them? Not a chance - they would laugh and say I was full of sh*t.

[Jeff J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating, and convincing, analysis of the "plantation politics" of the Democratic Party - their long history of attempts at income redistribution, as well as the self-aggrandizement by their leadership (how did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama get so wealthy while President anyway?). D'Souza's status as both an immigrant and a member of a racial minority in the United States gives his account of the abuses by the Democratic Party towards these groups added credibility. While comparing President Trump to President Lincoln is a little premature, we can hope their fates aren't entwined. I do agree that President Trump will go down in history as one of the most effective and consequential Presidents of the early 21st century, if not the greatest. Ironically, since publication of this book the Democrats have moved even further towards the left with their embrace of socialism.

[Gene Ripka · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admit to reading this book out of a morbid curiousity. I am the much maligned "liberal progressive" Mr D'Souza works so diligently to malign and perhaps enlighten. I began to feel that perhaps my views of history and current events were skewed by an echo chamber effect of FB memes, Washington Post articles, and leftist media (whatever that means). I tried to suspend judgement of his premise, that the Democratic party has been guilty of "plantation" building in America, since the days of Martin Van Buren's presidency, in Mr. D'Souza's view. The history he reveals is not pretty, but realistic adults know that about history. And taken to it's extreme, the concern that Democratic policy is based on a mixture of racism, facism, and communist inclination probably seems logical to those who believe in the unbridled free market, the right to unlimited armament, and denying help to those who need it in our country and the world. But reading this paeon to Donald Trump's Lincolnesque qualtiies became hard to assimilate during the same week that two of his associates became convicted felons, and the president became an unindicted co-conspirator. Making America great again doesn't seem to be the primary concern of the party of Lincoln these days. Mr. D'Souza's perspective on America's past seems somehow skewed, as well. If he thinks that the Republican party as it currently operates is somehow a saviour of our values going forward, then his vision for the future is more frightening than reassuring.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

As much as I have enjoyed every book I have read so far by Dinesh D'Souza this has been his best. He eloquently uses historical facts and pertinent data to clearly make his case while also countering critics with the same forthright style. I wish everyone interested in politics and history would read this incredible book.

[Mary Ellin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provocative and thought-provoking. Thoroughly researched; I got the book after viewing the movie version purposely to check out the footnotes, which are numerous and warrant careful study. Highly recommended for all. Liberals, Democrats and independents might be hesitant for fear being seen with the book might brand them a “Trump lover,” but I’d urge them to read it as an exercise in giving “the other side” a fair hearing. Conservatives and Republicans will be naturally drawn to the book; I urge them to read it not with smugness or superiority, but humbly, as history from which we can all learn. To all who read it: We are all Americans. Let’s unite under that banner, and seek solutions to our nation’s problems that bind us together, not tear us apart.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a scholarly look at the history of both major political parties. His assertions were well documented. It got a little bogged down in statistics, however. It was not a light read but I found it informative and enlightening. I will probably reread it as my copy had to be returned to the library.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual anything Dinesh D'Souza writes is interesting, intelligent, well researched, thought provoking & enlightening. It is shocking what the Democrats have done & the lies that have lasted. People need to read & realize what Presidents like Wilson , Van Buren & LBJ. Have done

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brief Synopsis: The Democrats were the party of slavery in the 19th Century. The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow post-Reconstruction and at the beginning of the 20th Century. The Democrats were the party opposed to civil rights expansion in the mid-20th Century. The policies of the Democratic party are still primarily based on race and ethnic division. This history and these facts are hidden and obfuscated by the media and academia.

Like many books in this genre, that is the genre of reasoned political polemics, the people who should read this book probably won't from fear that their own presuppositions might be challenged or called to account. (And in fairness, I apply that assertion consistently to all sides of the political spectrum).

Nonetheless, this was a good read and a nice break from the academic reading I've been doing these past few weeks.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to the audio book and it is quite similar to the other books by Dinesh D'Souza that I have read, "Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream" and "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9/11".

While I like Dinesh D'Souza and his story and research he is repetitive and uses the same arguments over and over and over again with some new material.

This book is on the long side at nearly 13-hours listening time and could have easily been shortened by half.

