American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation

by Seth David Radwell

An enlightened exploration of history to unite a deeply divided America 

The political dialogue in America has collapsed. Raw and bitter emotions such as anger and resentment have crowded out any logical debate. In this investigative tracing of our nation’s divergent roots, author Seth David Radwell explains that only reasoned analysis and historical perspective can act as salves for the irrational political discourse that is raging at present. 

     Two disparate Americas have always coexisted, and Radwell discovered that the surprising origin of these dual Americas was not an Enlightenment, but two distinct Enlightenments that have been fiercely competing since the founding of our country. Radwell argues that it is only by embracing Enlightenment principles that we can build a civilized, progressive, and tolerant society. 

American Schism reveals

• the roots of the rifts in America since its founding and what is really dividing red and blue America;

• the core issues that underlie all of today’s bickering;

• a detailed, effective plan to move forward, commencing what will be a long process of repair and reconciliation.

Seth David Radwell changes the nature of the political debate by fighting unreason with reason, allowing Americans to firmly ground their differing points of view in rationality.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Government, Science, American History, Society

547 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 29, 2021

Reviews

[Darya Silman · Rating 3 out of 5]

America seems distant yet near. The local news is presented according to the American political course. The disruptions on American soil are portrayed as the beginning of the end of the whole civilized world. Notwithstanding the apparent contradictions in the modern political atmosphere, America still positions itself as a beacon of hope.

America, America, America… Started as a kind of social experiment, ruled by the people and for the people, its growing ambiguity puts into question the success of republicanism. Freedom of speech degenerates into quarrels on minor matters while significant problems are intentionally ignored. Cries to unite against exterior enemies silence the voices of inner peace’s advocates. To resolve the contemporary issues, one has to go back in time and find the deep, in-rooted reasons for the polarization of opinions so that America would not collapse under its pride. That’s precisely what does Seth David Radwell in his lengthy book.

‘American Schism: How Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation’ is, indeed, thorough research that ties together the French Revolution, Founders, and Trump, not to mention other prominent figures. The author explores American history as a fighting arena of three sets of ideas: Radical Enlightenment (egalitarianism, secular education, and voting); Moderate Enlightenment (rule of the elite, exclusion of specific categories of people from decision-making); and the Counter-Enlightenment (superiority of church over the state). These contradicting forces have been present during the four centuries of American history. Ardent adherents of the three currents are the reason for the modern division in public life.

The book contains three chapters. Three sets of ideas have incompatible differences; the three chapters of the book have a distinct character.

In my opinion and against the others’ viewpoint, the book’s main flaw is its redundant lengthy sentences. The whole book could be reduced by a quarter if the author removed unnecessary questions and repetitions of the same thought. This fault is especially explicit in the first chapter that focuses on the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The research of professor Jonathan Israel of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, is the chapter's foundation. I was sometimes left with the feeling that it was just a retelling of the professor’s books on the topic, and Radwell himself added nothing new. The foreword by the professor and the style of the chapter are almost indistinguishable.

The second chapter is the nadir of the book. After leaving Founders, Radwell applies three Enlightenments to explain the twists and turns of American politics up to the modern era. Elegantly galloping through three centuries, the narrative also manages to touch on such sensitive topics as African American rights and suffrage. However, the positive attitude is spoiled by a subchapter dedicated solely to besmirch Trump and Republican Party. Though it is undoubtedly that Trump’s presidency was extraordinary in the bad sense of the word, Radwell’s antagonistic spirit is too negatively charged to be acceptable in historical research.

The third chapter is dedicated to the conclusions. Basing the politics on Enlightenments’ similarities rather than differences is the way out of the political cul-de-sac that characterizes modern-day America. Fight unreason with reason; the thought goes as the red thread throughout the book.

Highly educating, the book’s two chapters were a challenging read, while the central one was an out-of-outer, authentic viewpoint. Thus, my rating is 3/5 stars. I would recommend the book to the mass reader. Yet, be prepared to sometimes strife through lengthy sentences.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this unique retelling of American history, Seth Radwell claims that the origin of our political polarization lies in the 17th- and 18th-century European Enlightenment, and, more specifically, in the two separate and distinct Enlightenments that evolved over that time. Drawing on the work of the scholar Jonathan Israel—who has documented this schism in Enlightenment thought in meticulous detail—Radwell applies these alternative visions to US history in what turns out to be a highly entertaining and insightful new take on our country’s checkered past.

The argument is essentially that the European Enlightenment was split between the Radicals—Spinoza and the French philosophers, primarily—who embraced direct and representative democracy, the separation of church and state, skepticism towards religion, egalitarianism, and a broader conception of human rights, and the Moderates—John Locke, David Hume, Voltaire, and others—who opted instead for tighter controls on monarchical power (constitutional monarchy), a more prominent role for religion in politics, and aristocratic rule with more limited rights for those of lower socioeconomic status.

Since the US founders were products of the Enlightenment—and were well-versed in Enlightenment thought—it’s not surprising that they also found themselves split into Radical and Moderate camps. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin represented early US Radical thought while John Adams, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton represented the most prominent voices among the Moderates.

These fundamentally different visions for the country would ultimately extend into every period of US history—up to the present day—mixing with counter-enlightenment thinking that would, more often than not, find support with the Moderates, who would use this reactionary pushback against Enlightenment principles for their own political gain. This dynamic continues to play itself out even today, according to Radwell.

But in progressing through the book, the reader may wonder whether or not our contentious past can really be best explained in terms of the schism between the two Enlightenments. In fact, there are reasons to think that this is not the best approach.

First, it’s very difficult—and at times it feels forced—to reduce every complex thinker in our country’s history to either a “radical” or “moderate,” as if each thinker entirely conforms to one of only two distinct ways of thinking (and isn’t this just encouraging the type of either/or thinking the author is trying to move beyond?)

For example, Jefferson is correctly identified as a Radical for his antipathy to religion and his declaration that “all men are created equal,” but his stance on limited federal government is fundamentally at odds with later Radicals that greatly expanded the federal government’s role in guaranteeing the protection of human and civil rights, especially from violations justified on “state rights” grounds.

The author also identifies FDR and Lyndon Johnson as Radicals, yet their call for an expanded role of the federal government seems to be directly at odds with the Jeffersonian model, making Jefferson, in this case, a Moderate. Radwell also labels Martin Luther King Jr. as a Radical, yet earlier defines Radicals as being skeptical of religion, believing that religious justifications for actions were ultimately harmful in the public sphere.

