What do you think?
Rate this book
FORWARD
A lively bold blueprint for moving beyond the "era of institutional failure" by transforming our outmoded political and economic systems to be resilient to twenty-first-century problems, from the entrepreneur, bestselling author, and popular political truth-teller.
"A vitally important book."—Mark Cuban
Despite being written off by the media, Andrew Yang’s shoestring 2020 presidential campaign—powered by his proposal for a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for all Americans—jolted the political establishment, growing into a massive, diverse movement.
Now, in Forward, Yang reveals that UBI and the threat of job automation are only the beginning, diagnosing how a series of cascading problems within our antiquated systems keeps us stuck in the past—imperiling our democracy at every level. With America’s stagnant institutions failing to keep pace with technological change, we grow more polarized as tech platforms supplant our will while feasting on our data. Yang introduces us to the various “priests of the decline” of America, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve.
The machinery of American democracy is failing, Yang argues, and we need bold new ideas to rewire it for twenty-first-century problems. Inspired by his experience running for office and as an entrepreneur, and by ideas drawn from leading thinkers, Yang offers a series of solutions, including data rights, ranked-choice voting, and fact-based governance empowered by modern technology, writing that “there is no cavalry”—it’s up to us. This is a powerful and urgent warning that we must step back from the brink and plot a new way forward for our democracy.
"A vitally important book."—Mark Cuban
Despite being written off by the media, Andrew Yang’s shoestring 2020 presidential campaign—powered by his proposal for a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for all Americans—jolted the political establishment, growing into a massive, diverse movement.
Now, in Forward, Yang reveals that UBI and the threat of job automation are only the beginning, diagnosing how a series of cascading problems within our antiquated systems keeps us stuck in the past—imperiling our democracy at every level. With America’s stagnant institutions failing to keep pace with technological change, we grow more polarized as tech platforms supplant our will while feasting on our data. Yang introduces us to the various “priests of the decline” of America, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve.
The machinery of American democracy is failing, Yang argues, and we need bold new ideas to rewire it for twenty-first-century problems. Inspired by his experience running for office and as an entrepreneur, and by ideas drawn from leading thinkers, Yang offers a series of solutions, including data rights, ranked-choice voting, and fact-based governance empowered by modern technology, writing that “there is no cavalry”—it’s up to us. This is a powerful and urgent warning that we must step back from the brink and plot a new way forward for our democracy.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 5, 2021
220 people are currently reading
2432 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Yang
4 books665 followersAndrew Yang is an entrepreneur, author, philanthropist, non-profit leader, and former 2020 presidential candidate.
After working as a lawyer and executive at several early-stage technology companies, Andrew eventually became CEO of an education company that became #1 in the country. He then started a national entrepreneurship non-profit, Venture for America, which worked to empower thousands of young entrepreneurs to bring their dynamism to communities across the country, from New Orleans and Baltimore to Denver and Detroit.
Andrew was named a Presidential Ambassador of Entrepreneurship by the White House under the Obama administration and a Champion of Change for his work with Venture for America. Initially dubbed a "longer than long shot" candidate by the New York Times in 2018, Andrew became a top-tier contender for the presidency, raising nearly $40 million in grassroots funding.
With a vision to rewrite the rules of the United States economy through a “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for every American adult, Andrew became one of the most exciting stories in the 2020 race. Andrew's nationwide support, known as the “Yang Gang,” propelled him to seven Democratic primary debates, outlasting six senators, four governors, three members of congress, two mayors, and one secretary.
Following this unexpected run for president, Andrew formed the non-profit Humanity Forward, successfully lobbying Congress for direct cash relief for struggling American families during the pandemic while simultaneously distributing over $8 million directly to struggling families.
From his presidential and New York mayoral runs, Andrew has seen first-hand what’s preventing our country from getting things done, and he is now directing his energies towards fixing the machinery of our stagnant democracy. With FORWARD: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, Andrew lays out the case for a variety of democracy reform measures that can unclog the pipes of our system and realign the incentives of legislators with the wellbeing of the American people.
--
After working as a lawyer and executive at several early-stage technology companies, Andrew eventually became CEO of an education company that became #1 in the country. He then started a national entrepreneurship non-profit, Venture for America, which worked to empower thousands of young entrepreneurs to bring their dynamism to communities across the country, from New Orleans and Baltimore to Denver and Detroit.
Andrew was named a Presidential Ambassador of Entrepreneurship by the White House under the Obama administration and a Champion of Change for his work with Venture for America. Initially dubbed a "longer than long shot" candidate by the New York Times in 2018, Andrew became a top-tier contender for the presidency, raising nearly $40 million in grassroots funding.
With a vision to rewrite the rules of the United States economy through a “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for every American adult, Andrew became one of the most exciting stories in the 2020 race. Andrew's nationwide support, known as the “Yang Gang,” propelled him to seven Democratic primary debates, outlasting six senators, four governors, three members of congress, two mayors, and one secretary.
Following this unexpected run for president, Andrew formed the non-profit Humanity Forward, successfully lobbying Congress for direct cash relief for struggling American families during the pandemic while simultaneously distributing over $8 million directly to struggling families.
From his presidential and New York mayoral runs, Andrew has seen first-hand what’s preventing our country from getting things done, and he is now directing his energies towards fixing the machinery of our stagnant democracy. With FORWARD: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, Andrew lays out the case for a variety of democracy reform measures that can unclog the pipes of our system and realign the incentives of legislators with the wellbeing of the American people.
--
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 177 reviews
October 17, 2021
I came in to this book expecting a totally new approach to politics. I came out of it with a vague sense of what Andrew Yang is trying to do, and with quite a bit of confusion about a few contradictory positions.
This book is well organized and somewhat well written, though Yang's tone is surprisingly informal for a presidential candidate. Yang divides his book up into three sections: the history of his presidential campaign, the problems he sees in modern America, and his proposed solutions.
Had Yang stuck only to the history of his campaign, I would have given this book 5 stars. Yang's insight into the nature of presidential campaigning in the 21st century is absolutely priceless. Most interesting were his comments about being turned into almost a completely different candidate by his well-meaning campaign manager. We apparently live in the age of style above substance, the age where political strategists think that a new hairstyle is more important than coming up with a strategy to appeal to women or African American voters.