I recommend this book, especially to all the liberals out there who refuse to read anything that challenges their beliefs and narrative because hopefully Dinesh will change your mind and cause you to be more open of other's beliefs which is the definition of liberal (noun, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...) anyway.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

The replacement of genuine Christian concern, with an earthly paternalism based on control, and contempt demonstrated for Eighty years. Mr. DSOuza’s usual mix of hard hitting truth and humor.
I was particularly impressed with the references to the corporate state idea, A great catholic principle corrupted by fascism. The film is out of this world. Reminds me of those who blocked educational and employment advancement on the grounds “the state will care for you”.
A light in a frightening world.

[CH · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a jaundiced screed, so partisan it is of little value. Democrats are all bad, and Republicans are without fault. Even the most casual student of history knows that is not the case. The writer is so strident and shrill he undermines his own arguments, making it difficult to finish the book. I finished it though, only because someone I know recommended it, and I promised I’d read it. It was a poor use of four evenings, not even worth the one-star rating!

[Jackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

very interesting

I found this book to be very interesting & an educational political novel... I liked the way he went through the facts on this country & how the plantation theory had applied to the different times.. I do believe that history can & does repeat itself... Congress has been out of control for many, many years... We can only hope that President Trump will be able to continue to "Make America Great Again"... This was a fascinating novel...!

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This non-fiction look at history is amazing. D’Souza discusses parts of history that have been hidden by our progressive school systems and media: FDR and the Democrats’ complicity with fascism and white supremacy; there is actually no “Big Switch” of democrats becoming Republicans in the 1960s (blacks switched in the 1930s for New Deal benefits; the South became Republican in the 1980s due to Reagan’s policies); pro-slavery Democrats of the civil war days are not so distant in ideology from the Democrats of today (the slave plantation was a kind of infant welfare state); Democratic bosses (such as the corrupt Tammany “machine” which operated for decades) helped immigrants vote multiple times with multiple names; FDR crushed Tammany but then sought to legalize the same type of corruption nationally instead of locally; the role of the northern Democrats (not “the south” only) in upholding slavery and then keeping blacks oppressed after the Civil War; the democrats’ KKK has close parallels to the Nazi brownshirts (both were extensions of a political party practicing racial terrorism); FDR refused to support antilynching legislation; FDR and Hitler used the same strategy of appealing to peoples’ envy by calling it social justice; survey data show that as the South became LESS racist in the last century, it became MORE Republican; LBJ never underwent an enlightened “conversion” when it came to racism but he remained a vile bigoted Democrat who said horrid things about blacks; proportionately more Republicans than Democrats voted (in congress) for the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Bill; and the most prominent white supremacists today (including Obama supporter Jason Kessler, organizer of the Charlottesville rally) have a left-wing background.

Progressives still believe in the Southern Strategy and the big switch, even though any “evidence” for those two ideas collapses once one looks at actual history (without the progressive slant shown in movies, textbooks, and journalism). As democrats today pull down statues of their pro-slavery leaders, most of them haven’t even acknowledged their party’s history of oppression and racism. D’Souza shows how democrats (of the north and south) were responsible for promoting slavery, performing racial terrorism (KKK), fighting Reconstruction and trying to block the 13, 14, and 15 Amendments. Crazy to read about W.E.B. Du Bois supporting one of the USA’s most racist presidents, Woodrow Wilson: Wilson revived the KKK, segregated the federal government, and promoted forced sterilization of minorities. As an immigrant who left India at age 17 to come to the USA, Dinesh points out that the multicultural premise (“no culture is better or worse than any other”) is silly; immigration is proof of that! Highly recommended and eye-opening to fans of history and America.

“America is not to blame, and the South is not exclusively to blame. Some Americans perpetrated these crimes and other Americans stopped them. So it is essential to distinguish good Americans from bad ones. Moreover, while the secession debate was a North-South debate, I will show that the slavery debate was not. The slavery debate was between the pro-slavery Democratic party and the antislavery Republican party.” -p. 13

“Progressive Democrats are in fact the inventors of racism and white supremacy, and the Republican Party fought them all the way. Progressives and Democrats were also the groups that were in bed with fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s, while Republicans opposed this cozy alliance...So we have the remarkable spectacle today of the party of racism, fascism, and white supremacy blaming the party of antiracism and resistance to fascism and white supremacy for being racist, fascist, and white supremacist.” -p. 14

“The plantation- viewed as a complete ecology involving exploited inhabitants, rented overseers and the plantation boss or ‘Massa’ running things from the Big House- defines the Democrats not merely in the past but also in the present...Long before me, Lincoln accused the Democrats of his day of seeking to turn all of America into a plantation.” -pp. 14-15

