We the Fallen People: The Founders and the Future of American Democracy

by Robert Tracy McKenzie

Christianity Today Book Award
The Gospel Coalition Book Awards Honorable Mention
Foreword INDIES Book of the Year Award Finalist The success and survival of American democracy have never been guaranteed. Political polarization, presidential eccentricities, the trustworthiness of government, and the prejudices of the voting majority have waxed and waned ever since the time of the Founders, and there are no fail-safe solutions to secure the benefits of a democratic future. What we must do, argues the historian Robert Tracy McKenzie, is take an unflinching look at the very nature of democracy―its strengths and weaknesses, what it can promise, and where it overreaches. And this means we must take an unflinching look at ourselves. We the Fallen People presents a close look at the ideas of human nature to be found in the history of American democratic thought, from the nation's Founders through the Jacksonian Era and Alexis de Tocqueville. McKenzie, following C. S. Lewis, claims there are only two reasons to believe in majority because we have confidence in human nature―or because we don't. The Founders subscribed to the biblical principle that humans are fallen and their virtue is always doubtful, and they wrote the US Constitution to frame a republic intended to handle our weaknesses. But by the presidency of Andrew Jackson, contrary ideas about humanity's inherent goodness were already taking deep root among Americans, bearing fruit in such perils as we now face for the future of democracy. Focusing on the careful reasoning of the Founders, the seismic shifts of the Jacksonian Era, and the often misunderstood but still piercing analysis of Tocqueville's Democracy in America , McKenzie guides us in a conversation with the past that can help us see the present―and ourselves―with new insight.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Christian, American History, Religion, Christianity

304 pages, Hardcover

First published September 21, 2021

About the author

Robert Tracy McKenzie (PhD, Vanderbilt University) is Arthur F. Holmes Chair of Faith and Learning and professor and chair of the department of history at Wheaton College. He is the author of books including One South or Many?, Lincolnites and Rebels, and The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning from History.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

First and foremost, a large thank you to NetGalley, Robert Tracy McKenzie, and InterVarsity Press for providing me with a copy of this publication, which allows me to provide you with an unbiased review.

As a former student of politics and one who enjoys the analytical side of things, I grabbed this tome by Robert Tracy McKenzie with great interest. His basic premise is that America is neither GOOD, nor GREAT in its current political state, even as politicians would espouse this falsehood freely. While one could look at insurrectionist activities, the treatment of certain races, or even the state of protection from the pandemic that some state governments offer their people, McKenzie chooses to look at the political core, democracy.

McKenzie asserts clearly that the democracy embedded in the US Constitution is not what is being practiced today, nor has it been throughout the ages. McKenzie does not pretend that even the original democratic foundation in America was perfect, nor does it have the fluidity of a textbook presentation. However, the Founding Fathers worked with what they had and could not have foreseen every eventuality, some of which were abused in years to come. A number of democratic shortcomings are explored in the tome itself.

The general sentiment that there is a need for proper democratic input and output holds true, though it is impossible to run a country in a vacuum. McKenzie presents some of the struggles with trying to run a new country that sought to forge its own rules, pitting democratic ideals with everyday goings-on. Protecting the minority in a system where majority rules was one such example and there is significant ink used to explore this. The balance is both essential and complicated, though McKenzie makes fair points about its implementation.

McKenzie would be remiss if he glossed over some of the larger democratic abuses in the early stages of American democracy. His focus on the treatment of Indian resettlement during the Andrew Jackson presidency is a blight on the entire process. This continued when Jackson sought to wrest control of the banks during his time in the White House. McKenzie clearly espouses that there are gaping holes in democracy, which Jackson used to his advantage.

An interesting contrast emerges when McKenzie pulls in the analysis that Alexis de Tocqueville made when he came to America and penned his magnum opus, Democracy in America. Tocqueville spent numerous months in the country and sought to present his findings for all to synthesise. However, as McKenzie argues, the end result was a massive tome that was completely indigestible for the common person and remains so today. Tocqueville offered some poignant comments about how America ran its political affairs and some key lines have been taken out of context while also falsely presented in the years that followed.

McKenzie makes clear that there are problems, and that America is in need of some major changes. He is not of the opinion that it is impossible to rectify, though it is not as simple as reading the book and gloriously shaking off the shackles of the past. There is work to be done, beginning at the grassroots. Whether this is something someone wants to undertake is another matter. That said, “democracy isn’t intrinsically intolerant and authoritarian, but it can be”, given ongoing ignorance.

While I have read my fair share of political non-fiction over the years, the span of ‘readability’ is not equal. Some books are able to boil things down to the basics and make it easily digested by the layreader, while others are more academic and seek a deeper understanding to comprehend the detailed analyses. McKenzie is part of the latter group, though I did not find this to be a deterrent. I need to flex my brain at times and really get to the heart of the matter. This makes it a denser read, which is fine if I am expecting it. McKenzie offers strong arguments with many core examples to substantiate them, without belabouring too many points. In a handful of well-structured chapters, McKenzie makes his thesis clear and keeps the reader engaged. If I had to offer any critique, it would be the layout of the footnoting, though the sloppiness may simply be a part of the ARC I received. The mish-mash took away from the flow throughout, though I suppose some readers prefer easy access to citations as they read.

Kudos, Mr. McKenzie, for a decent read and some strong arguments. My brain is buzzing and it’s just what I needed.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Mark Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly excellent. More to say later, I hope. But it's, in a way, a fairly basic application of the simplest truths of the Christian worldview to past political situations in the U.S., especially the founding and the Jacksonian era. More controversially, Mackenzie applies those same simple truths—now along with lessons and a feel derived from his expert explorations of the past—to *today's* political situation. Highly, highly recommended.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

While perhaps not the intention of the author, this book could also serve as a rather good primer overview of American from a point of view that is saddened by how far short of our ideals we have often fallen.

The principle goal of the author is to help us understand how much our modern views -- or, perhaps, "attitudes" would be better -- about both "democracy" and the "goodness of 'the people'" -- are seriously out of synch with the attitudes toward both held by the Founders.

I think his thesis is correct, and that it offers us appropriate cautions about our own behaviors -- and, indeed, abundant problems, that we face in the 21st century.

For instance, while he argues that probably most of us -- to the extent at least that we think about such things -- probably view both "democracy" and "following the will of the people" in a very favorable light. [Significant caveat: This obviously excludes those who are working hard these days to ensure that only SOME people have easy access to the franchise while also believing in effect that rather than "one person=one vote" the truer alternative they seek is "one dollar=one vote."]

But the Founders, he points out, would have disagree with BOTH.