Clearly, the greatest minds of our country varied widely in regard to their preferred systems of governance, views on religion, embrace of equality and egalitarianism, and desire for broader democratic and civil rights—all of which cannot be neatly contained in a simple narrative consisting of only two sides. Radwell seems to spend a lot of pages explaining away exceptions to his framework, tipping the reader off that perhaps this isn’t the best way to categorize the country’s intellectual history.

It seems to me, based on Radwell’s own narrative, that the larger issue (by a long shot) has always been the schism between Enlightenment and counter-enlightenment thought. Consider for a moment the aspects of our history that are most shameful today: religious fundamentalism, racism, sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, bigotry, and the violence that each of these reactionary ideas produce. But these sorts of things have little to do with the Enlightenment other than that they stand in direct opposition to its espoused ideals of reason, tolerance, and peaceful dialogue (even among the Moderates).

And further consider the greatest threat to democracy today: the cult of trump. Trumpism has little to do with either Enlightenment camp, and while the founders were split between the Radicals and the Moderates, neither camp would have tolerated any Trump-like figure that had embraced his particular brand of counter-enlightenment anti-intellectualism, religiosity, disdain for institutions, and complete disregard for science and truth. We should remember that the founders (whether Moderates or Radicals) were Enlightenment-brand philosophers and scientists before they were politicians or businessmen—and therefore intellectually and morally the complete antithesis of Trump.

The thing is, Radwell does a fantastic job explaining all of this (which is why I’d rate the book higher than the preceding criticism would suggest), which makes it all the more puzzling as to why he doesn’t consider the schism between Enlightenment and counter-enlightenment thought to be the more consequential conflict, especially considering—as he himself describes in great detail—how the modern Republican party has essentially replaced all of its Moderates with reactionary radicals that live in an alternate reality of their own construction. The Republican party is now the party of counter-enlightenment anti-intellectualism, conspiracy theories, and outright plutocracy. These are the forces we’ve been battling all along.

In the last part of the book, Radwell lays out his plan to reunite the country. As Radwell writes:

“I vote for a renewed and vigorous democracy that guarantees a voice for all citizens; a clear separation between church and state in all civic arenas; a restoration of meaningful public discussion anchored in objective facts; and an openness to collectively enact much-needed reforms to our civic culture, governing structures, and social policies.”

Some specific recommendations—all well-founded—include the elimination of Gerrymandering, the election of the President by popular vote, terms limits for supreme court justices, expanding civic-based education in public schools, more progressive taxation, making it easier to vote (by instituting a national voting week where people can pick a one-day holiday to go vote), campaign finance and advertising reform, and providing a $20,000 baby bond to every eligible child (adjusted for family wealth) to provide the funds to help pay for an education, buy a business, or purchase a home (this is a great way to even the playing field between children born into wealth and those born into poverty).

But our ability to achieve any of these outcomes depends—not on the dynamics of the Radical versus the Moderate Enlightenment—but on the ideals of the Enlightenment of either variety to overcome the assault on our institutions and our sanity by the counter-enlightenment establishment currently led by Trump. If Trumpism wins, and we can no longer distinguish fact from fiction, can no longer trust in institutions or experts, and can no longer engage in substantive debate about actual policy issues (rather than simply engaging in ad hominem attacks), then the democratic experiment in America is over.

[Jeff · Rating 2 out of 5]

Intriguing Premise Marred by Hyperpartisanship and Hypocrisy. This is a very well documented polemic whose bibliography comes in at nearly 30% of the text, so that is definitely a positive. The premise, spinning the common American knowledge that the American Founding was grounded on Enlightenment thought on its head and declaring that the wars between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were actually wars between two competing strains of Enlightenment thought, is genuinely intriguing. In laying out the history of what Radwell considers these two separate strains of Enlightenment thought, Radwell is particularly strong - possibly because that is one area of my own knowledge that is somewhat lacking. While knowing Paine and Locke (among others, all of whom Radwell considers on the same side of this divide), the majority of those Enlightenment thinkers that Radwell claims were more radical are ones I had never heard of, much less read or even considered.

It is when Radwell leaves the Founding generation that his hyperpartisanships and hypocrisies become ever more blatant, particularly in his excessive time attacking Donald Trump for his "Counter Enlightenment" philosophies while never once acknowledging - and even actively glossing over - when Democrats do the same things in the same manners. Radwell claims objective truth exists and reason should guide us, yet disparages the recent election security measures taken by Georgia and Texas despite very clearly not having actually read either bill. (Full disclosure: I've read the Georgia bill, and indeed have a history of having read - for at least one term - *every single bill presented in the Georgia General Assembly*. That particular accomplishment was over a decade ago, but I daresay it gives me the authority to challenge the author on this point. ;) ) Further, his hyper progressive blinders are very firmly in place in his disdain for Citizens United - which *defended Hillary Clinton*, for those unaware -, his frequent (in the latter stages of the book) calls for term limits on a wide range of elected and appointed officials, and his disdain for the US Senate and the Electoral College - crucial elements in ensuring the minority's voice is heard at the national level.

Indeed, Radwell's very clear hyperpartisanships and hypocricies when discussing more modern events - including events of 2021 - brings into doubt his thinking, if not his actual scholarship, regarding events hundreds of years old. (While it is hard to doubt such an extensively cited discussion, it is also very easy to cherry pick those sources who confirm one's preconceived ideas and other prejudices.)

I wanted to like this book, based on its description. I wanted to be able to write a glowing review and scream this book's praises as I did two similar books last year. Unfortunately this book simply fell far from the required objective standards to allow me to do so. And yet it *is* an intriguing premise, and if one can wade through the hyperpartisanships and hypocricies, it does actually have a few interesting and discussion worthy points. Thus I believe I am satisfied with giving it two stars, but cannot justify even a single additional star according to my own reading of this text. Perhaps those whose own preconceptions and prejudices more fully align with the author's will feel differently, but I also know of many readers who would likely throw this book off a cliff by around the 35% mark (which is about halfway through the discussion itself. Recommended, but make sure you read many other sources about the issues and histories in question as well.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Few books are written for the general public that blend academic-level qualitative analysis of the past with sustainable solutions for the present while maintaining readability for those new to the content covered. Seth Radwell's book, which traces the origins, continued legacy, and recent dilution of the U.S. Enlightenment and classical Liberal thought, does just that.