Democrats and Republicans have not switched platforms; that is just a made-up idea of progressives who are embarrassed about their history. “Lincoln defined slavery as ‘you work, I eat,’ and that is the core philosophy of today’s Democratic Party, no less than the Democratic Party of Lincoln’s day. By contrast, the core philosophy of today’s GOP is identical with that of Lincoln: ‘I always thought the man who made the corn should eat the corn.’” -pp. 24-25

“Progressive Democrats benefit themselves and live high on the hog- like the Clintons and Obamas, who went from nothing to multimillionaires, from minor overseers to plantation big bosses- all the while declaring as their motive the tireless pursuit of social justice. These Democrats proclaim themselves the benevolent supervisors of needy, impoverished minorities whom in fact they keep needy and impoverished. These minorities, deprived of education and the skills for advancement, rely on the Democrats to provide for them, thus reducing themselves to dependent subordination and sustaining the progressives in power.” -pp. 25-26

Wow! This is eerily similar to the inner-cities where some blacks live today under Democrat mayors, with Democrats promoting broken families and no chance to attend better schools: “Historian Kenneth Stampp identified the five distinctive features of the old slave plantation: dilapidated housing...; broken families…; a high degree of violence to police the plantation…; no opportunity for decent education or advancement…; and finally the plantation’s pervasive atmosphere of hopelessness, despair, and nihilism.” -p. 26

“There is a continuity between the Democrats of the mid-nineteenth century and the Democrats now, and a system of enforced dependency is the precise way in which Democrats today maintain their ethnic plantations.” -p. 61

“Choice, Lincoln suggested... can never be unequivocally affirmed without regard to the content of the choice. Lincoln’s argument applies equally to slavery and abortion… choice is invoked in order to cancel out the choices of others. In both cases, self-government is a pretext for the denial of self-government. In both cases, persons who have the same rights as everyone else are being sacrificed to the convenience and welfare of others.” -p. 70

“...A principle that has defined the Democratic Party since its founding: the principle of dependency. While the slave plantation was based on the dependency of helpless black slaves, the urban plantation was based on the dependency of helpless white immigrants. Both became fodder for the exploitative machinations of the Democratic Party. The man who figured this out was Martin Van Buren.” -p. 79

“Tammany remains the backbone of the Democrats. The old Tammany regime is gone, but what Tammany represents- the dehumanizing system of Democratic ethnic exploitation that Van Buren created- is still very much with us today.” -p. 94

Some progressives consider Lincoln a racist. But, “Lincoln had the choice, as the founders did, of going down in flames or taking the strongest antislavery stance that was viable to secure the consent of the governed. This stance would involve accommodating racist sentiment- while not encouraging it- just as the founders accommodated slavery- while not encouraging it- and thus achieving a result that would help create the conditions for the ultimate defeat of both racism and slavery.” -p 102

“As he jumped onto the stage in the theater where the assassination took place, Booth shouted out,
‘Sic semper tyrannis.’ Thus be the fate of tyrants. But of course it was a lie in the classic Democratic fashion. The supreme irony is that Booth's was the cause of tyranny and human bondage. So deluded was Booth that he regarded the right to enslave other humans as a form of liberty worth killing - and in the end dying - for.” -p. 111

“While state-sponsored segregation was a Southern phenomenon - giving some support to the progressive campaign to blame racial evils on the South - it should also be noted that every Southern segregation law was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor and enforced by Democratic officials. There are no exceptions to this rule. So segregation was the work of the Democratic party in that region.” -p. 142

“Three of the schemes of the progressive plantation - race-based immigration restriction, racial segregation and forced sterilization - provided models for the Nazi Party in the early 1930s.” -p. 145

“FDR himself is one of the earliest inventors of the progressive big lie about fascism. Fascism is not about the growth of private power; it is about the unchecked growth of government power. Fascism is not about the private sector taking over the government; it is about the government taking over the private sector. FDR redefines fascism to make it look like he is saving American democracy from a fascist takeover by big business. He converts the meaning of fascism to portray his Republican opponents as fascist while presenting himself as, well, the anti-fascist.” -p. 164

“Fascism in its essence is the centralization of power in the national state.’ - p. 165

“No wonder...Germans stuck with their man. They were Hitler’s ‘satisfied thieves.’ Other socialists merely made extravagant promises, but the Nazi welfare state delivered the goods…there would be a valuable lesson for FDR in this Nazi principle of building popular loyalty by using the government for the purpose of confiscation and wealth distribution.” -p. 169