They saw nothing magical or inherently virtuous in democracy as a form of government or in blindly following the "will of the people," even allowing for how very slippery this concept really is. (Which people and at which time?)

Rather, democracy for them was synonymous with disorder, dissolution, and the almost certain failure of any system of government based upon it. Why? Because "the people" lack the wisdom, information, and sufficient perspective about the needs of the whole to make sound decisions.

[Another important reminder here: When we talk about "the people" in the context of whom the Founders saw as eligible for participation in government, we must always remember that the MAJORITY of the population was excluded. Since only free white males who owned some measure of property (the amount varied from state to state, as it had in the colonies before the Revolution), everyone else -- the majority -- had no voice. This mean all women, all people of color, and free white males without property.]

Therefore, they sought to establish a framework of government in which "the people" had, for the most part, only indirect influence on decision-making. Remember, people originally could only vote for the members of the House of Representatives, and not for either members of the Senate or the president. (The members of the Senate were to be chosen by their respective state legislatures and the president by special electors selected by the senate chambers in the various states.)

In addition, even with all of the checks and balances -- plus the allowance of a direct vote only for the House of Representatives -- in place, the Founders also had very mixed feelings about the virtue of, or the requirement to follow, the alleged "will of the people."

The Lord knows what the Founders what have thought of our poll-fixations these days! The structure they established was intended to not only SLOW DOWN any impulse to act quickly -- one of the reasons why they required legislation to be passed in identical form and be signed by the president before it could become law -- but also to ensure measured consideration from many points of view by men responsible to different constituencies.

Fast forward to our time and much of what the Founders hoped for has either been changed through amendments to the Constitution or by politicians pledging to slavishly "follow the will of the people," however questionably that "will" is ascertained or sound the wishes of "the people" actually are.

The Founders knew that the "will of the people" could often be capricious, capable of turning on a dime, as it were, as well as occasionally vengeful and deeply unfair, especially to minorities. (And there are many kinds of "minorities," including people whose beliefs and/or practices are out of favor with a sizable number of people in their community (or state or even the nation). The dilemma the Founders faced was that EVERY OTHER source of "authority" they could think of had already been tried, and these were far from infallible, either. Absolute monarchy had proven a disaster, they believed, and even the parliamentary system of Great Britain -- admired by most of the Founders as perhaps the most perfect form up their present time -- had proven subject to manipulation by power seekers and clever, ambitious men who formed "factions" to advance their own interests over those of the nation.

So, some form of following the "will of the people" was the only alternative left them, but it had to be carefully filtered AND slowed down so that passing passions and foolishnesses could evaporate before doing any lasting harm.

I found the book a fascinating read; yes, through my study of history, I knew most of the information he presented, but it was the WAY in which he kept raising those issues of "democracy" and the "will of the people" -- as well as how various politicians and political parties over time had played upon those themes -- that I found quite revealing and helpful.

For our own time, we would do well to reflect on just how malleable -- and subject to persuasion by forces both benign and quite evil -- "the will of the people" actually is. Heck, even their alleged "preferences on policy" can vary depending upon how the questions asked of them are phrased.

In sum, what I took from this valuable book was this:

1) We must remember that "democracy" is a PROCESS, and one that to be successful must involve ALL who are involved in the consequences of any decision. This stands in marked contrast to the ongoing efforts of too many today who are eager to make participation by SOME of us more difficult and less effective than by OTHERS of us. This is NOT democracy but, rather, a variation of very old forms of aristocracy and demagoguery.

2) While following "the will of the people" is ultimately what our government should do, we must take great care in not only determining what that "will" is, but also doing everything we can to ensure that all of our people have the information they need -- and the time necessary to assess it -- in order to have true majoritarian rule.

In many ways, our "democracy" is a sham: people are relatively ill-informed, and are subjected constantly to "new" and information that is intentionally slanted to distort their perception of reality. We have forgotten to our peril the Founders' insistence that we must always keep the common good of all superior to the interests of some, no matter how worthily they present themselves.

The "will of the people" can easily be manipulated to the harm -- and even the subjection -- of some others among us. This always-constant possibility -- remember how Franklin advised us to be vigilant? -- should remind us that "democracy" is not necessary "justice" or "goodness."

A book to ponder!

[Nana Yaw Okyere-Agyekum · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first time I saw the title of this book, I knew I wanted to read it and it didn’t disappoint.. atleast the first 8 chapters. I really enjoyed/learned a lot and I would give it 5 stars except I was disappointed with chapter 10

The main theme is what the founding fathers thought about human nature. The author’s view from a review of historical sources is that it is hard to determine if most of the founders were Christian but what was undeniable was that they held a view of human nature that was very close if not identical to the biblical view. They believed humans were not naturally virtuous and therefore it was unwise to build a system of government that was dependent on humans being virtuous to succeed. It was fascinating to read how this view of human nature led the framers to seek to craft a constitution with appropriate checks and balances that would limit catastrophic expressions of this sinful human nature either in the form of tyranny or oppression by the government or anarchy and oppression by the people.

There is also some really interesting/good analysis on Andrew Jackson & Alexis de Tocqueville in the middle part of the book.

In the last part of the book the author does what he says historians typically do not do in books like this which is to give their opinion or practical application but he states that as a Christian who believes in original sin, he will give his opinion/practical application. Given the amazing preceding analysis, I was looking forward to this.

Chapter 10 ends up being a sort of polemic against Donald trump. He highlights many of Trump’s moral flaws/poor behavior and rebukes Christians who blindly support Trump and in effect ignore or excuse his moral flaws/poor behavior. The author’s point is that if original sin is real(and it is), then leaders from both sides of the aisle are potential vessels through which tyranny could arise and so we should be suspicious of abuse of power, concentration of power or demagogue behavior not only when the other party does it but especially when the person we support does it since we are more prone to be blind to the evils of the leaders/parties we support. All good so far imo.

My disappointment was not in the critique of Trump/Christians per se but my disappointment was in the lack of a similar critique against the democratic side and Christians who blindly support them. There are many professing Christians who also blindly follow the Democratic Party while minimizing/ignoring the moral evils that the party and its candidates seek to advance. This is the problem the author was trying to address here so I kept reading waiting for the author to turn his attention to the Democratic side and apply a similar critique since the same problem exists there but there was nothing. The only time the author mentioned any evil from the Democratic side was when he mentioned Bill Clinton’s affair while he was in office but he did that not as a critique of the democratic side but only to point out the hypocrisy of evangelical leaders who condemned Bill Clinton’s scandal but excused Trump’s. Again, no issue with calling out hypocrisy of evangelical leaders but why the silence of the evils of the Democratic Party & blind Christian support?