Influenced by Professor Jonathan Israel's work, Radwell argues that there were two contending schools of Enlightenment thought —the radicals (Spinoza in Europe and Jefferson and Paine in the U.S.) and moderates (Locke in Europe and Hamilton and Adams in the U.S.). The former group was more supportive of secularism, democracy, and egalitarianism, while the latter was friendlier to established ideas and institutions such as the Christian Church, the protection of property, and hierarchy. It was for this reason that there was such contestation during the first decades of the U.S. Radwell also argues that, while the word "Enlightenment" has left our vernacular, these two competing visions for America have continued to influence policy and society. In tracing this history, Radwell includes an allegory that is later revealed and expanded on in the final part of the book; that while the formulation of this nation was filled with contestation, both camps subscribed to reason and the quest for objective truth. It was through these thought processes that compromise was attained. To Radwell, this way of thinking has been lost and has culminated with counter-enlightenment ideas that have caused our nation to be divided.

Radwell's book thus conveys two ideas that are important to the U.S.' future: one, it shows the continued importance of liberal thought to the U.S. even as we either forget, misinterpret, or neglect it; and secondly, that even though there will always be divergent views on how the U.S. should run, creative consensus can be attained through rationalism and adherence to finding objective truth. For anyone looking to gain a solid grasp of the ideological foundations of this nation and its continued impact, this book is a great place to start. The author has done a wonderful job bringing these ideas together and narrating their evolution while providing a comprehensive bibliography for further reading.

[Daniel Spiegel · Rating 5 out of 5]

American Schism by Seth David Radwell provides a fresh perspective on the current political dilemma in this country. Instead of each side blaming the other side, Radwell takes a deep dive into history to make better sense of what is happening to our republic today.

Through a deep dive into foundational documents and the influence of the European Enlightenment, Radwell uncovers that today’s raging conflicts have their roots in the fundamentally different visions of America that emerged at our nation’s founding. In American Schism, Radwell looks at our country’s history and ongoing political tensions through the lens of the Radical Enlightenment versus the Moderate Enlightenment, and their dynamic interplay with Counter-Enlightenment movements over the last few centuries. With a firm grasp of historical context and reality, he offers a new vision for America with practical action steps for repairing our rift and healing our wounds.

Ultimately what Radwell recommends in an entirely novel approach. He argues, we need to change the nature of today’s political debate by fighting unreason with reason, by returning to a rational discussion divorced from the extreme views on both the left and right. Our current debate is not only counterproductive but it is tearing us apart. Radwell believes we have more that binds us together.

A must read for anyone interested us coming together as a nation.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Caveat
This much-advertised – and much-lauded – book is one that I found to be a really good history of some of the major internal struggles in which our people have found themselves in the roughly 250 years since the United States gained its independence, including the extremely divisive contest between the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans in the first years of the Republic’s existence.
However, I ultimately found the author’s attractive idea that these ongoing struggles (as indeed our own times evince) can be traced to two differing understandings of the 18th century Enlightenment to be unconvincing.

Before I begin my alternative explanation for the reasons behind the events he recounts, let me first give his major interpretation(s):
“I discovered that throughout our nation’s evolution, two distinct Americas have always coexisted… [as] It appeared that intervals of rapid progress toward a more ideal egalitarian society were inevitably followed by periods in which we were plunged back to a much darker reality.
“Most surprising to me was that at the root of the two Americas was not an Enlightenment, but two distinct Enlightenments that were fiercely competing during the founding of our nation, as they have been ever since.”

The Author’s Argument
And what are these two Enlightenments?
“…the Moderate Enlightenment, while disseminating some of the most important advances of the age, fundamentally maintained much of the prevailing hierarchical inelasticity in society. In contrast, the Radical Enlightenment was the school of thought that more meticulously delineated an alternative to this rigid societal structure.”
These alleged “two” schools of thought shared much in common, including the celebration of human reason’s ability to discern the “laws of nature” through careful observation and the application of the recently advanced tools of science, the desire to replace myth with fact, and the inclination to subject everything to probing questioning rather than to accept that things are the way they are because of the sanctity of “tradition.”
Where they principally differed, though, according to Mr. Radwell, was in the degree to which they trusted “the people” and regarded the authority of long-established institutions to play a moderating role in the conduct of society and the state, principally the role of “religion” and the Church [i.e., variations of Protestant Christianity].

Historians have for years observed the significant different in tone between, for instance, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and many have previously argued that this also represented the change in influence from the more radical thinkers of the Revolutionary period to the more conservative ones behind the shaping of the Constitution. Personally, since many of the same individuals were involved in both periods – including the very important development of state constitutions between the outbreak of the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution over a decade later – I view this as the rather natural outcome of different objectives: the Declaration was just that, a declaration, one intended to broadcast the reasons for the colonists’ action – a justification to “the world,” if you will – as well as a ringing statement that its authors hoped would attract support from other nations to their cause, while the Constitution was the necessary, tough switch to forming a workable government, a task requiring hard-heated, practical decisions about the nitty-gritty of governing.

Now it was in this process, as the author vividly portrays, that many key differences that were to remain flashpoints for many years to come actually surfaced: just who are “the people”? What about the slaves (those whose names must not be mentioned)? What is their role in the new government to be? What role are the formally independent, sovereign states to play in this new arrangement, and through which structure(s)? How is representation to be allocated: property, taxation, population? And on and on.

The reaction to the developing Constitution – within the Convention itself, as well as afterwards in the highly contentious but fascinating back-and-forth between its defenders and attackers in the various state conventions elected to decide on confirmation – saw some remarkable splits occurring that are hard to pin down to just one philosophy (or, in Radwell’s terms, one version of the Enlightenment): as but one “for instance,” people objecting to the Constitution because it “interfered” in the states’ former broad autonomy were joined by others who felt the new structure was too autocratic in nature.
While these may be described as clashes between competing interpretations of the Enlightenment, they are in my opinion not so evenly divided up one side versus the other as I had once thought.