“Now it is tempting to believe that racism declined in America because of the moral suasion of the civil rights movement, but to believe this is to put the cart before the horse, as most progressive accounts predictably do...In reality, however, the steep decline in racism preceded the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement didn’t cause it; it caused the civil rights movement...So what caused the shift? The obvious answer is: Adolf Hitler. In the end, the horrific crimes of Hitler overthrew the doctrine of white supremacy… LBJ watched with horror the decline of racism in America, not simply because he was a nasty bigot himself...but also because white supremacy had been the central political doctrine of the Democratic Party for at least a century. Once the Republicans ended slavery the Democrats turned swiftly to white supremacy, which became the glue, both in the North and the South, that held the party together.” -pp. 189-90 As a result, LBJ went after the black vote. He offered this bargain: “”Essentially we will provide you with lifetime support, just as in the days of slavery. Your job is simply to keep voting us in power so that we can continue to be your caretakers and providers.” -p. 193

“For Lincoln the most appalling feature of slavery was that it was a form of theft, theft of a man’s labor...Lincoln told a delegation of workingmen during the Civil War, ‘Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build one for himself.’ Failure to succeed, Lincoln said, is ‘not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly or singular misfortune.’...Lincoln’s basic ideology- that people have a right to the fruits of their labor, and that government, if it gets involved at all, should merely provide idlers and indigents with the means to become self-supporting- is even today the basic ideology of Republicans. And it is equally clear that the confiscatory principle “You work, I eat’ is even today the basic ideology of Democrats. The entire welfare state, from the New Deal through the Great Society to contemporary Democratic schemes, is rooted in the same plantation philosophy of legally sanctioned theft that Lincoln identified more than a century and a half ago.” -p. 199-200

“Imagine the catastrophe that would face the Democratic Party if African Americans...stopped thinking of themselves as hyphenated Americans and thought of themselves simply as Americans! Democrats cannot afford for these groups to lose the collective solidarity that is the basis for the pact that the Democrats seek to make with them: ‘We will take care of you if you agree collectively to vote for us.’... Far from being an ideology of empowerment, multiculturalism is in fact an ideology of ethnic resentment toward whites that is, in the end, aimed at reconciling minority groups to their own enslavement and dependency on the Democratic plantation.” -pp. 238-39

[Jerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is a play on the movie “Birth of a Nation”, which celebrated the Ku Klux Klan’s efforts to drive Republicans out of the south and so keep blacks from voting and being elected to public office.

The book opens with a quote from Frederick Douglass:

[Master Thomas] told me, if I would be happy, I must lay out no plans for the future. He said… he would take care of me… and taught me to depend solely upon him for happiness.

Where The Big Lie was a mostly factual account of how we’ve managed to forget that National Socialism came out of the left; this book is much more conjectural. His thesis in this book is that Democrats have maintained plantation-style politics throughout the post-war era, from Tammany Hall-style machine politics through Woodrow Wilson and FDR national machine, and through LBJ’s Great Society. In each cases, D’Souza alleges, the motive was to maintain a plantation-style dependence among immigrants and poor minorities, creating an “overseer class” whose purpose is explicitly to keep minorities, especially blacks, from leaving the ghetto and from leaving the Democrat plantation.

Part of the book is completely factual—Northern Democrats did provide support for Southern Democrats both in maintaining slavery and throughout the war. It would a lot easier to ignore the conjectural parts of the book if Democrats didn’t keep talking like an overseer class. A few hours after I finished this book, I read about the Detroit politician who praised President Trump solely for raising the visibility of a medicine that she claims saved her life.

Detroit’s Democrats censured her for that, which in itself is wrong. She wasn’t endorsing a rival candidate, she was thanking a fellow human. But what was really wrong was how they justified it:

“They do not belong to themselves,” Kinloch said of endorsed candidates and elected officials. “They belong to the members and precinct delegates of the Democratic Party.”

It would be hard to sound more like an overseer class than that.

The book is also a sort of open letter to President Trump, urging him to continue Lincoln’s Republican principals, and smash the Democrats’ plantation for good.

D’Souza goes through three basic phases of what he calls the Democrat plantation. The first, of course, is the era of the actual plantations, culminating in President Abraham Lincoln’s election. One of the big changes is in how people viewed slavery before and after the Democratic Party tried to rehabilitate it. In the founding era, slaves were still considered “men”; in order to justify slavery, Democrats had to change that, and they attempted to rewrite history to claim that the founders did not include blacks as men in the Declaration of Independence.