The irony here is that while the author makes a good point about the danger of being so blindly attached to a political party or candidate(in this case Trump) that we forget that he is also touched by the fall and therefore could promote evil, the author either ignores or didn’t think it necessary to do the same to the democratic side which also seeks to amass more power, arguably promotes even more moral evils not just by the candidates but the party platform as a whole and has many professing Christians blindly following. It gives the impression that there was an underlying bias here. The same kind of bias he was trying to rebuke. Missed opportunity imo.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good treatise on the history and current state of our democracy. This book aims to show that we needed democracy, not because we are inherently good, but because we are fallen. The founders believed this, but over time we have embraced the narrative that we the people are virtuous and therefore our democracy should produce good outcomes. This of course is not the case. The aim of our government and democracy should be to act justly and with humility and to recognize our falleness and embrace the checks and balances our founding fathers put into place.

[Brian Pate · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book! Every American Christian would benefit from reading it.

If Alexis de Tocqueville never said "America is great because she is good," then what did he say? This book digs into Tocqueville's writings to glean lessons for American democracy. McKenzie highlights the differences between the founding fathers and Andrew Jackson, most notably in how they viewed human nature. He concludes that we should not have faith in democracy, but we can have hope for democracy.

He makes application to our modern political situation, showing how a biblical understanding of original sin has implications for our political theory and involvement. (In my opinion, it is no accident that Trump chose to display a painting of Jackson in the Oval Office.)

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

“America is great, because America is good.” Have you heard that phrase? Likely, it was attributed to writer on American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville. Except that Tocqueville never said it. Rather, he said, “I cannot regard you as a virtuous people.” And his two volume work, which many believe to be a paean of praise to American democracy is in fact much more guarded in its appraisal according to Robert Tracy McKenzie. He contends, along with Tocqueville himself, that this work is often misunderstood, if it has been read.

While there is a good amount of material about Tocqueville here, the real concern of this book is about a Great Reversal that occurred in American history concerning American goodness. He begins with the Founders and the writing of the Constitution. The young nation just wasn’t working. Dependence upon the good will of the states to contribute to the upkeep of a national government just wasn’t happening and the national government had no way to compel it. They were depending on virtuous behavior and it was not forthcoming.

In writing the Constitution, the framers started from a different premise, “taking human nature as they found it.” In biblical terms, they assumed a fallen people. On one hand, they created a federal government with a strong executive office to implement the laws passed by Congress. Congress had two houses, one that represented local interests, and one representing broader concerns to balance each other. They could override the executive’s veto. At the same time a third branch, the judiciary, could check laws that overreached the power of the Constitution. It both guarded against excessive influence of popular power, and any concentration of power within the government. They wouldn’t trust anyone too far. They assumed human fallibility and fallenness.

McKenzie proposes that a Great Reversal occurred with the election of Andrew Jackson, who presented himself as the people’s president. He represented himself singularly as the people’s representative. He described his victory as “a triumph of the virtue of the people.” The great reversal in all of this was a growing belief in the inherent goodness of the American people, and those they elect, an assumption that has continued to the present day. Accruing great power to himself, he encouraged the abrogation of treaties with the Cherokee people and their removal via the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. In a lesser discussed move, he worked to end the second Bank of the United States. Tracy sees in this Jackson’s use of populism, the People versus the Monster, although the Bank had engaged in no wrongdoing. It is this extension of the power of democratic majorities, a “we versus them,” where “they” are not worthy, that is deeply disturbing. Democracy provides no protection from abuse of power when unchecked by the structures and the underlying premises behind those structures conceived by the founders.

It was this that was Tocqueville’s concern, writing during this period. Tocqueville witnessed the rise of partisan politics in which Congress failed to check Jackson’s moves, nor did the judiciary. While he recognized the great energy and productivity of the country, and the breadth of freedom its white male citizens enjoyed–greater than in Europe–he also recognized how democracies could be turned to ill, depending on how majorities wielded their power. He recognized how people could exchange liberty and justice for safety.

At the same time, Tocqueville finds that it is not virtue but self-interest that can be a safeguard–the temporary denial of benefit for long term profit that produces a kind of discipline, and counters individualism with collaboration on shared self-interests like good roads. Tocqueville also believed religious piety of importance, not because of his religious views, but as an early sociologist and political thinker. Belief in an afterlife in which one gives account can serve as a partial, not total, restraint on egregious evil. Tocqueville saw the separation of church and state as a good thing, recognizing the loss of spiritual force churches experienced when intertwined with political power.

All of this challenges the rhetoric of American goodness and greatness. McKenzie believes there can be great danger in being blind to human depravity, whereas the recognition of this gives reason for the countervailing powers of government and punctures the pretensions of political leaders. In his concluding chapter, he not only applies this to our current political scene, but if anything, even more forcefully speaks to his concerns for the ways the church has allied itself with political power.

This also explains to me the efforts to sanitize the teaching of American history, expunging our sorry dealings with native peoples, our involvement with slavery from our earliest settlements, and the structures that continued to oppress blacks, other minorities, and women even after Emancipation. None of these things ought surprise those of us who believe in human fallenness, who also believe in the biblical remedies of repentance, just restitution, and reconciliation. But those who must hold onto the myth of our inherent goodness cannot admit these things–the only solution is suppression–a strategy that has been a heavy burden on our nation

This is a vitally important book for our time. It not only takes a deep dive into the Great Reversal of the Jackson presidency but also uses Tocqueville to challenge the stories we tell about ourselves. It calls us to be clear-eyed about the future of our democracy, and questions the naïve notion of our inherent goodness. Perhaps a severe mercy of the pandemic is that it has challenged such illusions. But do we still hide behind them by attributing wickedness to “them”? Or will we learn from Samuel Thompson, a Massachusetts delegate in a ratification convention in 1788, to whom McKenzie introduces us. He declared, “I extremely doubt the infallibility of human nature” and gave for the basis of his doubt “Sir, I suspect my own heart, and I shall suspect our rulers.” Will we suspect our own hearts and put our trust not in rulers but in the God who searches hearts?

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Micah Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still required reading for anyone thinking about American politics

[SarahO · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, what a read! I loved it! A very accessible book that goes from talking about the Founders’ views on human nature, to the switch in Jacksonian America, to thoughts from Alexis de Tocqueville. It is also hard hitting and sobering; reminding us of our fallen nature as humans and how we have way more faith in our “goodness” than we should. I’m someone who believes in the power of history to help us understand the present so I totally recommend this one.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. The historical analysis was superb, and the Christian perspective he provides is much-needed for Christians today.