Surprisingly, not every problem that Yang brings up receives a potential solution. Yang writes about a number of issues that we know all too well, including political extremism, racial profiling, the militarization of the police, and a few other common left-leaning talking points. However, Yang doesn't even make a pretense of finding an answer to these problems in his predictably UBI-focused rhetoric.
Instead, the reader is made to believe that congressional inaction is one of the biggest problems facing the United States. We're told about the 90%+ incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives, which supposedly serves as some sort of proof of how the modern era has warped our political sensibilities. Only the most astute readers will discover, through a little bit of research, that House incumbents have been historically reelected at a clip of over 80%. Perhaps the problem is not as dire as we once thought.
The contradictions start to abound. Yang has a soft spot in his heart for failing industries - particularly the dying manufacturing jobs that politicians tend to remember so fondly. Yang's love for traditional journalism, though, is a bit odd. Yang's solution to the utter failure of the journalism industry is nationalization. But what are we going to nationalize? The newspapers alone - despite the fact that two post-newspaper generations have already come of age? Do we expand the financial benefits to the slowly crumbling world of cable news television? What about the internet news portals and blogs that are being so rapidly replaced by podcasts and YouTube videos?
Yang even goes as far as to call for financial support for long-form podcasts, such as the Joe Rogan show. I was left scratching my head, wondering why in the world Yang would think that Rogan and his ilk would need further support from the government. Did Yang forget that his podcast appearances did more to advance his image than any of his other media bits (including those 30-second commercials that apparently took 8 hours each to film)?
I started to wonder why in the world we would even need party primaries if we moved to a rank order voting system that allows multiple representatives from each party to run for a seat. I puzzled over why the statistics that should replace GDP as measures of our national economic health, as well as the "dashboard" statistics Yang wants to display in both houses of Congress, just so happen to coincide with left-leaning talking points. And I became very confused over the concept that "facts" need to drive policy, constantly asking myself which "facts" are actually trustworthy (don't we all remember what Twain said about lies, damned lies, and statistics?). You get the picture.
In the future, only masters of political trivia will remember that Yang was completely embarrassed in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary. Yang artfully mentioning any details of that race, including his embarrassing lack of knowledge of the key issues. But Yang does mention his unfortunate presidential debate experience, during which a basic question about foreign policy left him looking like a one-issue candidate. You'd think that Yang would have included at least a blurb about foreign policy in these 300 pages. Nope - not even a brief mention.
Look - I like Andrew Yang. I don't think his Forward Party idea is going to get out of the mud, but I do like him as a policy maker. I like the idea of making government a pleasure to work with, of changing where our political focus lies, and of combating the dehumanizing nature of our bureaucracy. I really wish he would have taken the Secretary of Labor offer rather than shooting for that pie-in-the-sky mayoral position.
However, I don't see much to like in this book. I worry that Yang has surrounded himself with like-minded people, and that he is not thinking critically about his own ideas. At this rate, he will be doomed to political obscurity.
This book is well organized and somewhat well written, though Yang's tone is surprisingly informal for a presidential candidate. Yang divides his book up into three sections: the history of his presidential campaign, the problems he sees in modern America, and his proposed solutions.
Had Yang stuck only to the history of his campaign, I would have given this book 5 stars. Yang's insight into the nature of presidential campaigning in the 21st century is absolutely priceless. Most interesting were his comments about being turned into almost a completely different candidate by his well-meaning campaign manager. We apparently live in the age of style above substance, the age where political strategists think that a new hairstyle is more important than coming up with a strategy to appeal to women or African American voters.
Surprisingly, not every problem that Yang brings up receives a potential solution. Yang writes about a number of issues that we know all too well, including political extremism, racial profiling, the militarization of the police, and a few other common left-leaning talking points. However, Yang doesn't even make a pretense of finding an answer to these problems in his predictably UBI-focused rhetoric.
Instead, the reader is made to believe that congressional inaction is one of the biggest problems facing the United States. We're told about the 90%+ incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives, which supposedly serves as some sort of proof of how the modern era has warped our political sensibilities. Only the most astute readers will discover, through a little bit of research, that House incumbents have been historically reelected at a clip of over 80%. Perhaps the problem is not as dire as we once thought.
The contradictions start to abound. Yang has a soft spot in his heart for failing industries - particularly the dying manufacturing jobs that politicians tend to remember so fondly. Yang's love for traditional journalism, though, is a bit odd. Yang's solution to the utter failure of the journalism industry is nationalization. But what are we going to nationalize? The newspapers alone - despite the fact that two post-newspaper generations have already come of age? Do we expand the financial benefits to the slowly crumbling world of cable news television? What about the internet news portals and blogs that are being so rapidly replaced by podcasts and YouTube videos?
Yang even goes as far as to call for financial support for long-form podcasts, such as the Joe Rogan show. I was left scratching my head, wondering why in the world Yang would think that Rogan and his ilk would need further support from the government. Did Yang forget that his podcast appearances did more to advance his image than any of his other media bits (including those 30-second commercials that apparently took 8 hours each to film)?
I started to wonder why in the world we would even need party primaries if we moved to a rank order voting system that allows multiple representatives from each party to run for a seat. I puzzled over why the statistics that should replace GDP as measures of our national economic health, as well as the "dashboard" statistics Yang wants to display in both houses of Congress, just so happen to coincide with left-leaning talking points. And I became very confused over the concept that "facts" need to drive policy, constantly asking myself which "facts" are actually trustworthy (don't we all remember what Twain said about lies, damned lies, and statistics?). You get the picture.
In the future, only masters of political trivia will remember that Yang was completely embarrassed in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary. Yang artfully mentioning any details of that race, including his embarrassing lack of knowledge of the key issues. But Yang does mention his unfortunate presidential debate experience, during which a basic question about foreign policy left him looking like a one-issue candidate. You'd think that Yang would have included at least a blurb about foreign policy in these 300 pages. Nope - not even a brief mention.