It’s a claim many Democrats still make today. Lincoln challenged

the Democrats to name a single person—not just a single founder but any single individual—of the founding era who claimed blacks were not included as men in Declaration of Independence was never met by a Democrat of his time and has not been met to this day. Clearly there is something very wrong with the conventional wisdom, both about Lincoln and about the founding era.

Even then, there were Democrats enamored of socialism, and George Fitzhugh used it to justify slavery.

Socialism proposes to do away with free competition; to afford protection and support at all times to the laboring class… these purposes, slavery fully and perfectly attains.—George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South

Fitzhugh, says D’Souza,

…echoes Marx’s famous doctrine, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Fitzhugh contends that a farm or plantation is a sort of commune “in which the master furnishes the capital and skill, and the slaves the labor, and divide the profits, not according to each one’s in-put, but according to each one’s wants and necessities.”

He also compares Lincoln’s principles to those of modern politicians, and finds them, as I did when I read The Life and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, very similar.

He also indirectly calls John Wilkes Booth the original antifa:

Thus we see a Democrat who represented the cause of the plantation, the cause of tyranny, using the mask of anti-tyranny to justify murdering a man who perhaps more nobly embodied the striving for human freedom than any figure in history. And today the Democrats—the party that protected slavery and killed the man who ended it—have the chutzpah to blame the institution’s legacy on the very party that stopped them.

With the destruction of the slave plantation, D’Souza argues that Democrats innovated a similar system among immigrants in urban machine politics such as Tammany Hall. Even today, he says, there are progressives who still see something good in the machine:

While progressives admit that the Democratic urban machines were a for-profit enterprise, thoroughly imbued with corruption and election-rigging, they insist, as Widmer says, that the bosses gave immigrants “a voice.” Yet this “voice” was nothing more than the ventriloquist preferences of the bosses themselves. The ethnic exploitation of vulnerable people and the callous use of their votes to rip off the general population are somehow presented as triumphs of democratic inclusion.

FDR, he writes, nationalized the urban machine, and the Great Society created “the overseer class” that created the ghettos as they are today.

Democrats found the Great Society necessary, he writes, because racism was on the decline. Discrediting the Nazis also discredited racism, and from the end of the forties to the fifties, racism in American declined dramatically—and Democrats were losing votes because of it.

Survey data show that racism declined dramatically throughout the second half of the twentieth century, and precisely during this period the South moved steadily into the GOP camp. Thus as the South became less racist, it became more Republican.

The focus of The Big Lie was on the lie itself. The focus of Death of a Nation is on the nationalization of a racial underclass. Much of it is, obviously, true; but where he talks about motives it must also be conjectural, impugning motives where we can only see actions. The motives may well fit the facts, but we still can’t know them. Personally, I think it makes more sense to attack the obviously racist actions, rather than the unknowable motives. But as long as the left tries to rewrite history and allege racism against the conservatives who ended it and who fight still against the left’s policies of dependence, it’s hard to fault him for turning the tables.

Like The Big Lie, this is a very entertaining and breezy read—very much like an entertaining documentary.

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.

[Gerald Greene · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title of the book is based upon the author’s understanding of what America is to him, having lived in it for a few years in a white middle-class environment. To the majority of Americans, this description fits, but for those African Americans who feet the pain of systemic and institutional racism it did not. So in the Preface, when he states “this for me was America,” the reader should understand the faulty foundation upon which this book is based.

When describing how non-Trump supporters feel about Donald, the author says, “Deep down, they are convinced that Trump poses a fundamental danger to America’s survival as a diverse, open, lawful democratic society.” (page 4) And given the temperament of Donald Trump and his despicable past behavior, their concerns were justified. In support of these concerns let me list a few of his actions:
• Bragging about fondling women
• Bragging in general
• Encouraging conspiracy theories, including Obama’s birth place
• Failing to denounce supporters who were terrorists (see page 244)
• Too quick to criticize others, ie. Calling a lady “dogface”
• Conveying impressions he was reckless and emotional ie. unfit for Presidential powers

On page 26 the author describes the inner city ghetto “plantation” presuming it encompasses the entire black population of America, and no African Americans live in suburbs. He assumes that “ghetto” issues are limited to African Americans and no other part of American cultural fabric.
D’Souza says that institutional racism is “looking for racism in all the wrong places.” (page 215) He implies that it doesn’t exist and that white privilege also does not exist, thus ignoring mountains of evidence in order to support his theories of the modern plantation.