Much of the book discussed Andrew Jackson, his populism, and his blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power. When my kids have asked me who the "worst" Presidents were, I am always sure to include Jackson in that list. I am disappointed that so many historians try to lionize him as a great man of the people and a man of courage. I think McKenzie's treatment of Jackson is spot-on.

[Ben House · Rating 5 out of 5]

We the Fallen People: The Founders and the Future of American Democracy by Robert Tracy McKenzie is published by Intervarsity Press.

Books on the Founders–either as a group or as individuals–have been pouring off of the presses like a flood in recent years. With a popular musical highlighting the life of Alexander Hamilton, one can find all manner of praise, blame, friendships, discord, shenanigans, and noble actions among those men.

We the Fallen People adds a new perspective on this issue. One of the most important aspects of this book is its discussion of how the Founders embraced a Biblical view of human nature. At the same time, either their embrace of Original Sin, human depravity, or man’s propensity to evil was sometimes grounded in direct Christian influences, but at other times accepted from more secular traditions.

Those who want to recast the Founders as a school of divinity are, in spite of their intentions, misrepresenting the Founders. Nor are those who, as we often were taught in the past, indicate that the Founders were purely Enlightenment-based secularists.

The Founders and the documents they produced were geared toward a recognition of the sinful human nature to use the powers of civil government for ill.

And then the narrative changed! The prosecution calls to the witness chair General/President Andrew Jackson. The Era of Jacksonian Democracy turned the tables on many of the traditions, foundations, and ideas of the still-young Republic. In the Jacksonian narrative, the voice of the people was good. Jackson’s tendency was to villainize any who stood in his way. (Actually, he often preferred to shoot them.)

I have read several books over the past few years that have been very favorable to Andrew Jackson. A few others, like this one, are quite unfavorable. Call it a weakness in me, but I am often blown both here and there on Jackson based on the book I am reading. Much to the disappointment of many, I can never quite shake off an admiration for the man. Much to the disappointment of others, I can never fully embrace Jackson the man or the policies. (And he was a dedicated Christian with Presbyterian roots and convictions, which works in my favorable category.)

Dr. McKenzie is a history professor at Wheaton College. I think I met him when we took our son Nick to Wheaton some years ago. We the Fallen People is a useful study. I can see it sparking debates and affirmations in a good college-level discussion. It can also add lots of perspectives for the mere history teacher who is trying to race through the early chapters of the textbook. And it is books like this that caused me to never succeed in my attempts to race through such classes.

[Daniel Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Astounding. Phenomenal. A must-read.

In We the Fallen People, Robert Tracy McKenzie outlines the view of human nature held by the Founders of America, how it all shifted during the Jacksonian era, the thoughts of Alexis de Tocqueville (a Frenchman who toured America in 1831-2 and whose resultant work Democracy in America some consider the best work on either topic), and why it all matters (how we should remember and respond).

In a nutshell, the Framers' view of human nature profoundly shaped our Constitution. Nobody (in government or the general population) can be trusted because we are a fallen people, prone to self-interest and following passions above promoting the common good. The Constitution reflects this.

This mindset shifted dramatically in the 1820s, when politicians started talking about the people as basically good and collectively wise. That had deep implications for how we view government, majority rule, and more. It opens the floodgates to 'tyranny of the majority,' for how could "collectively wise" people make bad choices? (Spoiler alert: they can.)

Democracy is not intrinsically just; it is morally indeterminate. It can lead to a range of outcomes. So observed Alexis de Tocqueville as he toured America in the 1830s, gathering material to pen Democracy in America. He was full of hopes and fears, for he recognized that majority rule depends entirely on the interests and mindset of the majority. Will they use power to further their own agenda, protect others (including their opponents), or something other? Their choices, in large part, depend on how they view their own nature.

McKenzie argues that we need to return to the Framers' mindset. The claim that we are inherently good people is false and leads to terrible consequences. We need to view all—including ourselves—as fallen people prone to selfishness. Out of that knowledge comes a humility and insistence for our leaders to do the same: to stop claiming virtue for themselves (or party) only, demonizing opponents, and so on. The bad guy isn't "out there . . ." he's inside each of us.

He says a lot more . . . a summary is on my blog.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Complaining about political gridlock is our new national pastime. Congress seems to barely ever get anything done. What would the Founding Fathers of the United States think about all this? They’d be delighted.

Why? Because it would mean that the Constitution was working as intended—making change difficult and slow.

How did they achieve this? By spreading out power among various groups nationally (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) and sharing it with the states (which have their own executive, legislative and judicial branches, as well as city and county divisions). We call this a system of checks and balances, and separation of powers. The intentional result, sometimes, is gridlock.

Why did they do this? Because they didn’t trust human nature.

That is the central idea in Robert Tracy McKenzie’s We the Fallen People, one of the most important, insightful, and worthwhile books of recent years. This vital work not only gives us some fascinating history but also offers key observations and wisdom for our own day.

Why then didn’t the Founders trust human nature? “The problem as they understood it,” McKenzie writes, “is not that we’re wholly evil; it’s that we’re not reliably good” (p. 17). Therefore, not only should a government structure protect against the potential tyranny of king, but also against the potential tyranny of the majority—even a majority of white males who were the only ones who could vote.

The Founders were not perfect themselves in avoiding this problem—witness the tyranny of the majority of white males over slaves and Native Americans, and the absence of political representation by white women. Yet it was only a generation later when Andrew Jackson flipped the script and proclaimed the goodness and wisdom of “the people”—at least the people who agreed with him! And we have lived with that script of human goodness for the last two hundred years.

After unpacking the eye-opening tale of Jackson’s exploits and its relevance for today, McKenzie takes a deep dive into one of the most penetrating analyses of American character—Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Written as a result of his extended visit and intense investigation into Jacksonian America in the 1830s, Tocqueville admired Americans for their freedom and hard work but was cautious of their overly congratulatory view of themselves. In this caution, Tocqueville’s thinking lines up of the Framers of the Constitution.

He was struck that despite the flaws he saw in democracy, even as the Framers structured it, that it still seemed to work in America. Why, he wondered. The reasons are telling for our day, for we have largely lost those underpinnings. First was a restrained self-interest which understood “that short-term desires could betray their long-term self-interest” (p. 229). Second was the moral influence of Christianity—an influence we have lost (contend McKenzie and Tocqueville) not because of too little Christian engagement with politics but too much.

Is there hope? Yes, certainly, especially if we are willing to learn from the past. This means recognizing (as the Founders did) our own fallenness and our susceptibility (and the susceptibility of those we agree with) to abuse power. It also means not treating those we disagree with as “the enemy.” And it means believing that “because love binds rather than blinds, we are free to criticize our country without somehow betraying it” (p. 259).