One last comment about Radwell’s argument before I turn to my counterargument:
Before he ends the first quarter of his book, he cites the very important role that religious sentiment played in the early years of the Republic and, in my opinion, continues to play as an anti-Enlightenment force. The occasion is the so-called “Great Awakening” of the first part of the 19th century when a wave of popular preachers swept the countryside – and it was largely a rural and backwaters phenomenon – that brought religious sentiment to the fore. This fact, that there has always been a significant proportion of American citizens who look to guidance from their religious beliefs over and above the findings of science and reason, is for me one of the key explanations for our continued waves of conflict since our inception.
What I find interesting in the author’s argument is that while here he has identified something that has little in common with either of the two Enlightenments he has identified as the causes for our divided nation, he does not depart from his argument that it is the difference between the two interpretations of the Enlightenment that is the root cause of our societal disagreements!

My Respectful Disagreement and Alternative Explanation
In what follows, I am drawing upon both my lifelong study of American history and politics and upon my nearly 30 years in the public arena.

Ideas as motivators and explanations
As a young teacher, I enthusiastically embraced Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution in the late ‘60s. As an idealist – in all senses of the term – I had long wanted to believe that we humans were motivated and drawn by ideas, as well as by the romance and flourish of well-wielded words that encapsulated them.
But now, many years later, I have much cause – and evidence – to wonder. Yes, words and ideas are used to justify many things, but do they inspire and motivate most people most of the time?
My view is this: carefully structured ideas and concepts, such as that which came to be identified with the Enlightenment, certainly can inspire some people some of the time. But what I find more operative in human history – in US history, specifically – is less ideas than words, especially words that inflame, enrage, and demean.

In order to avoid making this a long (and unreadable rejoinder) let me summarize my belief here:
I think that we US citizens have been fortunate that so many of our leaders (elected and institutional) have taken to heart the dreams of the American revolutionaries: the ideas that all people are created equal, that each of us possesses certain inalienable rights, and that ultimately sovereignty resides in the people and is expressed through majority rule.
And, yes, some of the greatest reformers in our history have also quoted from those foundational ideas and creations of our Founders!

However, when I turn to the “darker forces” – those seeking the rule of a few, or of denying rights to many, or of believing that some are unworthy – that regularly raise their ugly heads through our history, I find less that they are operating from an alternative idea base than from crasser – but, also, more tangible – positions involving money, power, and status.
Now such can be dressed up with appropriate “ideas” – such as the rich, being the truly productive class, have the right to retain more of the world’s goods than the worker bees – but that is not their motivation but, rather, their trumped up (intentional usage) excuse.
The same is true for the contemporary phenomenon of evangelical Christians steadily pushing for policies that enshrine their values, which is but another way to secure and retain power.

In short, just as I have come to understand the many struggles throughout time and place as being essentially about power, property, and class (or status, if you will), so also do I “read” American history as being filled with just such competing interests. The true ideational opposite of the Enlightenment is not what Radwell calls Moderate but, rather, the always-present effort by some to rule over, possess, and arrange for the rest of us.

We Americans apparently can neither recognize nor call out “free market capitalism” for being the rapaciously unjust mechanism for delivering the bulk of the goods to the already obscenely wealthy that it is. Nor can we call out the so-called “Christians” who are grabbing for naked power over “non-believers.” Nor the efforts by the Republican authoritarians to ensure that free and open elections become something of the past.

None of this is supported by any ideas worth defending as, openly identified, they are indefensible! Instead, subterfuge, red herrings, and red meat.

It is the ancient story of the “haves” and “have nots,” and little has changed over the millennia, except our creativity in disguising these efforts as epic conflicts between competing noble ideas.

[Andres · Rating 5 out of 5]

I try to follow the discussion how crazy our political debate has become and much of it confuses or frustrates me. But I found American Schism a breath of fresh are. The only way to truly understand the roots of our divisions is to trace them back in time. And that is exactly what the author does.

I found American Schism so educational. And the comparisons of the American experience as contrasted against that of modern France for example were illuminating.

Radwell has done extensive research and his work pays off in this book!

Highly recommended.

[Dylan Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got a preview copy of this book and was really surprised by how engaging it was.

I don't always love books about contemporary politics but usually like history. This book has great historical analysis and some very interesting takes on American events of the last centuries.

But it also presents an entirely fresh take on how crazy our public debate has become and suggests returning to a more respectful appreciation of our differences.

I would recommend highly. I feel like I learned so much and have a new appreciation for the ideals that make America unique.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seth David Radwell dissects the true essence of what is dividing our country in "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation." It is masterfully presented in a breezy, thoughtful, intelligent and NON-PARTISAN style meant to stimulate further thought and even more meaningful, rational conversation. Radwell's analysis cuts straight through the clutter and presents some creative and crucial ideas on how this country can be more united in thought once again. Truly A must read.

[Jenny Bong · Rating 5 out of 5]

In today's political climate, the country is divided by and fueled by ideologies that each party may have not originally stood for. Author Radwell does a stellar job to guide the reader in understanding this divide. He eloquently explains the roots of both parties and dives deeply into the history of American Politics. Challenging the idea that the origin of the schism doesn't lie from an Englightenment but argues that there are two distinct Enlightenments that have fiercely competed the origins of America.

This book has made me think about American politics differently and understand the parties and I thoroughly enjoyed that Radwell does a great job in explaining both schools of thought rather than spiting one over the other. Radwell explains that both schools of thought motivating our founders were grounded in reason and science. Today, these Enlightenment inheritances have been “crowded out” as the author explains by counter-enlightenment beliefs rejecting objective truth altogether. I believe that this is a great read for anyone that is trying to understand the current situation of American politics. Also for those who are eager to engage in the public sphere and engage in civic debate.

[David Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

An eye-opening read. While it's easy to believe the current divide in the country is a recent event, this book uncovers the history of how divided the country has been throughout history and that, while not easy, the path to coming together is in front of us if we're willing to do the work.

[Carol & Russell]

Not a bad book

[Avid · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than 5 stars for the contribution this author’s analysis and ideas could make toward healing our country and putting it back on the path to liberty and justice for all. I’ve read a lot of US history and quite a number of political books, but this one is head and shoulders above all of them in its clear-eyed view of where we came from, where we are now, and how to move forward in a healthy, constructive manner as a country.

Unfortunately for the country, this book is simply not accessible to the masses. Its concepts need to be distilled to a one-hour lecture or essay in order to reach the number of people needed to effect change. For those who are comfortable reading about US history, the enlightenment, democracy, and the social issues facing our divided electorate today, i can’t recommend this enough. Very enriching and hopeful.