He uses statistics of 1/3 of all young black men currently in prison, on probation or on parole as if the 2/3 don’t exist, and fails to describe how ghettos perpetuate the problem, regardless of race. He pretends the fight against poverty and civil rights legislation has made no difference. (page 222)
He states that “Learned helplessness seems to be the reason why people who live miserable lives on the urban plantation nevertheless don’t get up and leave.” (page 225) Such statements ignore all understanding of ghetto pressures and the difficulties involved, when so few have resources to incubate hope.

While the book details the votes Trump received, defined by race, the author fails to factor in the anti-Clinton votes. Donald is a truly despicable man that deserves to be voted out of office, and Republicans might have been willing to support his impeachment, except for the way Democrats supported Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial.
“MAGA” claims that America was at one time great, which offends those who have been consistently oppressed, and D’Souza refuses to acknowledge this. It is also inconsistent for a Christian to ignore these pleas without making efforts to understand. Many white people view all blacks as ghetto criminals who use illegal drugs, because they have not taken the time or effort to get close enough to listen and know these people. Instead of complaining about 1/3, they should find ways to support the other 2/3. Together we can change the despair that permeates the disenfranchised. (see page 245)

The “Two Big Lies” described on page 282 are accurate but exist for reasons. Both Nixon and Trump frightened voters with their words and behavior. These two Republican Presidents helped to define the party as one leaning toward fascism. Congress has given the office of the President too much power, and Trump’s rhetoric fed this claim and gave it legs. The second lie, “conservatives are racist,” also resulted from miscommunication from Trump, who failed to clarify his position and distance himself from those who are racist. The border wall became a race issue because Trump failed to address it with credibility. America’s immigration laws need change, and Trump chose the wall over diplomacy. But he was right to recognize how many Americans want our laws to be meaningful and enforced.

Page 283 describes America’s democratic fascism as a plantation, but again, I would say this is because the Presidency has too much power that has been abused by Presidents of both parties.
The author claims that “LBJ’s plantation was designed to produce nothing and prevent its inhabitants from working.” The fight to end poverty in America did have side-effects but did change inner cities and raise the standard of living for the 2/3.
Page 284 criticizes Democratic support of DACA programs. Republicans refuse to understand how valuable these young people are to our future as they pay taxes into the SS system and fill the gaps left by families with fewer children. America needs more young people and these are an asset not a liability.

D’Souza was right to say that Trump should have invaded Democratic strongholds with policies to address needs in certain areas like inner-cities. (page 291)
This book fails to support its claim that America is dying. Although it was written during the Presidency of a man few respect or would want as a friend, it tries but fails to convince this reader that Trump deserves accolades and was right, and Democrats are the true fascists.