This book has far too many penetrating insights than I can recount here. It is worthy of a wide and deep reading. I cannot recommend it too highly.

Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My opinions are my own.

[Dennis Henn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book. The author is a professed Christian who teaches history at Wheaton. His premise is that humans are warped by original sin, a concept understood by the Founding Fathers. We are also created in God's image. Because of that duality Democracy is possible but always in danger. Because the Founding Fathers understood this, they wrote checks and balances into the Constitution.
Along came Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who toured America in hopes of understanding democracy. He never said or wrote, "America is good because its people are good," though the words are often attributed to him, most famously by Eisenhower. The original statement, issued by one Andrew Reed, says, "America will be great if America is good."
The alteration is not mere semantics. Eisenhower's version implies that we are basically good, an assumption an increasing number of people, including Christians, believe. The original understands our basic human nature is corrupted by sin. We will always be biased by self-interest and led by our passions. Goodness follows when we recognize our sin, hold each other accountable, and legislate by reason and a concern for the common good.
What I most appreciated in this book was his assessment of Andrew Jackson's presidency, our first populist president. The comparisons between Jackson and Trump are significant.

[Jacob Vahle · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that "we the fallen people" so desperately need to read. Rather than embracing the Founding Fathers uncritically as some have been prone to do, McKenzie selectively applauds them for one key attribute: their recognition that man is fallen, an idea consistent with the idea of original sin. He then traces how we have (since the age of Jackson) rejected this idea and now see ourselves as fundamentally good and only our "enemies" as fallen and thus evil. I love how McKenzie organizes the book around a quote falsely attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville which preaches our "inherent American goodness" - the only problem is that Tocqueville never applauded us for our "goodness" but rather highlighted our self-interested character. Through analyzing the Founders, Jackson, Tocqueville, Dr. Mckenzie offers an admonishment for us in the present moment. A brilliant book that speaks prophetically and with wisdom to critical questions concerning our present democracy, and urges us to take our "fallenness" seriously.

Dr. McKenzie's classes transformed the way I view the study of the past, and with this book I hope others are able to grapple with the questions I remember grappling with in his classes.

[Wade Rials · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic! Dr. McKenzie does an outstanding job arguing that in order to truly understand the Founder’s, contemporary thinkers should observe anthropology as primary and theology as secondary. The Founders understood the nature of man as depraved and understood the nation as one composed of depraved individuals. America was exceptional not because it was founded by exceptional people, but rather what made her exceptional is the very understanding that her members were not. Author shows how history has rewritten the ideas of Tocqueville and proves that he actually saw America in a very different way than what is taught today.I highly recommend this book.

[G · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books. Great read

[Adam Shields · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Framed around an oft-repeated but inaccurate quote, McKinzie points out that the theological and political anthropology of the founders changed within a generation and how that change impacts our politics today.

As McKenzie opens the book, he traces how many politicians over the past decades have wrongly quoted Tocqueville to say a variation of, "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." The quote has publicly and regularly been pointed out as wrong, but it continues to be used.

After establishing the quote as wrong, McKenzie lays out how he believes the founders understood human nature and how they established the constitution concerning their understanding of human nature. McKenzie believes that the founders believed in Original Sin (Wikipedia link), which in his conception, means that they designed the constitution to prevent populism from overtaking the country. In McKenzie's account, human depravity and sin would mean that populism would lead to demagogues and other corruptions of power.

I want to start by saying that. I am not a historian, a theologian, or a political scientist. I read and respond to books here, and quite often, I think I am likely wrong because of my educational limitations and ideological biases. I have read many of these posts that I would disagree with later as I acquired new information or saw through some of my blind spots. We the Fallen People is a book that I both really do recommend because I think it is overall helpful in thinking through the issues of the partisan divide and how the country should be politically oriented. But I also think that there are two related concepts that I think McKenzie has either gotten wrong or wrongly described.

Much of the evidence that McKenzie is citing is about how President Andrew Jackson's version of populism (and his authoritarian tendencies) was contrary to the founder's intentions and then how the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, who was skeptical of democracy and populism, rightly understood the strengths and weaknesses of the United States more similarly to the founders than his contemporary Jackson. Underneath this historical analysis is a concern about the ways that the recent President Trump, who regularly drew inspiration from Jackson, is accelerating the problems within the United States because the founder's vision was for a country that rejects strong central leadership and populist leaders because they distrusted centralized power because of sinful humanity.

Jackson has lots of evidence for authoritarian styles of leadership, from his rejection of the Supreme Court's attempts to curb his power to the vilification of minorities (the enslaved and Native Americans) to create a point of fear to draw people to him, to rejection of institutions not under his direct control because of their ability to resist his impulse toward power (The Bank of America).

And Tocqueville's skepticism of populism and individualism meant that in his exploration of democracy, he was particularly interested in how democracy could lead to tyranny.

McKinzie, about a third of the way in, uses Cherokee removal to illustrate that it was not a failure of democracy (as is often framed today) but an example of democracy's problems that Tocqueville identifies:

Modern scholars who condemn the removal of Native Americans typically describe it as a “contradiction of democracy” or a “betrayal of democracy.”73 This would have mystified Tocqueville. Remember, as Tocqueville understood it, the “output” of democracy is whatever the majority in a democratic society advocates, condones, or tolerates—good or bad, wise or unwise, just or unjust. By Tocqueville’s reasoning, any act of government that commands the support of the majority is by definition “democratic.” To suggest otherwise would be illogical.

This may be accurate, but it seems to miss part of the point, which is also coming up today politically. Democracy isn’t populist majoritarianism but a legal system of order. The Trail of Tears was a violation of the rules of democracy, so not a perfect example of democracy but an example of the ways in which majoritarian power can violate the constitution and rule of law but still be allowed to continue without being stopped. The Supreme Court ruled that Jackson was required to uphold the previous treaty obligations. The Georgia law that led to the Trail of Tears violated the previous law and policy.

I agree with the conclusion that a significant part of the problem for Jackson and our modern political reality is the centralization of power and the inability to resist majoritarian movements. But I think the constitution's orientation is toward not just limitation of power but the rule of law that establishes processes that limit the power of the majority for the purpose of protecting minorities. The US has not done well in part because it started with severely limited conceptions of enfranchisement (who can vote) but also because of issues of class, gender, and race which placed the voting rights within a narrow type of people who wanted to remain in power.