Look - I like Andrew Yang. I don't think his Forward Party idea is going to get out of the mud, but I do like him as a policy maker. I like the idea of making government a pleasure to work with, of changing where our political focus lies, and of combating the dehumanizing nature of our bureaucracy. I really wish he would have taken the Secretary of Labor offer rather than shooting for that pie-in-the-sky mayoral position.
However, I don't see much to like in this book. I worry that Yang has surrounded himself with like-minded people, and that he is not thinking critically about his own ideas. At this rate, he will be doomed to political obscurity.
November 11, 2024
*****Top book 📕 in the last decade out of 20 books in 1000 I’ve read In the last decade*******
I think he talk of lots of good ideas. I wish he’d talk of a land tax rather than a technology tax but both I think would give an UBI. I think land tax is something that could unite republicans and democrats……
Since property is only way not to become a passive citizen living check by check….living
A run around questions^
*******important*******
Politicians are like most popular when they’re wear all the emotion rather than reasoned politicians who are stewarded to actually improve the situation……
dozen of topics from does poverty cause low iq or does low iq cause poverty.
Or does poverty cause abuses/terrorism or does abuse/terrorism cause poverty
Or does jobless.,,. Or does AI 🤖,… does education increase the wealth move between classes or does wealth move around classes with education….
I think will see that it’s not education, poverty, low iq, or abuse that’s being rewarded… it’s intelligence…. Being born in addition the right family. As Like we have a choice…. Life is not by choices??? There not much options and income mobility- all but nil for 60% of Americans.
Starting with local papers 📝 and Facebook not having of being a publisher restrictions but a bulletin board that’s worth trillions of dollars in ads revenue.
What are your Companies and municipalities do? They could help by
matching dollars
anybody donates to local newspapers to get more local journalist reporting on good things that could be happening rather than the donor pockets. Keep on saying good things are negative in a chiaroscuro of online media with bots and influencers who control the narrative, local papers have restriction and invested in communities not to publish harmful or even regulated media people trust.
Local newspapers being closed down and run a muck because it's running on advertising and advertising is gone to online where the surveillance capitalism watches for high-risk for online security making sure it's watching everybody.
It's an unfortunate situation where the poor are watched and advertised to and surveillance the most.. the most vulnerable are stuck in a buyology affairs.
Talks of fake media being taking out an era of realism that’s going out of politics that’s the whole reason we elected Daniel smith is to make sure good things in politics has a shade of chiaroscuro that thriller of advertising that shows the opposition as negative that we can’t trust the realizing politicians to help reality but cause the realism is taken out of it.
She’s a radio 📻 host that goes by journalistic ethics of show the horror and that’s the truth even if there’s good things in media it’s framed as negative horror shows that get played on repeat.
Same with the Brooks mayor and election in municipalities that a radio host elected for the same purpose
Says don’t follow the yet ye sheeple but then does the stage and theatric of leading the sheeple.
It’s embarrassing 😳
The hypocrisy
And logical fallacy or Cognitive biases.
Just elected to ink the narrative and be triumphant to look like Florida…
I say triumphant because it’s the utmost submission of the opposition…
The government saying the lie is not a typical trait of propaganda is lost to silence 🤫 when both parties can agree what is said was wrong. 😑
Even if there’s good things that happen in bad situations or bad things happen in good.
Of the shit ton of gibberish.
We have not seen such amount of consumerism as we have today never in amount of history have such amount of people never had shelter or food….
People were taking care of…
Sadly not today
Despite good things happening in media the horror show gets clicks and is only showing to a certain age group of people cause tv media is only showing to a certain age group of people.
Were 2/3 of bankruptcy are because of hospitalization debt…
When the cinema 🎦 is always playing silliness conjectures and people want that reality as a realism
And amusing them self to death in a film 🎥 of society is a stage and people are theatrics.
*******important*******
Politicians are like most popular wear all the emotion rather than reason a politicians who are stewarded to actually improve the situation……
I think the lack or dissenting and segueing polemics is the ye disease of the country and that you’ll have see the reality of non manipulative and manipulative propaganda as is….
Peddling words of this or that “cela ou ceca” of reality….
And not in the realism of leaving an empty prefix at the end of a sentence…
Is…
I honest think this corporate surveillance suicide is at all possible consumerism unseen in Eras that seen in this or that ye highest rate of suicide unseen in other eras. Suicide is… at its highest ever in history….. I fear it’ll move in comparison to epidemics to pandemics with lack of change if trends continue as of 1970’s income mobility….
It’s always so daunting as a politician will always say out in promotional promises. I’m going to do this and do this and do this and do that and do that and do that but they can’t do that and they can’t do this. What they can do is say I’m going to fight for you And all the hundreds of all of you in my constituents because that’s a lot harder to disprove to journalists or politicians.
I think he talk of lots of good ideas. I wish he’d talk of a land tax rather than a technology tax but both I think would give an UBI. I think land tax is something that could unite republicans and democrats……
Since property is only way not to become a passive citizen living check by check….living
A run around questions^
*******important*******
Politicians are like most popular when they’re wear all the emotion rather than reasoned politicians who are stewarded to actually improve the situation……
dozen of topics from does poverty cause low iq or does low iq cause poverty.
Or does poverty cause abuses/terrorism or does abuse/terrorism cause poverty
Or does jobless.,,. Or does AI 🤖,… does education increase the wealth move between classes or does wealth move around classes with education….
I think will see that it’s not education, poverty, low iq, or abuse that’s being rewarded… it’s intelligence…. Being born in addition the right family. As Like we have a choice…. Life is not by choices??? There not much options and income mobility- all but nil for 60% of Americans.
Starting with local papers 📝 and Facebook not having of being a publisher restrictions but a bulletin board that’s worth trillions of dollars in ads revenue.
What are your Companies and municipalities do? They could help by
matching dollars
anybody donates to local newspapers to get more local journalist reporting on good things that could be happening rather than the donor pockets. Keep on saying good things are negative in a chiaroscuro of online media with bots and influencers who control the narrative, local papers have restriction and invested in communities not to publish harmful or even regulated media people trust.