[Feng Ouyang · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book by a Trump apologist in attacking the Democrats. The main premise is that although Democrats switched from a party of slave owners to a party campaigning civil rights, it is consistent in its root. Namely, it is a “party of the plantation,” resting its power base on slaves and their overseers.
The majority part of the book is a historical review of the Democratic Party. According to the author, the Democratic Party keeps up several kinds of plantations.
• The real plantation with real slaves before the Civil war. Not only the southern Democrats are basically slave owners, but the northern Democrats also advocate preserving the slave system. They even actively undermine the Union war effort. In fact, northern Democrats were the only hope for the Confederate to win a war where they are vastly outnumbered and out-resourced.
• After the Civil war ended, Democrat worked hard to preserve what is left of the Slave system. They were against the constitutional amendments that outlaw slavery. In the south where they held power, they kept the blacks suppressed and deprived them of their civil rights. They also used KKK to terrorize the blacks, serving as precedent and inspiration for the Nazi’s stormtrooper.
• In the early 20th century, the Democrat-dominated Federal Government induced new immigrants from Poland, Italy, etc. to be segregated and dependent. Forming another type of plantation.
• Between 1940 and 1960, Democrats tried to keep the Blacks segregated in the South, to maintain their power base of the White Supremacists.
• After Johnson and the Civil Rights movement, racism receded in the US. Democrat thus moved to the North and set up urban congregations of Blacks. These Blacks do not work and rely on the welfare that is “provided” by their masters: the Democrat overseers. They sow fear and dependency into the urban Black culture, to keep them captivated there and serve as permanent voter base for the Democratic Party.
• In recent decades, Democrats start to appeal to other minority cultural groups such as Latinos, LGBTQ, and illegal immigrants. They still tried to keep them captive and reduce them from upward-mobility.
Overall the “plantation culture” means extracting something (product of labor or votes) from the plantation residents and building a power based with the overseers (slave owners or modern-day administrators).
On the other hand, the author defended the Republican Party, especially Trump. According to the author, there is nothing racist about the Republican Party. The fact that White Supremacists support Trump does not mean Trump identifies with their ideology. It’s really because Trump is the best choice available to them and Democrats are so anti-White. He portrays Trump as another Lincoln, to be the savior of the enslaved, especially minorities.
Overall, I think the book provides an interesting view and a lot of things to think about. Many assertions are counterintuitive to me, yet are supported by the cited facts. I strongly suspect that these facts are at least cherry-picked. However, I checked a number of fact-checking articles that are negative towards the accompanying movie, and feel that all mentioned factual errors are minor.
I also feel strongly that the partisan issues in the US are oversimplified by the author. Democrats and Republicans differ in many fronts. Simply saying Democrats are the maintainer of the plantation is not fair and does not help in the political debate. However, this book does provide one perspective to understand the Democrats and liberals.
It is interesting to compare this book with “Mugged” by Ann Coulter. They have similar themes: the Democrats use black and other minorities for their power gain. They are not helping but actually hurting the blacks. However, the facts used in both books do not overlap, even when they cover the same topic (e.g., the racist history of Democrats up to 1960). I wonder why.
Whether his political views are agreeable, the rhetoric skills of the book are certainly very enjoyable. The way the author keeps readers updated in his roadmap, his recounting of opposing views, and his witty comments all make the book an interesting read and probably something to emulate in my own writing.

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 4 out of 5]

As if I needed any further reason to hate the Democrats ...

D'Souza is unquestionably a staunch and biased right-wing pundit, and there is no doubt that this book, like any other work of history (especially if it's backed by an ideological agenda), should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not say this to undermine the veracity of his history, but simply to address the obvious fact that his stance is so uncompromisingly contrarian to the mainstream left-wing narrative that he makes the error of broadly characterising all "liberals" as essentially being wilfully deceitful, minority-hating bigots for a unified system of covert oppression. He gives them too much credit to make such a monolithic entity out of them.

But despite such minor flaws as pretending nearly all significant Republicans were wonderful, virtuous defenders of human rights, and nearly all Democrats were moustache-twirling slavers or lapdogs for such villains - and despite his somewhat annoying habit of citing every single source as "progressive" this and "progressive" that - I think this book is monumentally important.

D'Souza thoroughly exposes the history of the Democratic Party, and most of the Left's still-idolised heroes of the past, and juxtaposes their often truly despicable words and actions against the people they claimed to represent with the resistive efforts of the Republicans, whom the original racists, white supremacists, plantation owners and Klansmen have now misrepresented as the perpetrators of their own sins against blacks, immigrants and Native Americans.

Maybe it's all a big lie, a disingenuous attempt at historical revisionism - you could technically dumb the book's argument down and say its strategy is merely the classic "I know you are, but what am I?" - but I think this is book very convincing, very well-researched, and devastating to the Democratic cause if they are not able to thoroughly debunk it, as opposed to simply pretending it doesn't exist, which is what they usually do when confronted with the truth.

[Dann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party is a fascinating political exposé. Author Dinesh D’Souza explores America’s Founding Fathers’ views on slavery and how they influenced President Abraham Lincoln’s crusade to end it. He also investigates the creation of the plantation and how it saved slavery from being abolished in the South, along with how the plantation was adapted by Democrat party boss (and future president) Martin Van Burran to create urban plantations in the North made up of immigrants and other minority groups. D’Souza then follows the expansion of the plantation in modern politics by President Lynden Johnson; establishing a national system of patronage and control. The arguments are well-constructed and impeccably researched. And while he’s not the first to make such arguments, D’Souza places them in the broader political narrative of the evolution of the Republican and Democrat parties. Incredibly thought-provoking and engaging, Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party examines the connection between slavery and the welfare state and challenges conventional political wisdom.