Similarly, McKenzie identifies Christian anthropology as centered on his understanding of Original Sin. He may be right that the founders had a similar idea of Original Sin as he is referring to. Still, that becomes a problem communicating to readers today because McKinzie's understanding of Original Sin is narrow within the theological tradition. McKinzie cites Augustine and reformers but frames his argument as if all Christians universally have had the same understanding of Original Sin as the post-reformation Lutherans and Calvinists did. The problem is that this isn't true. Orthodox Christians understand the fall as having a cosmic reality that has broken the world and allowed sin to enter but does not have the same understanding of human depravity as the post-reformation Christians did. And prior to Augustine, many early Christians did not think that children were born already corrupted by sin in the same nearly biological way that Augustine talks about.

This matters because while I want to affirm the corrupting power of power that is central to McKenzie's point, I think his labeling of this as Original Sin, in the sense of how early reformers may have understood it, will not be understood by all readers in the way he wants it to be understood. Similarly, I think his orientation toward the language of populism in describing the majoritarian tramping of minority rights without a greater emphasis on how the rules of law, tradition, and norms are designed to protect minority rights will be misunderstood.

I also think that McKenzie's pointing to the founders as rightly understanding human anthropology does not consider how the founders restricted minority rights, allowed slavery, kept women subjugated, and did not uphold the bill of rights. McKinzie does mention this and talks about the constitution as a set of ideals that came into practice over time. But what we think of now as the constitutional limits of government were largely the result of 20th-century jurisprudence, not constitutional intent. Those 20th-century jurists did not all have the same anthropology as the founders. But they expanded freedom of speech and religion and limited the government's powers with restrictions like Miranda and the death penalty restrictions. Obviously, the 20th-century courts, congress, and the president also have helped create problems like the expansion of the executive role, so I don't want to make too strong of a point.

I think We The Fallen People is largely right, even if the way I get to that conclusion is different. I think is a helpful book that should be widely read. But I also think it is an example of how we can understand our Christianity too narrowly. Much of his advice in the final section, where he turns from history to the present and attempts to use his historical insights to help modern Christians think more "Christianly" about our political reality, I agree with.

Don’t misunderstand my point. To concede that we probably would have supported the removal of Native Americans had we been alive two centuries ago doesn’t exonerate those who did so at the time. It implicates us. When we wrestle with this rightly, when we not only concede but confess this reality, our prayer shifts to that of the tax collector, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” And when this becomes our heart’s cry, Native American removal becomes more than just a regrettable episode in the distant past. It becomes an urgent warning—to us, today. Although the circumstances would surely be different, we are just as capable of condoning injustice and rationalizing it as righteous, of depriving others of their liberty and calling ourselves good. In a democracy, the minority is never truly safe from the majority.

(More of my highlights. I would have highlighted much more if I hadn't listened to so much of the book.)

[Justin Genus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very strong history and synthesis from primary sources. Punches right harder than left in ways that are inconsistent, but necessary for us to hear on occasion.

The reflections on power, the nature of it, where it comes from in democracy are especially salient. As are his definition and explication of populism's dangers.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a terrific overview of the Jacksonian era which cleared up some things I had never fully understood back in AP U.S. History. (No wonder the whole controversy over the BUS never made sense to me; it was merely a political shibboleth at the time!) However, the final section of the book, which makes painstakingly explicit the already-clear parallels with the Trump era, was ill-conceived and will serve only to date the book and make it of decreasing value in the long term.

Like Mary Beth Norton's 1774: The Long Year of Revolution, this book actually heartened me about the present state of American politics. The Sons of Liberty undertook mob action just as heated and intemperate at 2020's BLM protest, and the Jacksonian era can boast demagoguery and partisan media to match today's, ALL CAPS to ALL CAPS and exclamation mark to exclamation mark; and yet the United States has managed to weather it.

[Patrick Walsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fact that We the Fallen People has been honored by both Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition is a strong indicator that Dr. McKenzie approaches his subject from a conservative Protestant Christian perspective. True to his profession as an academic who should be objective in approaching history, though, the author does not present a Christian theology of democracy. Concern about that possibility might put some potential readers off, so it seemed well to make that disclaimer early. It isn’t until the end of the book that Dr. McKenzie’s theological perspective is given.

We the Fallen People is first and primarily a history book, albeit with one overt purpose of debunking the often-quoted but always incorrectly worded and cited notion that America is great because America is good. America may be great, but it is not because we are good. If we are great, it is in part because we are able to overcome our flaws and our propensity toward evil and accomplish good things.

Robert McKenzie often cites the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, particularly his book Democracy in America, in telling the history of American democracy. Tocqueville is often cited as the source of the sentiment that America is great because America is good, but Tocqueville did not write that, and would say exactly the opposite based on what he observed.

McKenzie’s narrative begins with what is known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and moves quickly into the early decades of the nineteenth century, when the United States was rapidly expanding its territory westward to the Pacific Ocean. The Framers of the Constitution understood humanity’s flaws, our fallenness, and devised a system of government that includes checks and safeguards to ensure that no one branch and no one individual could hold enough power to rule exclusively. They devised a federal election system as well that was intended as a safeguard against mob rule, knowing that just as elected leaders are flawed, so also are the people who vote in the elections.

In the 1820s President Andrew Jackson sought to circumvent those safeguards and establish what some regarded as a monarchy. At the same time, Jackson spoke of the “people” as being the ultimate source of rule and authority and himself, the first populist president, as the direct representative of the people—“people,” of course, being exclusively white males of substance and means in those days.

The events of Andrew Jackson’s presidency occupy several chapters in We the Fallen People. Suffice it to say that he proved himself to be the very kind of flawed leader that the Framers were anticipating when they built government checks and balances into the Constitution.

It seems that the democratic dream, that of a government that functions well and establishes and maintains justice, security, peace, and equity for all Americans, has often been close at hand, but always just beyond reach. It is so in our day as it was when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America. Robert McKenzie asks us to consider what we might need to do to bring us a little closer to realizing the dream. We the Fallen People is a humbling but worthwhile read for anyone concerned about American democracy.