[Grant Kleiser · Rating 5 out of 5]

American Schism is a foundational work for understanding the ideological conflicts in the United States from the founding era to today. Radwell does an incredible job in charting the two strains of "Enlightenment" thought: one radical, one moderate, that has formed the underlying basis for many of the debates in American politics. It will serve a wide audience struggling to make sense of the divisions in our country and hopefully provide a way forward for reconciliation and progress.

[Sherrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

***I won this book in a Goodreads Giveaway***

It started strong and finished strong but that bit in the middle made me want to spork my eyeballs out.

The author starts with a very thoughtful description of enlightenment philosophy and breaks it down between moderate thinkers and radical thinkers with their main difference being the role of religion in secular government. He goes on to explain the role of counter-enlightenment thinkers as a reaction to enlightenment thought. Basically, logic vs. anti-logic. Using this framework he starts with the founding of our country and moves forward in time.

And then he goes on a huge tirade about Trump and the modern Republican party that was disjointed, emotional, and completely different than the book up to that point. Then, as soon as the tirade arrived it was over and it was back to a discussion of philosophy. I think I have literary whiplash.

It's not that I disagree with his analysis of Trump or his followers, I just don't feel like his tirade provided any value to this book. If I wanted that I would pull up Twitter or HuffPost. I want something a little more thought out in a book about rational thought in politics. The rest of the book was interesting, though. I'll give it that.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have liked to rate this book higher, and it could have deserved a high rating. He presents a very interesting, convincing theory of the elements of history, especially the Enlightenment, that led to the very stressful political situation in the US today. Although Radwell is a businessman and not an academic, the research and quoted sources are impressive. As I read the first part, contemporary problems came to my mind that fit into his propositions very well.
The problem with the book, and the reason I ultimately only gave it 3 stars, was that Radwell, who is clearly liberal (and I have no problem with that) , often descended into an anti-Trump rant. Such feelings are understandable in someone who is liberal, but in a book like this, he should aim for more objectivity and look at the faults on the left as well. About the only criticism of the left is on page 421 in a 425-page book, and it is a mild criticism. As I said, a book like this should aim for objectivity. In addition, if we can't recognize the faults in our own side and also take proper recognition of the legitimate complaints of the other side, we are never going to heal. I suspect Radwell would agree; I am just sorry he does not follow through.

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Radwell writes a very powerful work on the divisions within American democracy today. But he does so by building upon the history and precedents of the past, to how we got here today, along with some feasible reconciliation recommendations that if adopted over time, can help heal the divide. Radwell’s scholarship appears like a PhD, but in fact reflects solid research along with a great sounding board of advisors. He traces the French and Russian (briefly) Revolutions, which leads into a discussion on the two forms of Enlightenment he characterizes that influenced America’s modern attitudes and situation. He takes the whole first section to explain this. In the second section, Radwell analyzes these forces through the lens of America’s ‘civic battlegrounds’ over specific epochs of American history. The third section connects the dots of the first two sections while stitching the fissures of our representative democracy. Readers will love the history as much as the logical debate in this well researched and written book.

[Amy Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very few talk today talk about the Enlightenment. What i loved about American Schism is the journey it provides to just how the age of reason forged our young nation.

It is not surprising that with the disappearance of reason in our political dialogue, this book resonates so clearly today.

I would consider American Schism the freshest history /politics book i have read in a long time. Bravo!

[Stan Himpe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Today the word “enlightenment” is no longer in vogue. But in American Schism, Radwell illustrated why enlightenment values are so vital, more important today than ever. Further, he argues that if we abandon them, we effectively abandon our experiment with a government for and of the people.

A must read for concerned citizens, whatever political ideology they hold!

[Brian Rowland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoughtful, provocative study of our political system

I enjoyed the history of our founding principles, their evolution and resulting situation and dilemma we find ourselves facing. The solutions proposed are worthy of consideration by all Americans.

[Kiril Kostov · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a fair amount of political commentary, both magazines and books, related to the dysfunctional nature of our current political environment. Many are quite superficial.

I found Radwell's approach in American Schism quite unique. By using the lens of the Enlightenment, he sheds much light not only on today's political debate but on many of the most important eras in our history.

I learned so much from this book, and really enjoyed the comparisons the author draws to other countries, particularly France. While I knew something of the Enlightenment, I never realized there were such radically different schools. And I had no idea that the competition between these schools was so consequential for the founding of the United States.

Finally, while the book proposes and discusses some fascinating and quite difficult issues, it does so in a style that is quite approachable and not academic. For example, the discussion of populism and its positive and negative effects on society were illuminating

I would strongly recommend this for anyone concerned about our democracy.

[Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I could write a book, this is right in line with what I might write, complete with the long sentences and occasional pretentious language and sentence structure. (lol)

But really, Radwell does a nice job illuminating and educating us on enlightenment history from the perspective of both the French and American Revolutionary currents. He does an admirable job covering early American foundational issues and struggles between the two competing factions: The Federalists, deemed to be Moderate Enlightenment advocates, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, the Radical Enlightenment advocates. He then also introduces some good insights related to what he assigns as the Counter-Enlightenment forces, illustrating how a subsequent religious surge - "the second great awakening" attempts then as now to overstep the separation of church and state established in the constitution, to inject religious powers back into governmental control.

(Incidentally, This is an area of early American foundation history that is not often covered in the materials I myself had read - but gives a strong clue as to where, when and how today's society (wrongly) comes to the belief that this country was founded as a Christian Nation... It was the work of the early Counter-Enlightenment proponents that have subsequently interjected this narrative, well after the declaration of independence and strongly secular constitution were established!) (I have some more reading and research to do....)

Radwell goes on in subsequent parts to cover further moments in our history where these same enlightenment values have been central to conflict. I'm not going to regurgitate. Its all pretty good stuff. Where this book is criticized by several other reviewers is in his seeming partisan critique of our contemporary political quagmire and former president Trump's contributions to it. Lets face it, academic contribution or not, I am pretty sure this was the primary motivation for writing this book - to attempt to understand our current situation and how we got here. so be it.

The highlight for any book for me is what it does to my own thinking... and I typically use these reviews to spill out my own unrefined, first draft thoughts that have been inspired by a book. So here it goes, off the cuff,... in which separating my words from Radwell's may be difficult.