[Peggy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting to read the story of American life and politics thru an immigrants eyes. The historical perspective of who both the Democrats and Republicans were, and are now, is interesting to read. I'm a bit mystified as to why Mr. D'Souza thinks these parties wouldn't change nor try to bury their pasts over 150 or so years. Seems re-inventing oneself is part of American life. The book is a bit like listening to FOX news, though most of the authors points are valid. I, however, don't think the democrats, or for that matter any politician, is/was Machiavellian/smart enough to plan a strategy that would take over a century to come to fruition. Politicians rarely work for something 5 years into the future. Mostly, they just seek re-election, (or political appointments or lobbyist jobs), whichever is most lucrative. So often short term gain is chosen over long term progress. But, back to the book. Worth reading, whether you are liberal or conservative. Food for thought.

[Collin Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book! Takes a historical look at the US political landscape and uncovers the truth about the Democratic Party and the progressive philosophy. There is a progressive narrative that has controlled our news media and public schooling. It’s also visible in other media, Hollywood and even sports. Many people (including myself) will be shocked to see that most of US history has been re-written or cancelled to fit a “convenient truth”. It has never been more clear to me until lately that there is a dark force driving a divisive wedge in our society, and it is clear that the root cause is socialism and the social justice it uses to justify itself. It may hurt to read this if you associate with the Democratic Party or have progressive views, but Dinesh makes a clear and well supported case of why the left has destroyed our country. Dinesh is an excellent writer and uses well documented and researched examples to make his case. This book will educate you whether you like it or not!

[Martha Schwalbe · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the first book I saw so I chose it. I started doing this several years ago. If I'm feeling stuck in a rut or I can't find my next book, I will chose the first book I see on the shelf. This isn't a book I would normally read, so I gave myself a challenge to find areas of agreement with the author.
D'Souza provides interesting research and ideas from the research about the creation of the political parties in the US. Having lived through Reagan, I disagree with the claims he makes about the reasons people flipped parties. My dad was one of these people, and the reasons he gave had more to do with Reagan's charisma than politics. I don't think he was alone.
I'd recommend this book to readers who enjoy reading about politics.
This isn't a young adult book.

[Christy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here’s my take on the audio version of the book, narrated by D’Souza himself: Dinesh D’Souza is a great movie maker and a pretty good author, but he’s a very mediocre narrator. The cadence of his voice drives you crazy. He slows way down before words he wants to emphasize, sounding like a fake British aristocrat. I only made it half way through. The subject is compelling, and the book seems well written, but D’Souza buries his reader in historical details. He could have cut the information in half, and still made his point. If you’re interested in this sort of thing, I recommend the movie version of Death of a Nation, along with Hillary’s America.

[ClaraBelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book tells the truth about how the Democrats are racist and have always been so! They threaten our very democracy and lifestyle, and have supported the mistreatment of Africans, Indians, Jews, and poor whites too, with welfare, plantations, reservations, slavery, abuse, and denial of civil rights.
Warning: some disturbing details about the socialist leanings of FDR and LBJ as well as their sex lives. Some bad language like damn, ass, and hell.
Recommend: for older readers
Read:5/11-19/20

[Haley Wofford · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his new book, Dinesh D'Souza does a masterful job in shedding light on history that is purposefully left out of the history books and through well-written prose reinforces the argument that the Democratic Party only cares about making people subservient to them while the Republican Party has fought to keep them free. This is a book that grabs you from the first paragraph and keeps your attention to the end.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I consider myself pretty well in the center when it comes to politics, so I read/listen to/consume ideas from each side. This obviously represents to Left/Conservative/Current Republican point of view. Well researched. The historic timeline is interesting and frankly the best part for me. This won’t change my mind on any issues, but it does make me wonder how sanitized my American history classes were in the 80s. 3.5/5

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jackson slaves and treatment thereof, corruption of Tweed and Van Buren, plantation and control, fdr growth, more dependency on govt no attention to crime diminish rule of law and police nothing to help black community or family more programs to diminish and continue trend of LBJ, root of fascism and socialism and slavery in democrat party.

[Bryan Montz · Rating 5 out of 5]

D’Souza artfully dismantles the progressive lies about the switching of the political parties and the origins of fascism and racism. This book is absolutely packed with historical references to support D’Souza’s claims. Prepare to challenge mainstream narratives as you read Death of a Nation.

[Cherie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another excellent and informative book by Dinesh D’Souza. Before anyone decides whether they are a Democrat or Republican, they must read this book (and many of Dinesh’s previous books) to see which side they are really on and which party actually embodies and champions their values.