[Michael Burress · Rating 5 out of 5]

“We the Fallen People” is very detailed in the history of America as an idea with the notion that maybe we were never as virtuous as we have come to believe today. The author states that today people are unhappy and angry with government and many have a lack of trust for public officials. But as the author reminds us, it is going to take more than bumper stickers and slogans to turn it around. We all must be better stewards of intentional learning about democracy and what democracy is supposed to accomplish with the question always in mind how do we know what excellence in democracy looks like in our minds. The author talks about this by detailing how the founding Fathers, philosophers, and leaders were not disillusioned by what America was and the threat and challenges to democracy. However, over time this mythological narrative that America is great has been passed down through the generations without rigorous thought and in essence it was just story telling that we all came to believe is the goal of democracy. The author outlines this through in depth research and discussion of published and unpublished works of the founding fathers, philosophers, religious scholars, and leaders throughout history up through today. One of the most cited is A. Tocqueville, “Democracy in America” and the author outlines Tocqueville was not overly romanticized by America but found it to be the best example of democracy in the world at the time he was alive. For Tocqueville, the ultimate goal was not democracy but was love, liberty and human dignity for all. In other words, he didn’t have blind faith of democracy, but it was the best path toward the goals of love, liberty and human dignity. The major premise of the book is to remind us “American Christians remain unchanged: to think christianly about democracy and respond rightly to it and live faithfully within it”. We must remain diligent in defending democracy while understanding democracy’s limitations and not becoming overly romanticized with it but is the best form of government to continue to fulfill enlightenment, prosperity and human dignity. The author highlighted two quotes, first from Abraham Lincoln, “Think anew, act anew in confronting the crisis before them” and second from Madison “if men were angels, no government should be necessary”. This must be the battle cry for each generation to keep democracy working without being intoxicated with democracy. The author clearly develops this point throughout history from the challenges every generation has faced with democracy. Remembering, it is never over but is passed on to the next generation to continue. To sum it up with a quote from Benjamin Franklin who was asked in Philadelphia do we have a democracy and he replied “yes, if you can keep it”.

[Thomas Mackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is how a historian, and Christian, uses his extensive experience with the sources from the American past, to expose the fallenness of much of the American Church. Looking back to the founding generations, McKenzie demonstrates how even nominal and non-Christians knew there was such a concept as original sin in all people. Using the past wisdom of Christian scholars such as G. K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis to remind Americans we are not that exceptional a culture. Democracy is not essential because people are naturally good but the opposite. No one person or group can be trusted with too much power or influence.
Focusing on three general periods, the construction of the U.S. Constitution, the populism of the Jacksonian Age, and our current political and religious predicaments. Using very accessible sources McKenzie forces us to confront our blindness about ourselves and the damage Christians have done to any testimony to the rest of the world because of our flawed assumptions. The Christian must merge partisan ideals or groups to make God an elephant, donkey, or any other political logo.
McKenzie uses the misunderstood and misused French political philosopher Alexis De Tocqueville to highlight where things seemed to go off. Andrew Jackson and his supporters promoted a view of the public as naturally virtuous and wise. They assumed the cumulative voice of the people was always correct and that the president was the only official elected by all the people. Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is often misquoted to prove this belief. He had no such opinion of Americans. They were not virtuous but very self-centered. Majority rule could be the most tyrannical of all powers. Democracy worked only because their self-interest was balanced with everyone’s self-interest and forced restraint and compromise.
For the historian of early America making political commentary is hard and risky. To my relief, McKenzie counters the absurd historical images promoted by too many religious leaders and activists who have used cherry-picked sources to promote political policies. Some policies have no evidence in either the Bible or the past but in a gross misreading of both. Manipulating the past to blend the Bible with political goals has not created sacred policies but a “politized Christianity” (267). We must assume the fallenness of all humans and proceed from there.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really excellent historical argument, and is extremely enjoyable to read (aka, not bogged down by overly-academic or dry prose). There's a ton to chew on after reading through this, and my only complaint is that I wish some of the sections were actually a bit longer (though that would admittedly compromise the approachability of the whole thing).

I found McKenzie's argument essentially convincing - the "founders" actually had deep concerns about Americans' capacity for virtue (understood as a willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the common good) and therefore were not proponents of free and unfettered "democracy," which could actually hold the potential to unleash the worst aspects of human nature write large. McKenzie points to 2 examples of the Jacksonian period to make his point, and the chapter on the Indian Removal policies Jackson initiated is simply some of the best historical content I've ever read on that tragic aspect of American history.

He also incorporates an extremely thoughtful interaction with Tocqueville (and takes Eric Metaxas to task, which I have to admit that I enjoyed), and leverages searing critique against our current polarization issues, but especially the way certain "thinkers" deploy shallow interpretations of the Founders' philosophies to buttress their own ideology. It's really good stuff, very timely, seasoned with rigorous historical study and understanding, and packaged in an approachable manner. It's *almost* too much in one relatively slim book - unpacking the Founders' views of human nature, zooming into Jackson-era policies, dialoguing with Tocqueville, and presenting applications - and I almost wish it had been busted up into a few volumes (I would totally read a whole book of McKenzie's thoughts on Tocqueville, for example) but that might just be my own tastes.

Highly, highly recommended for anyone (Christian or not!) interested in American history, and especially in the early stages of the Republic and interpreting the Constitution.

[SundaytoSaturday .com · Rating 4 out of 5]

SUMMARY: What if the way most Americans understand democracy is fundamentally flawed? What if the vast majority of Christian views of human nature has blended with popular culture? What if this misunderstanding has resulted in idolatry and hubris? In We the Fallen People, author Robert Tracy McKenzie digs into the past for insight into our present political morass.

McKenzie says that we must first rid ourselves of two deep-seated beliefs about democracy in America.

"We must renounce democratic faith, our unthinking belief that democracy is intrinsically just. We must disavow democratic gospel, the 'good news' that we are individually good and collectively wise."

To begin rejecting the ideas that people and democracy are inherently good we need to take an honest, critical look at history through a Biblical lens - something that McKenzie says Christians, and Americans in general, are poor at. McKenzie tells us we are a "present-minded" people disconnected from the past.

"Our historical amnesia contributes directly to our dysfunctional engagement with contemporary politics," McKenzie pens. "A pattern distinguished chiefly by its worldly pragmatism and shallowness."

In other words, Christians are not distinct in how we view, learn, or apply the lessons from history or engage in our current cultural moment. We are caught up in the partisanship and petty bickering just like everyone else. As a result, "We are giving the culture a reason to view followers of Christ as simply one more interest group, one more strategically savvy voting bloc willing to trade political support for political influence."

Breaking this cycle starts with putting on our big girl or big boy pants, rejecting simplistic answers and banal platitudes, digging into history and the Bible, and starting to have grownup conversations.

"We must think deeply before we can act effectively," McKenzie says.

McKenzie leans heavily on Alexis de Tocqueville's observations from his seminal Democracy in America . The Frenchman traveled to America in 1831 on a 10-month observation tour of American democracy. Perhaps Tocqueville's most crucial observation was his definition of democracy.

"The key is Tocqueville's insight that democracy is morally indeterminate instead of intrinsically just," McKenzie says. "If democracy is the implementation of the will of the majority, then whatever the majority wills is 'democratic.'"

This was a paramount concern to the framers of the Constitution, who believed in a variety of traditional and non-traditional Christianity, but most certainly believed in original sin or, at the very least, that people will look after themselves rather than others if given the chance.