So, I've been thinking for some time about the ideals of the declaration of independence - that we are created equally with certain unalienable rights. The fact is that these unalienable rights were NOT true in the reality of life when Jefferson, or perhaps Locke or Rousseau wrote them. They were ideals for which we are to strive toward. They were not true with Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, they were not true when we wrote the Civil rights act in the 60s.... but we are getting there.

To me, my new-found analogy, it is like a logical argument. The structure of a logical argument is SOUND with or without True premises. It is up to the premises being true that makes an argument Sound and True. Similarly, with my background and thinking on systems and modelling, a model is only as good (at producing reliable outcomes) as its underlying assumptions are. A beautiful model built on faulty assumptions can produce no meaningful predictions. One essential goal in any modelling effort is to ensure your assumptions are valid.

So it is with the philosophical principles in our founding... the model of our democratic republic is sound... its the premises and assumptions that we have yet to perfect. And it seems in government and civilization building, we need to strive to influence the betterment of the underlying assumptions for which the success of the model is dependent.

So, back to the book. One of Radwell's key objectives and recommendations of this book is the concept of Meritocracy. He indicates that Meritocracy has come under considerable fire recently, and of course somewhat suggests that a critique of Meritocracy today is a critique of our current realization/manifestation of it... not a valid critique of some True, Ideal, platonic formal Meritocracy. And I agree with him... he just misses the words - its not meritocracy at issue, but our implementation of it, and a failure to establish truth in its necessary underlying assumptions. We have failed to ensure an equality of opportunity for all persons. Instead, we have established a tilted playing field still in favor of the wealthy (corporate) "aristocracy" and abandoned much institutional protections to ensure that equality to the 99% (ok, 90%).

Similarly for the success of our Democracy. The Founders of the Radical enlightenment flavor, recognized that in the absence of a well educated, informed populace, having full participation in government, then yes, the Moderate enlightenment band of brothers would be correct - democracy would default to a mob rule - the common criticism of pure democracy then and now. It is not a failure of Democracy, but a failure in our establishing and or maintaining the underlying premise and assumptions necessary to make it work - an educated, and rational population!

So, it is no surprise that one of our fundamental challenges today is in the re-education of our society. From civics, to critical thinking skills, to understanding and respecting scientific concepts and the language of statistical studies and results. Recognizing unfounded claims, demanding supporting evidence, expecting clarity in communication.

My greater concern is that re-establishing a universal equitable education system, where the teaching profession is appreciated and respected as essential and necessary is a long term goal. We need change, of complete course reversal proportions, now! In the face of unprecedented access to information - both true and misleading, intermingling, and equally convincingly portrayed to an ignorant, naïve, and or gullible viewership.... sigh. I'm not sure how we can get there - other than with a wide ranging propaganda effort that will clearly be detected and resisted by the Other.

Final thought, the title and much of the book suggests the schism is between the two enlightenment camps - Radical and Moderate. I disagree - they are both rooted in the same essential values of evidence based rational discourse. While not denying that these two different camps have lead to a continued disparity in social justice - a significant issue today, The true schism is that of Enlightenment values and the populist, anti-intellectual counter-Enlightenment.

In that light, I think this book is a nice continuation of that theme covered in Richard Hoffstader's Anti-intellectualism in American Life. After reading that book, published in 1962/63, I had hopped for a contemporary sequel. This book is a good attempt!

[Steve Greenleaf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Upon reading this book a second time—not for any lack of clarity of the arguments, but for other reasons—I began to think of the author, Seth David Radwell, as “Dr. Radwell” and his book as one akin to a medical text. The book provides a comprehensive consideration of the dis-ease (or outright pathology) of contemporary American politics. His book begins with the foundations of American political thought, based largely on the Moderate and Radical Enlightenments. This duopoly was challenged almost immediately by a broad Counter-Enlightenment movement. Based upon these three contending perspectives, Radwell examines major events and trends in American history. While I find that Radwell’s three-cornered schema of Radical, Moderate, and Counter-Enlightenment thought loses much of its usefulness as the narrative proceeds through American history, it remains sufficiently useful to frame the events that have led us to our current state. With the anatomy and physiology of our political disease process that Radwell establishes, he then turns to describe our current symptoms, accurately and thoroughly. Mr. Radwell in conclusion offers his prescription for treatment of our pathology. And at this point—upon my second reading—it occurred to me what I only intuited during my first reading. That is, I contend that Dr. Radwell’s prescription for addressing our ills is the equivalent of the rest cure for whatever ails you (which, to be sure, is better than bleeding the patient). It’s not that the prescription is per se wrong, but that it’s inadequate. And it’s not that I have a better answer, but I have come to believe—against my will and disposition—that the diagnosis and prescriptions are insufficient to treat the full measure of the malady. Not wrong, but insufficient. The patient—our nation—needs more than a rest cure, it needs something more akin to psychoanalysis, something with greater depth, more primal. The forces that lead us to flee to the better angels of our nature lie deeper than we realizewithin our individual and collective souls. The better angels of reason and rationality that the Enlightenments, Moderate and Radical, so strongly promote and value are often too weak to overcome these more primitive forces. In writing this, I hasten to add that I value what Radwell values and want what he wants. I highly value reason and rationality, democracy, human dignity, freedom, and equality. As much as I wish our situation was different, I’ve come to see the world of reason, rationality, and democracy—and all that democracy entails—as a small island with a fragile ecology that exists in a turbulent sea of more primitive drives that rise and ebb with some regularity and that sometimes result in a storm surges that wreck havoc on our system. “Dr. Radwell” and I disagree about the exact nature and depth of the pathology and the likely effectiveness of his proposed treatment. He believes his recommended treatment regimen will work; I’m more pessimistic but without a better suggestion. I hope he’s correct, and I agree that we should try his course of treatment, as nothing better seems available at the moment.

All of the above provides my conclusions, so let me step back and cover some basic points about this work. This is a well-written, comprehensive consideration of the traditions of thought that have framed a significant amount of American (and world) history. The reader receives the equivalent of four books in one: a history of Enlightenment political thought; a survey of American history by reference to Enlightenment (and Counter-Enlightenment) principles; an analysis of the current state of American politics (circa 2021); and a set of recommendations about how we might escape our current unhappy plight. Each section draws upon acknowledged scholars and conveys the necesary background for the reader to situate the author’s argument while keeping the argument tight but thorough. As I alluded to in my opening, my reading (and re-reading) of this book helped prompt me to re-examine my priors about the broad themes of American history and the nature of our political pathologies and weaknesses. I’ll also admit that I’m tardy in writing this review because close to the same time I read Radwell’s book, I read other works similar to his, such as Robert Kagan’s Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart (2024), America Last: The Right's Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators by Jacob Heilbrunn (2024), and I’m still reading Steven Hahn’s Illiberal America (2024). I also went back to read or re-read Christopher Lasch and Richard Hofstadter, both of whom address many of the same issues that Radwell addresses in this book. Also, I’ve been reading many shorter pieces related to this topic. If you’re new to this topic, Radwell’s book is probably the best one to start with because of its comprehensiveness, and it’s one to include at any point in your sequence of reading to explore this topic.