Local newspapers being closed down and run a muck because it's running on advertising and advertising is gone to online where the surveillance capitalism watches for high-risk for online security making sure it's watching everybody.
It's an unfortunate situation where the poor are watched and advertised to and surveillance the most.. the most vulnerable are stuck in a buyology affairs.
Talks of fake media being taking out an era of realism that’s going out of politics that’s the whole reason we elected Daniel smith is to make sure good things in politics has a shade of chiaroscuro that thriller of advertising that shows the opposition as negative that we can’t trust the realizing politicians to help reality but cause the realism is taken out of it.
She’s a radio 📻 host that goes by journalistic ethics of show the horror and that’s the truth even if there’s good things in media it’s framed as negative horror shows that get played on repeat.
Same with the Brooks mayor and election in municipalities that a radio host elected for the same purpose
Says don’t follow the yet ye sheeple but then does the stage and theatric of leading the sheeple.
It’s embarrassing 😳
The hypocrisy
And logical fallacy or Cognitive biases.
Just elected to ink the narrative and be triumphant to look like Florida…
I say triumphant because it’s the utmost submission of the opposition…
The government saying the lie is not a typical trait of propaganda is lost to silence 🤫 when both parties can agree what is said was wrong. 😑
Even if there’s good things that happen in bad situations or bad things happen in good.
Of the shit ton of gibberish.
We have not seen such amount of consumerism as we have today never in amount of history have such amount of people never had shelter or food….
People were taking care of…
Sadly not today
Despite good things happening in media the horror show gets clicks and is only showing to a certain age group of people cause tv media is only showing to a certain age group of people.
Were 2/3 of bankruptcy are because of hospitalization debt…
When the cinema 🎦 is always playing silliness conjectures and people want that reality as a realism
And amusing them self to death in a film 🎥 of society is a stage and people are theatrics.
*******important*******
Politicians are like most popular wear all the emotion rather than reason a politicians who are stewarded to actually improve the situation……
I think the lack or dissenting and segueing polemics is the ye disease of the country and that you’ll have see the reality of non manipulative and manipulative propaganda as is….
Peddling words of this or that “cela ou ceca” of reality….
And not in the realism of leaving an empty prefix at the end of a sentence…
Is…
I honest think this corporate surveillance suicide is at all possible consumerism unseen in Eras that seen in this or that ye highest rate of suicide unseen in other eras. Suicide is… at its highest ever in history….. I fear it’ll move in comparison to epidemics to pandemics with lack of change if trends continue as of 1970’s income mobility….
It’s always so daunting as a politician will always say out in promotional promises. I’m going to do this and do this and do this and do that and do that and do that but they can’t do that and they can’t do this. What they can do is say I’m going to fight for you And all the hundreds of all of you in my constituents because that’s a lot harder to disprove to journalists or politicians.
October 4, 2021
Didn't have much more new information than his last book, but it was interesting to hear about his experiences on the trail.
October 23, 2021
Separate from the politics of Mr. Yang, of which I am a huge proponent, this book still stands on its own as a memoir and critique of the America system of electing a president. From the absurdity of constant self-promotion to the never-ending pursuit of the next viral clip, the process of selecting a president requires skills that are almost antithetical to leadership. Yang details his experience as an obscure underdog who created a passionate following. He is open and personal in this memoir, as he is always. The second half of the book describes in detail the challenges of the current political system and fixes that would benefit the vast majority of Americans. I believe this book should be required reading for anyone who recognizes the absurdity of our governing system and is seeking solutions, not just to complain.
January 4, 2022
A populist like any politician: how he is going to vanquish the dragons with your money, only to find out how hard it is to change anything. And all you have to do is push him into the good life, where everything is paid by the tax money.
November 13, 2021
I want to first start out by revealing my own biases which I think is necessary when reviewing a political book, particularly when it is one by someone from a different political persuasion than you.
I generally consider myself a slightly right of center person (I tend to like people such as Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Jon Huntsman Jr, John Kasich, etc.). I find myself to be generally right of center on issues of economics, moderate on issues of national defense and international affairs, left of center on environmental and energy issues, and fairly libertarian on social issues.
When Andrew first announced that he was leaving the Democrat Party and starting his own party, I was genuinely intrigued -- over the years, I've felt that I have been a man without a party; the constant use of wedge issues to tear us apart, the use of false dichotomies and the constant need of approval from the political extremes on each side of the aisle.
After I heard about it, I wanted to hear what Yang had to say since he believed that the two-party system has been tearing us apart leading to an incredible amount of division fueled largely by social media and opinion masquerading as the "news" -- a view that I wholeheartedly agree with.
On top of that Yang, seems like a great guy and I actually appreciated that he focused on his 2020 campaign on possible solutions (whether I agreed with them or not) rather than just blatantly going around bashing the other side looking for sound clips of the approval of the vacuous parasites on Twitter (or, conversely if he had been on the right, 4Chan).
I don't tend to agree with him on many policy issues, but I still wanted to hear him out since maybe something shifted; after all, I always felt like Yang was genuine in his desire to want to help the country and doesn't seem to be a person who is solely looking to chase power. I also was thrilled when he talked about issues like automation -- a critical issue which nobody talks about.
Naturally, I decided to pick up his book.
First and foremost, I want to point out that I am not reviewing his book about the political points that he makes, be it UBI, SPHC, etc. -- I am making my comments in the lens of the books' thesis: that it is possible to end the two party system through a meaningful coalition of people on the left and right with his proposal.
The first part of the book I thought was fantastic -- Yang talks about his upbringing, career, and most importantly, about what it is like to run for President, particularly as someone who was viewed as a "long shot" candidate and ultimately, the surprising following that built around his campaign.
If you are a long-time politico, none of this information may be surprising and might have even been to have been expected -- particularly as it relates to the power of the media in terms of royalty-making. With that being said, I would love to read an even longer version of the stories from his 2020 campaign and mayoral campaign.
The second part of the book focuses on what Yang believes are institutional failures that cause people to become disillusioned or to feel out of place in the political system.
The third part of the book focuses on what Yang considers to be solutions to the problems as well as the work of his group "Humanity Forward" as well as the endorsements and campaigning he has done on behalf of these candidates.