"They designed a Constitution for fallen people," McKenzie says. "Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good."

Those two facts - that democracy is not intrinsically just nor are people inherently good - should be an easy pill to swallow for Christians. The Bible is clear that we are sinful beings (Rom. 5:12, Eph. 2:3), and yet we have an extremely difficult time accepting that fact.

Just forty-three years after the ratification of the Constitution, Tocqueville was starting to see the seeds of what is now a sprawling, rotting tree: individualism, support for populist candidates, the mixing of politics and religion, sermons speaking of platitudes, the insatiable desire for wealth, a shallow faith, the centering of self, and the prosperity gospel. Sound familiar?

During Tocqueville's time in America, Andrew Jackson was the president of the United States. He is seen as the first populist president of the U.S.A. He was the first to espouse the belief that the majority makes the right decision. He was combative. He was partisan to a fault. There are numerous correlations between Jacksonian America and today's America. Many of these beliefs are so engrained into our culture it is hard to recognize that it has not always been this way.

"It's hard to think Christianly about values that we have taken for granted for so long that we're no longer even aware of them. This is where historical knowledge becomes invaluable. At its best, our engagement with the past can help us to see the present--and ourselves--with new eyes."

Those new eyes require us to acknowledge America's missteps and failings. To not to act defensively. To humbly look at the good and the bad of history. Ultimately, it should transform our behavior and thinking. What does this specifically mean for Christians?

In light of the Bible, McKenzie suggests four practices. First, we must run from every effort to meld Christianity with a particular political party, movement, or leader. Second, we must confess the allure and danger of power. Third, we must work proactively to mitigate the abuse of power. Fourth, rhetoric matters.

"Our words reveal who we are, Jesus proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount, for they flow 'out of the abundance of the heart.' But our words also teach by example."

One aspect that we heartily appreciate about McKenzie's writing is not only is he teaching the reader about history, he is also teaching the reader how to learn, approach, and apply the lesson from history from an honest and faithful Christian perspective. Don't hesitate to pick up this book.

KEY QUOTE: "A powerful majority pursuing its self-interest may oppress the minority. But Tocqueville also wants us to see that, because we're fallen, a powerful majority pursuing its self-interest can also gradually forfeit its own liberty. He envisions a servitude in which 'each individual allows himself to be clapped in chains.' He sees an 'innumerable host' of individuals, 'all alike and equal, endlessly hastening after petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them…is virtually a stranger to the fate of all the others. For him, his children and personal friends comprise the entire human race.' Tocqueville labels this decay of the community 'individualism,' and he believes that it is a predictable if not inevitable feature of a democratic society."

MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate topics for a disillusioned church.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Disclaimer: I received an advance reader copy of this book in exchange for providing a review for the journal Themelios.)

McKenzie's basic argument is simple. There are two reasons to choose democratic government: either you believe in the goodness of the people, or you don't. The Founders designed our government built on the latter view of human nature; beginning with Jacksonian Democracy and continuing into the present, we have unquestioningly assumed the former. McKenzie wants us to reconsider.

The book is very well-written, and I think McKenzie makes a tremendously helpful contribution to the discussion of contemporary American politics. I wish he had included more engagement with the Declaration of Independence and its implicit anthropology in dialogue with the Constitution as the Founder's commentary on human nature. For instance, does a Jeffersonian assertion of the universal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (devoid of a transcendent standard of what is liberty and what is license) stand in uneasy relationship with a Madisonian assertion that men are not angels (ie, might non-angels come to define that right in a way that is in rebellion to their Creator)?

But that's not a critique of McKenzie's work. No book can do everything. This one stimulated my thinking considerably.

[Steve Wegman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book because we need to know our history and understand how things got the way they are now and how we can fix things.

A Christian historian looks at populism and American democracy focusing on Alexis de Tocqueville and Andrew Jackson. He laments the fact that we have lost sight of the notion that we need democracy because we are fallen - we have a nature that is inherently self-centered - wheras populism in Jackson, and more recently in Trump, got behind popular leaders who said what their supporters wanted to hear, but were not good for the overall country.

He makes the point that democracy doesn't guarantee good leaders and that the solution to the problems of democracy isn't always just more democracy. He spends much of the book going over the Trail of Tears Indian removal as evidence of democratic action (it was supported by a large majority) gone wrong. He points to Jackson's bank wars as evidence of what a populist leader can do that actually thwarts the will of the people when people blindly support him.

And he spends time toward the end of the book comparing Jackson and Trump. They are a lot alike.

[Steve Linskens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans, by and large, believe there is much more virtue inherent in democracy than there really is. Robert Tracy McKenzie is an excellent historian. From various situations he articulates throughout America's history, one can observe devastating consequences that have been wrought on our society merely because a large mass of people controlled the decision making. In our current age, it's especially concerning due to the morality of the masses and the direction that we're increasingly heading in. It may be too late before we as a nation are able to look back and realize "everyone did that which was right in their own eyes". Democracy is not a deplorable form of government; but it's not perfect either. And the seams in our fabric are being frayed more and more. Some of McKenzie's examples in the book could have been more succinct in order to not lose track of the greater narrative; but overall, the picture he paints is very sobering. I wish this book could be in the classroom of every American high school.

[Brandon Rathbun · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let me start off by saying I’m glad I read this book.
Without double checking, this is probably the best 3 star rating I have.
With that, The premise of the book is intriguing. The author opens the book incredibly well and sets up the rest of the book. The end of the book has great insight on how to live and work within the political sphere with an awareness of original sin.

The middle, IMO, got lost a handful of times in the Jackson era and shortly after the Jacksonian presidency. The author’s history background was evident in providing a lot of details that were important to history; but not necessarily important to the thesis.
The middle pages could have been a good 50 pages shorter. This lead me to skip some sections.

Overall, the author brings up really good points and urges the read to not forget about original sin and casts a vision for what a republic could look like with the awareness of original sin.

[Ryan George · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t imagine the undertaking inherent in the research, culling, writing, and editing of this book. Robert Tracy McKenzie leverages hundreds of citations and an incredible contextualization of the first 50 years of our republic’s history to explain the tension between democracy and populism. He deftly juxtaposes three moments in American history (the 1780’s, 1824-1836, and our most recent decade) to reveal the cultural, spiritual, and political dynamics of each. In so doing, he makes dusty corners of United States history come alive by overlaying two opposed worldviews from our past atop the milieu of the cable TV and social media newsfeeds of our present. McKenzie thoroughly proves that not only have we Americans not learned from our chagrin-worthy history but also that we’ve already repeated it.