I've given this book five stars because it is, for the most part, well written, very readable and interesting; and it also presents something of a framework through which we might begin to bring together historically isolated factions within the working class in their common interest, while agreeing to disagree on less essential issues that have separated us.
That said, I don't agree with much of what is presented here. It is very easy to present a pretty picture of a country where families can count on a home, a good job with enough income to support the family on one income (what if they don't want that?), and healthcare, education etc. if they are willing to work hard. (Why? This is the richest country in the world. Why shouldn't everyone have the money and the leisure to pursue intellectual, artistic, health oriented pursuits etc. instead of working to exhaustion while the children of the rich are off on African safaris?) But, more to the point, this has never been that country, which, for the reader goes to the problem of language. The phrase "liberal coastal elites" is a false linguistic wedge used by the ruling class to divide the working class geographically and racially. And it has been very effective. The coastal elites are neither liberal (middle America polls more progressive, when asked about specific issues,) nor Democrats. Many, possibly most, are traditionally conservative Republicans. Most of the actual voters in these cities are working class, many of whom work in the service sector, and many of whom are trapped in their current status and would love to have a nice home in a small town in Kansas. Is Kansas ready for them? There may well be more working class voters on the east and west coasts than in the rest of the country, so the phrase, above, which appears at least twice in this text, calls into question whether the politically "right" position stated in the book is either serious, or well thought out. You can't simply gloss over systemic racism while using it's language. Your thesis is right on, but you are not there yet.
Another point of language, for the reader: Where you see "libertarianism," substitute anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism, historically, is a left anti-capitalist philosophy, which was hijacked in the US in the 1980s by the Koch brothers takeover of the Libertarian party; so we must now distinguish between traditional anarch0-syndicalist libertarian and the opportunistic individualism popular in the US.
Those criticisms aside, you should read this book and put some thought into it. It is hard to believe some reviewers stating simply that this is either preaching to the converted, or that they are viewers of Rising, and already agree. There are two very different philosophies represented here, attempting to help us to listen to each other and find common ground. Pay attention.