I'm largely not going to focus on the second part of the book since I feel that it is largely opinion-based -- I'm also not going to base my review whether I agree with the proposed solutions, but instead, I'm going to review this solely on how he intends to bring people together and implement these solutions.
The third part of this book is likely going to be contentious -- it outlines the various proposals that Yang believes will help rid us of the two-party system that plagues America.
I believe that there are a few fundamental flaws with Yangs' approach as he has outlined it in his book (again, this is solely based on the content of his book and doesn't account for any statements elsewhere).
Obviously, if there is the right consensus, this could actually form into a meaningful party or group, however, it is important that the group is built around structural issues of our democracy rather than political issues.
Generally speaking, I do think its' 100% possible to build a coalition on some of the issues that Yang has identified -- ranked choice voting, term limits, better controls on media (in terms of news vs. opinion) and open primaries. There are Republicans and Democrats that have been talking about the importance of these for years.
However, I think cracks begin to form when you start to include political positions in a platform that is meant to be unifying -- UBI, Universal Health Care and implementing a VAT tax system aren't exactly ideas that are largely embraced by both parties, in fact, it seems more like a Progressive Democrats' wishlist.
If the intention is to build a coalition that reaches across the aisle, it's going to be largely impossible to find Republicans' who are going to be willing to embrace ideas that they feel are detrimental to the economy. There was no argument or case built that explained how he could reasonably expect this to happen.
The cracks really deepen when he starts talking about endorsements -- if you're trying to build a party that is supposedly independent, your track record absolutely matters when you're trying to convince people to join your movement -- the people you surround yourself with and the people who you endorse says a whole lot about your actual intentions.
Part of the third part of the book was spent talking about his efforts to get people like Joel Ossoff and Rev. Warnock elected in their respective GA Senate elections; additionally, he talked about the various Democrats that he endorsed -- all of which seemed to be running on the standard Democrat platform, although they might have embraced UBI.
Again, I'm not saying this in a political manner -- there was nothing to back up how you counteract calls about independence and moderation when the track record shows that you are consistently backing Progressive Democrats only.
Now, if you think that I'm saying this because I'm biased or trying to thwart this party, think again. I want the two party system broken up. I'm tired of know-nothings being elected to represent us. I want people who will listen to experts, admit when they are wrong and stop trying to divide us to gain more power.
With that being said, I did still enjoy the perspective that Andrew brings to the table and wish that we could have more people in politics with the temperament, passion and unique way of thinking that someone like Andrew Yang provides.
I generally consider myself a slightly right of center person (I tend to like people such as Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Jon Huntsman Jr, John Kasich, etc.). I find myself to be generally right of center on issues of economics, moderate on issues of national defense and international affairs, left of center on environmental and energy issues, and fairly libertarian on social issues.
When Andrew first announced that he was leaving the Democrat Party and starting his own party, I was genuinely intrigued -- over the years, I've felt that I have been a man without a party; the constant use of wedge issues to tear us apart, the use of false dichotomies and the constant need of approval from the political extremes on each side of the aisle.
After I heard about it, I wanted to hear what Yang had to say since he believed that the two-party system has been tearing us apart leading to an incredible amount of division fueled largely by social media and opinion masquerading as the "news" -- a view that I wholeheartedly agree with.
On top of that Yang, seems like a great guy and I actually appreciated that he focused on his 2020 campaign on possible solutions (whether I agreed with them or not) rather than just blatantly going around bashing the other side looking for sound clips of the approval of the vacuous parasites on Twitter (or, conversely if he had been on the right, 4Chan).
I don't tend to agree with him on many policy issues, but I still wanted to hear him out since maybe something shifted; after all, I always felt like Yang was genuine in his desire to want to help the country and doesn't seem to be a person who is solely looking to chase power. I also was thrilled when he talked about issues like automation -- a critical issue which nobody talks about.
Naturally, I decided to pick up his book.
First and foremost, I want to point out that I am not reviewing his book about the political points that he makes, be it UBI, SPHC, etc. -- I am making my comments in the lens of the books' thesis: that it is possible to end the two party system through a meaningful coalition of people on the left and right with his proposal.
The first part of the book I thought was fantastic -- Yang talks about his upbringing, career, and most importantly, about what it is like to run for President, particularly as someone who was viewed as a "long shot" candidate and ultimately, the surprising following that built around his campaign.
If you are a long-time politico, none of this information may be surprising and might have even been to have been expected -- particularly as it relates to the power of the media in terms of royalty-making. With that being said, I would love to read an even longer version of the stories from his 2020 campaign and mayoral campaign.
The second part of the book focuses on what Yang believes are institutional failures that cause people to become disillusioned or to feel out of place in the political system.
The third part of the book focuses on what Yang considers to be solutions to the problems as well as the work of his group "Humanity Forward" as well as the endorsements and campaigning he has done on behalf of these candidates.
I'm largely not going to focus on the second part of the book since I feel that it is largely opinion-based -- I'm also not going to base my review whether I agree with the proposed solutions, but instead, I'm going to review this solely on how he intends to bring people together and implement these solutions.
The third part of this book is likely going to be contentious -- it outlines the various proposals that Yang believes will help rid us of the two-party system that plagues America.
I believe that there are a few fundamental flaws with Yangs' approach as he has outlined it in his book (again, this is solely based on the content of his book and doesn't account for any statements elsewhere).
Obviously, if there is the right consensus, this could actually form into a meaningful party or group, however, it is important that the group is built around structural issues of our democracy rather than political issues.
Generally speaking, I do think its' 100% possible to build a coalition on some of the issues that Yang has identified -- ranked choice voting, term limits, better controls on media (in terms of news vs. opinion) and open primaries. There are Republicans and Democrats that have been talking about the importance of these for years.
However, I think cracks begin to form when you start to include political positions in a platform that is meant to be unifying -- UBI, Universal Health Care and implementing a VAT tax system aren't exactly ideas that are largely embraced by both parties, in fact, it seems more like a Progressive Democrats' wishlist.