Radwell provides an excellent exposition about the two Enlightenments, Moderate and Radical, in the first section of the book. In doing so, he draws primarily upon the scholarship of Professor Jonathan Israel, a preeminent scholar of the Enlightenment. Indeed, Professor Israel provides a Forward to the book, which is about as impressive an imprimatur as any author could hope to receive. I found Radwell’s discussion of the French Enlightenment and its luminaries especially helpful, as I’m less well acquainted with that tradition than I am with the British and American varieties. One need only think “Thomas Jefferson” to know that the French thinkers were significant contributors to American thought. I also wasn’t acquainted with the “Moderate” versus “Radical” distinction in Enlightenment thought, and I greatly benefited from learning about this distinction. (I must sheepishly admit that I’ve not read any of Professor Israel’s books, a defect which I hope to correct in time.) By way of criticism, I thought Radwell passed too lightly over Counter-Enlightenment thought. Regarding the Counter-Enlightenment, he focused on the religious revival in the Second Great Awakening and very little on secular (or non-American) Counter-Enlightenment thought. Did the Counter-Enlightenment thinkers of Europe fail to gain traction in America? Perhaps so, with the American lack of an established Church and no feudal aristocracy. But Americans were certainly affected by Romanticism, which I believed created a counter-culture to the Enlightenment. Americans were certainly affected by Romanticism. I would liked to have learned more about Counter-Enlightenment forces beyond their religious manifestations.

As Radwell reviews the range of American history from the Revolution to the present, I thought that his guiding theme of Moderate versus Radical Enlightenment ran out of steam. The Counter-Enlightenment is also a factor, but it is reduced to a supporting role in the narrative. And I no longer believe that the Counter-Enlightenment (aka illiberalism or antiliberalism) plays only a supporting role; alas, it’s a main character in American history. With all that happened in the nineteenth century, Radwell’s moderate versus radical schema begins to seem too simple. Of course, Radwell’s dichotomy has venerable precedents, such as Vernon Louis Parrington’s three-volume Main Currents in American Thought, first published in 1927. Parrington examined American thought through the contrasting themes of democracy and individual dignity versus materialism, privilege, and power. (Full disclosure, I’ve not read Main Currents, but I did read Hofstadter’s The Progressive Historians.) But the trends of American thought and popular reactions to events are just too complex to stick to this framework.

Radwell does an excellent job of identifying and analyzing the forces at work in assessment of the current state of American politics and the effects of Trump, Trumpism, and MAGA. Which is to say, I agree with him. And so with his prescriptions for rectifying our political dysfunction, in so far as they go. His recommendations about improving our political system—ending gerrymandering, popular election of the president, ranked-choice voting, the use of sortition, greater participation on all levels, etc.—are all sound and would be most welcome. So, too, is his concern for our high degree of economic inequality (and thus our need for progressive taxation) and how we should consider immigration. All of these points are coherently and concisely argued. If all of Radwell’s prescriptions were to be followed, I’ve no doubt that our political system, our nation, and each of us, would be much better off.

But how do we get there? There’s the rub. Radwell suggests that we use reason to fight unreason. I’m all for that. I spent all of my working life in the persuasion business as an attorney and advocate in many forums. Here at Substack, I advocate and seek to persuade through words of reason. But if words of reason and rationality were fully honored by most people most of the time, we’d never have had Donald Trump as president. In some arenas, with a great deal of effort, we can hope to allow reason and rationality to prevail over interests, emotions, and entrenched beliefs, but it’s an uphill battle. In American history there have been great triumphs, but so many failures, too, in realizing our highest aspirations.

Seth Radwell has written a wonderfully thoughtful and thought-provoking book. He’s not an academic (although he has some impressive credentials in that regard: Columbia University and some other institution). He’s been a successful businessman, which causes me not only to admire what he’s accomplished but as a scribbler, to envy what he’s created as an author. This book is a significant accomplishment. I hope that he continues to contribute to the conversation.

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank-you to Mr. Radwell for the opportunity to read via #GoodReadsGiveaway~
The review is entirely independent of this.

3 years worth of research was my first clue that this might be tied to a Thesis or Dissertation. However, that does not diminish the ability of the average reader to enjoy the information. As a matter of fact, Radwell explains early on that his target audience is the 'average' American reader.
That said, there are still aspects that indicate this might be over some heads (read: boring).

Fortunately, this was right up my alley! Quick overview: roughly the first half is devoted to understanding how the principles of the Enlightenment (I learned as die Aufklärung) are integral to the country's founding & Constitution. That alone is worth the read. Radwell does an excellent job of making a complex concept accessible to novices or anyone wanting to explore the impact on the Founding Fathers. Regardless of Moderate, Radical or Counter-Enlightenment beliefs, it's very much worth the read just for the first part.

But in the 2nd half, he digs in & applies how these key belief systems are expressed today~
How the legacy of the Enlightenment is both tearing us apart as a nation (his schism) & hope that it can also bring us together. I cannot begin to agree with all of his assessments. I took around 500 notes & it took me MONTHS to digest this material, despite having studied political philosophy & international relations for decades; I could appreciate the unique arguments presented by this book. THIS is what we should all be searching for. Open discourse & civil argument brings greater resolutions to complex issues. Learning to apply that is one of the greatest assets of a politician or any leader.

This is one of my top 10 books for 2021.
The research is meticulous, the arguments are salient to the political situation of today. And the approach is one that can be appreciated by those outside academia. Even if you don't agree with some of the details, they are nonetheless key to understanding what's driving the tribal mentality that is overtaking politics. If anything, it helps us take a step back & assess with greater objectivity what we should really be focusing on as a nation.

Definitely a Great Read~

[S.J. Manning · Rating 5 out of 5]

A herculean effort to make a legitimate, historically robust case for a hopeful future.