If the intention is to build a coalition that reaches across the aisle, it's going to be largely impossible to find Republicans' who are going to be willing to embrace ideas that they feel are detrimental to the economy. There was no argument or case built that explained how he could reasonably expect this to happen.
The cracks really deepen when he starts talking about endorsements -- if you're trying to build a party that is supposedly independent, your track record absolutely matters when you're trying to convince people to join your movement -- the people you surround yourself with and the people who you endorse says a whole lot about your actual intentions.
Part of the third part of the book was spent talking about his efforts to get people like Joel Ossoff and Rev. Warnock elected in their respective GA Senate elections; additionally, he talked about the various Democrats that he endorsed -- all of which seemed to be running on the standard Democrat platform, although they might have embraced UBI.
Again, I'm not saying this in a political manner -- there was nothing to back up how you counteract calls about independence and moderation when the track record shows that you are consistently backing Progressive Democrats only.
Now, if you think that I'm saying this because I'm biased or trying to thwart this party, think again. I want the two party system broken up. I'm tired of know-nothings being elected to represent us. I want people who will listen to experts, admit when they are wrong and stop trying to divide us to gain more power.
With that being said, I did still enjoy the perspective that Andrew brings to the table and wish that we could have more people in politics with the temperament, passion and unique way of thinking that someone like Andrew Yang provides.
July 6, 2023
This is a fascinating, audible book read by Andrew Yang himself. He starts off talking about his run for the US presidency. He then talks about how difficult it is to change politics in the US. And he ends by talking about the need to form a third political party.
I am a longtime believer in UBI. And ranked choice Voting is also high on my list.
I am a longtime believer in UBI. And ranked choice Voting is also high on my list.
October 6, 2021
Most books written by politicians right after an election are recaps that add only a thin veneer of personality to regurgitation of party platform. This book is not that. That’s not to say it’s free of politics, but it’s free of the feeling that someone is trying to sell you something. Even if you’re not a supporter of Andrew Yang or universal basic income, Yang’s funny and authentic retelling of his experience running for president is fascinating. This book continues the dialogue Yang started with his previous two books. In Forward, his concern about automation and the economy evolves to include barriers established by our political system and media coverage. He uses his experiences as a “longer than longshot” candidate to illustrate how convoluted our politics and media really are.
I listened to the audio version of this book, which is narrated by Yang. He’s a good writer, but his personality comes out best when speaking. He’s easy to listen to, and I audibly laughed at times. He digs into the moments that look like manufactured campaign promotion and highlights the fact that when the cameras turn off, politicians are humans too. He’s emotionally invested in the people he talks about and the ideas he presents. It’s evident that Yang earnestly strives for a better future. His own status within that future is secondary.
Thank you to Penguin Random House for the advance copy. This book was released today, October 5.
I listened to the audio version of this book, which is narrated by Yang. He’s a good writer, but his personality comes out best when speaking. He’s easy to listen to, and I audibly laughed at times. He digs into the moments that look like manufactured campaign promotion and highlights the fact that when the cameras turn off, politicians are humans too. He’s emotionally invested in the people he talks about and the ideas he presents. It’s evident that Yang earnestly strives for a better future. His own status within that future is secondary.
Thank you to Penguin Random House for the advance copy. This book was released today, October 5.
October 13, 2021
Andrew Yang's "Forward" is an ambitious book, told in three parts. The first part is an entertaining, credibility-building, and humanizing story of who Yang is, why he ran for President, and his experience in the circus / reality TV show of the campaign trail. The second part is a thorough analysis of America's perceived ills, particularly those with our previously trusted institutions (government, media/journalism, industry). The third part are Yang's proposed solutions to these problems, which are largely practical and, again, wildly ambitious. The book as a whole shares the story of Yang moving from thinking that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the most important step in solving our problems, to realizing that when the majority of people want UBI and the government won't pass it, we have a problem in government that needs to be fixed first.
The first section of the book largely serves to showcase that Andrew Yang is not like other politicians, at least not the ones who get elected. He points out a run for President is more ego-destroying than egomaniacal, and that he didn't personally want the spotlight. He would have preferred to have a battle for ideas in the public arena, advance the policies he perceived as superior, and get to work solving problems. However, this approach doesn't give well with human nature, and is wholly impossible given our current media landscape. Yang consistently found that the moments that got him publicity and notoriety were those that were authentic and human (crying, dancing, joking), not those that appealed to rationality. Yang has been put through a lot from the media, both being ignored (reasonably, at the start), suppressed (left out of infographics and segments without explanation; blacklisted by certain networks), and mocked (including intentional misportrayal of his positions and background)—he's even been called opportunistic for writing this book. I do think this section of the book is successful and helping the reader get to know Yang and see that he's a smart, rational, caring person who is approaching public service with an intention to help others.
The juxtaposition between Yang's ability to tell stories and convey ideas compared to most elected officials is staggering. I can't imagine this level of candor and explanation from many other candidates. A point he makes in this section is that he thrives in long-form conversations, which many politicians shy away from, instead sticking to tribal rallying-call soundbites.
The second section is perceptive and insightful. Yang points out some of the biggest problems in America right now. Our government bureaucracy is faceless, nameless, and not accountable. We don't know what's true. Americans have no shared understanding of reality, due to how we now get our information. Cable "news" doesn't attempt to report facts, and instead is a sporting event of Republicans vs. Democrats. Social media gives us an information diet tailored specifically to us to maximize our engagement with their platforms. Unfortunately, that engagement comes from content designed to get a reaction or further engagement, such as conspiracy theories. Our government has no incentive to represent the people, as a few individuals in Congress hold all the power. This means when a majority of Americans want something to happen, it does not.
The third section puts forward solutions. I don't agree with all of Yang's proposals, but I think Yang gets the big stuff right and is directionally correct.
The central proposal of this book is that we need to move to a system of open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV). Open primaries are necessary because a large majority of elections are determined in the primary, and closed primaries disenfranchise voters from any real choice. In a district with a 60/40 Republic/Democratic breakdown, the Democratic voters have no real choice in the general election. An open primary would allow democrats to have a say, possibly a more moderate Republican candidate. Ranked choice voting would give folks even more choice, with an ability to preference candidates. This could mean the Democratic voter could vote for their favorite Democrat (if one made it through the open primary), and then only vote for that more moderate Republican if the Democrat had no chance to win. This really feels like a no-brainer.
The normal rebuttals to RCV are (1) it's complicated for voters and (2) it's not perfect. (1) may or may not be true, but I'm optimistic in the electorate's ability to preference up to 5 voters in a list. After the previous outrage over vote-tallying practices in Nov 2020, this is certainly more of an issue, and we'd need to find a way to transparently count an admittedly more complicated tally of votes. I don't see this as insurmountable. (2) is true, it's possible for the overall #2 candidate to be eliminated in round one of vote tallying. This is unfortunate, but it's miles ahead of the status quo and should not be a blocker today.
Open primaries and ranked choice voting give some amount of choice back to the people.
With dynamic leadership in place, Yang would prioritize is creating a scorecard for America. If you turn on the news today, people are talking about GDP and the stock market as measures of how America is doing. This doesn't make any sense, as these numbers don't affect most Americans. The book has the statistics (or in Yang parlance, the MATH), but the main idea is only a small minority of Americans own stocks. Yang suggests we should determine what measures we want to use to represent the health of our nation, being reporting on them, and then find ways to improve them. Examples could be average income, percentage of the country who are food or clean water insecure, crime rates, etc. This is a basic idea of leadership—"Measure what matters" (though admittedly this can prioritize the proxy measurement over the harder-to-measure goal).
The next section of the book is focused on ways to improve these goals. Give people a UBI, give people healthcare, tax automation that is causing the externality of putting workers out of jobs, help people find meaningful work. Trust in government and government effectiveness could be improved by making their primary interaction with the people—taxes—much easier and a more positive experience. He also suggests "democracy dollars" to help campaign finance reform, 18 year term limits per House to prevent ossification, civic juries to share the will of the people, a ban on lobbying to prevent corruption, and bringing back earmarking to encourage compromise, among others. These ideas aren't explored in as much detail, and serve to show there is a lot more we could be doing to improve our democracy.
Yang is also a big believer in the importance of local journalism. He sees public funding for journalism as a potential way to return to a shared sense of reality. I'm less optimistic, and feel this could have been addressed more robustly. Yang also suggests forcing social media companies to offer an ad-free model at a price similar to the current revenue per user per month. I find two issues here: (1) this doesn't seem extremely practical and (2) this doesn't get at the heart of the issue—the echo chambers and networks of folks sharing misinformation may be doing more harm than paid ads. Yang also pushes for stronger data privacy laws, which I think could be a stronger solution with a government who enforces them.
The second largest proposal in this book is to join the Forward party (ForwardParty.com), a new political party with aims to get government working for the people again by breaking up the two-party duopoly. This is a new political party working towards the goals laid out in the final section of the book:
- Ranked-Choice Voting and Open Primaries
- Fact-Based Governance
- Human-Centered Capitalism
- Effective and Modern Government
- Universal Basic Income
- Grace and Tolerance
Overall, I think this is an insightful and human take on where our country is today, why we are here, and how to move Forward.
The first section of the book largely serves to showcase that Andrew Yang is not like other politicians, at least not the ones who get elected. He points out a run for President is more ego-destroying than egomaniacal, and that he didn't personally want the spotlight. He would have preferred to have a battle for ideas in the public arena, advance the policies he perceived as superior, and get to work solving problems. However, this approach doesn't give well with human nature, and is wholly impossible given our current media landscape. Yang consistently found that the moments that got him publicity and notoriety were those that were authentic and human (crying, dancing, joking), not those that appealed to rationality. Yang has been put through a lot from the media, both being ignored (reasonably, at the start), suppressed (left out of infographics and segments without explanation; blacklisted by certain networks), and mocked (including intentional misportrayal of his positions and background)—he's even been called opportunistic for writing this book. I do think this section of the book is successful and helping the reader get to know Yang and see that he's a smart, rational, caring person who is approaching public service with an intention to help others.
The juxtaposition between Yang's ability to tell stories and convey ideas compared to most elected officials is staggering. I can't imagine this level of candor and explanation from many other candidates. A point he makes in this section is that he thrives in long-form conversations, which many politicians shy away from, instead sticking to tribal rallying-call soundbites.
The second section is perceptive and insightful. Yang points out some of the biggest problems in America right now. Our government bureaucracy is faceless, nameless, and not accountable. We don't know what's true. Americans have no shared understanding of reality, due to how we now get our information. Cable "news" doesn't attempt to report facts, and instead is a sporting event of Republicans vs. Democrats. Social media gives us an information diet tailored specifically to us to maximize our engagement with their platforms. Unfortunately, that engagement comes from content designed to get a reaction or further engagement, such as conspiracy theories. Our government has no incentive to represent the people, as a few individuals in Congress hold all the power. This means when a majority of Americans want something to happen, it does not.
The third section puts forward solutions. I don't agree with all of Yang's proposals, but I think Yang gets the big stuff right and is directionally correct.
The central proposal of this book is that we need to move to a system of open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV). Open primaries are necessary because a large majority of elections are determined in the primary, and closed primaries disenfranchise voters from any real choice. In a district with a 60/40 Republic/Democratic breakdown, the Democratic voters have no real choice in the general election. An open primary would allow democrats to have a say, possibly a more moderate Republican candidate. Ranked choice voting would give folks even more choice, with an ability to preference candidates. This could mean the Democratic voter could vote for their favorite Democrat (if one made it through the open primary), and then only vote for that more moderate Republican if the Democrat had no chance to win. This really feels like a no-brainer.
The normal rebuttals to RCV are (1) it's complicated for voters and (2) it's not perfect. (1) may or may not be true, but I'm optimistic in the electorate's ability to preference up to 5 voters in a list. After the previous outrage over vote-tallying practices in Nov 2020, this is certainly more of an issue, and we'd need to find a way to transparently count an admittedly more complicated tally of votes. I don't see this as insurmountable. (2) is true, it's possible for the overall #2 candidate to be eliminated in round one of vote tallying. This is unfortunate, but it's miles ahead of the status quo and should not be a blocker today.