Radwell’s work is an intellectual tour de force, written with a wealth of historical thought and context, maturing to the uber challenging realities of the political, social and economic tsunami of today. Seth engages in a complex and compelling intellectual exercise to disarm – or at least propose how - the political and social sword of Damocles many thought-leaders ponder voluminous waking hours. Rather than dwelling on the vertiginously deteriorating state of American Democracy, Seth puts forth desired solutions and a path to get there. Fight unreason with reason, promoting the most fundamental principles that buttress all that is good in and for society.

Radwell undertook an extraordinary task. Educating and persuading the masses in this age of astounding frivolity in most thought, and actions therefrom. Are we living in a veritable intellectual Rubik’s cube, where the rigueur is promoting meekly giving up in favor of the simplest of narcissistic benefits? All that engendering thoughtless discourse manifested in millions mindlessly pounding social media keyboards?

Radwell scores a touchdown. He champions fighting unreason with reason by returning to rational discourse, however challenged by the prevailing milieu, including incomprehensible causes and concepts, and even former gender absolutes now in legitimate play. And all that with ever-present, mostly natural as well as regrettable tribal biases waging intellectual war with ubiquitously promoted institutional and systemic racism. In the least racist country on earth.

For a world where political, economic and social divides appear chasms never to be bridged, Radwell proposes and makes a solid argument that creative consensus can in fact be attained.

I am looking forward to re-reading American Schism, with highlighter in hand.

[Trudy Zufelt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway. That being said, this is not the type of book I may have chosen but it is one I'm glad I read.

First off, the background of how America's founders were influenced by the Enlightenment is a fascinating historical reminder how the country's principals came to be. Radwell adeptly explains how the three enlightenments shaped American politics up through the modern era. Those three sets of ideas, the Radical Enlightenment (egalitarianism), Moderate Enlightenment (rule of elite), and Counter-Enlightenment (Church over state) all present during the four centuries of American history are also all responsible for the modern division of today's America.

While important to understand the background of the Enlightenment thinking, at times it felt like too much of a history lesson that didn't contribute as much as I'd hoped to the current state of politics. However, the content did help me understand the current state of race relations. However, it left me feeling confused as to how the ideas of enlightenment have been abandoned in our current state of America with white supremacy, sexism, racism, etc. still at the forefront.

Radwell does do a good job conveying what needs to be done in the future to bring the ideas together to fix the current problems but spends too much time singling out the last presidency and Republican party instead of focusing on the problems of the current state of the entire government two party system. While a fascinating read, this will appeal to those in the academic arena who want a well researched thought provoking look into the governing of America.

[Ally Brunette · Rating 4 out of 5]

This read takes a heavy historic look at the pendulum swinging back and forth throughout American history from being a government rooted in religion to one that advocates for freedom of and from religion. Author Radwell weaves a narrative through summary of both American history and enlightenment philosophy in Europe and domestically. I found the last half of the book to be difficult to put down as he turns his lens to how we arrived with a divisive political candidate such as Donald Trump.

Radwell covers topics like tribalism, the creation of an alternative reality, and belief validation that bonded Trump's followers to him. I appreciated the perspective offered that both Democrats and Republicans prior to Trump had alienated and lost the faith of many working class white Americans. As a former public servant, the final chapter was of particular interest to me. I was fascinated by Radwell's suggestions of how to move toward civil dialogue in a divisive political atmosphere and how to attract high quality public servants to the field. The cynic in me is skeptical that our modern democratic society actually does support a government which empowers a public good, but I see Radwell's suggestions as a final effort to revitalize and save democracy as we know it.

This book, above all else, proved to me that we have a responsibility through our government to support and maintain the fourth estate of a free press. The private sector should be freely providing a forum for healthy debate and dialogue, but as profit and division make this less the case, it is imperative that we maintain this crucial piece of democracy in some way.

[Michael Loveless · Rating 3 out of 5]

American Schism is probably worth a read for anyone who is concerned with the hyper-partisanship that's dividing America. Seth Radwell's premise is that from the very beginning of our nation, there have been two intellectual school's of thought about politics. One of those philosophies has emphasized equality and democracy, and the other has emphasized order and republican government. The strength's of Radwell's book is a helpful analysis of the ideas of the founders and the roots of their ideas in the enlightenment. He traces back ideas to numerous men of the enlightenment (Locke, Hume, Rousseau, etc.) and discusses their ideological differences. The founders took somewhat divergent intellectual paths, depending on which Enlightenment philosopher they preferred. When Radwell moved beyond these roots, he showed a strong bias for the "equality branch" of the enlightenment. The fact that he favored one side over the other was not a large concern for me, but the fact that he did not even acknowledge the problems of democracy was a concern. In the early years of our nation, when our government was less democratic, we had presidents like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Today we are much more democratic and we have had presidents like Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Can anyone say we are electing great presidents today.

[mdr · Rating 5 out of 5]

“American Schism” is the book the country needs right now. Seth David Radwell explores the polarization in today’s society that is tearing apart the fabric of our nation. By comparing contemporary ills to the eighteenth-century Counter-Enlightenment, Moderate Enlightenment, and Radical Enlightenment, he leads us well beyond such famous figures as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to put what is happening in 2020-21 in fascinating context that I haven’t seen anywhere else. He doesn’t take sides as he discusses race, religion, education, political parties, rights and freedom, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; his goal is to mend the schism and make us whole again.

The book comes with an extensive index that is extremely helpful if you want to focus on a specific aspect of his thesis. Mr. Radwell has appeared on numerous podcasts since the book came out, and listening to him shows what a historical expert he is on this subject. He is obviously very smart, but he writes in a fluid way that invites everyone in. Personally, I’m very thankful for that

It’s amazing that this is his first book. I hope to read more from him in the future. And I hope we follow the plan he lays out to fix our great but damaged nation.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that analyzes the different camps of the enlightenment thought and how they influenced the founding of the United States of America and the counter enlightenment forces that have interacted with them from the founding until today. The tricks that are being used today are not new, although he argues manipulated with more skill today. While I don't agree with all of his suggestions the author tries to offer ways to fix our current political environment. The best thing about this book is the history lesson and the way it made the reader think about its influence on today. I received a free Kindle edition of this book from the publisher through the Goodreads First Reads giveaways. I would rate this book 3.5 stars if Goodreads allowed half stars.