Open primaries and ranked choice voting give some amount of choice back to the people.
With dynamic leadership in place, Yang would prioritize is creating a scorecard for America. If you turn on the news today, people are talking about GDP and the stock market as measures of how America is doing. This doesn't make any sense, as these numbers don't affect most Americans. The book has the statistics (or in Yang parlance, the MATH), but the main idea is only a small minority of Americans own stocks. Yang suggests we should determine what measures we want to use to represent the health of our nation, being reporting on them, and then find ways to improve them. Examples could be average income, percentage of the country who are food or clean water insecure, crime rates, etc. This is a basic idea of leadership—"Measure what matters" (though admittedly this can prioritize the proxy measurement over the harder-to-measure goal).
The next section of the book is focused on ways to improve these goals. Give people a UBI, give people healthcare, tax automation that is causing the externality of putting workers out of jobs, help people find meaningful work. Trust in government and government effectiveness could be improved by making their primary interaction with the people—taxes—much easier and a more positive experience. He also suggests "democracy dollars" to help campaign finance reform, 18 year term limits per House to prevent ossification, civic juries to share the will of the people, a ban on lobbying to prevent corruption, and bringing back earmarking to encourage compromise, among others. These ideas aren't explored in as much detail, and serve to show there is a lot more we could be doing to improve our democracy.
Yang is also a big believer in the importance of local journalism. He sees public funding for journalism as a potential way to return to a shared sense of reality. I'm less optimistic, and feel this could have been addressed more robustly. Yang also suggests forcing social media companies to offer an ad-free model at a price similar to the current revenue per user per month. I find two issues here: (1) this doesn't seem extremely practical and (2) this doesn't get at the heart of the issue—the echo chambers and networks of folks sharing misinformation may be doing more harm than paid ads. Yang also pushes for stronger data privacy laws, which I think could be a stronger solution with a government who enforces them.
The second largest proposal in this book is to join the Forward party (ForwardParty.com), a new political party with aims to get government working for the people again by breaking up the two-party duopoly. This is a new political party working towards the goals laid out in the final section of the book:
- Ranked-Choice Voting and Open Primaries
- Fact-Based Governance
- Human-Centered Capitalism
- Effective and Modern Government
- Universal Basic Income
- Grace and Tolerance
Overall, I think this is an insightful and human take on where our country is today, why we are here, and how to move Forward.
November 12, 2021
I've never followed Andrew Yang's campaigns closely -- I was involved with Texas campaigns in 2020, and I don't care who's mayor of New York. I think this made me open to getting a weird, distorted view of Andrew Yang in passing from various media outlets or friends or people on twitter. I recently listened to him in an interview on a podcast and I was really impressed. He's reached the same conclusion that I have -- nothing is going to improve in American politics until the election system is changed to allow viable third parties via ranked choice voting (preferential voting, for the Aussies reading this). I really liked his explanation of different problems. I thought he was sufficiently cynical and hard on America in a way that elected politicians are usually afraid to admit to.
I really enjoyed this book. Hearing his account of what it's like to run for President as a political outsider was fascinating. Especially the way he describes his media treatment. The way the US media shape the election -- deciding in advance which candidates to cover, which issues are important, which narratives to push -- is discussed with a lot of first-hand experience. I learned a lot from those passages. I definitely prefer listening to him in conversation, he has a lot of nerdy charming mannerisms that I really like, and you don't get nearly as clear a sense of his personality through the book. The writing is fine, but I loved listening to him speak in podcast, whereas his book doesn't capture his character nearly as well.
While I disagree with Yang about many political issues, I think he's one of the few people in American public life who actually get it and see the problems and aren't afraid to talk about them publicly. Anyway, I regret that until this month I only had a cursory awareness of his politics! I wish him the best of luck.
I really enjoyed this book. Hearing his account of what it's like to run for President as a political outsider was fascinating. Especially the way he describes his media treatment. The way the US media shape the election -- deciding in advance which candidates to cover, which issues are important, which narratives to push -- is discussed with a lot of first-hand experience. I learned a lot from those passages. I definitely prefer listening to him in conversation, he has a lot of nerdy charming mannerisms that I really like, and you don't get nearly as clear a sense of his personality through the book. The writing is fine, but I loved listening to him speak in podcast, whereas his book doesn't capture his character nearly as well.
While I disagree with Yang about many political issues, I think he's one of the few people in American public life who actually get it and see the problems and aren't afraid to talk about them publicly. Anyway, I regret that until this month I only had a cursory awareness of his politics! I wish him the best of luck.
October 30, 2021
3/5 - Liked it, but didn't 'really like' it. The main ideas of the book are covered by Yang's many media appearances, namely to have 'open primaries' and ranked-choice voting.
This book is mostly a recap of the campaign, if you've been following Yang's campaign, there are a few bits of "insider baseball" that haven't been discussed elsewhere. But I feel Yang's previous book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future is a more important read than this one.
The most valuable chapter is on "Constructive Institutionalism" or how politics has become an act of virtue signaling (available here):
But beyond this chapter, the other content is interesting but not required reading.
This book is mostly a recap of the campaign, if you've been following Yang's campaign, there are a few bits of "insider baseball" that haven't been discussed elsewhere. But I feel Yang's previous book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future is a more important read than this one.
The most valuable chapter is on "Constructive Institutionalism" or how politics has become an act of virtue signaling (available here):
Perhaps the biggest example of this magical thinking is the political conversation around retraining workers, often expressed, absurdly, as “teaching people to code.” The actual success of government-funded retraining programs has been found to be near zero in a majority of cases, with many workers simply holding valueless certificates afterward. Has the politician ever tried coding before? Have they tried to retrain a thousand former manufacturing and retail workers? Would they hire those thousand people if they needed a thousand coders? How about a hundred thousand?
We accept ridiculous statements on their face because we have grown to regard them less as real actions or policy statements and more as simply value statements and political representations of the world as you wish it to be. The country has lost more than four million manufacturing jobs since 2000, devastating hundreds of once-thriving communities in the Midwest and the South. That’s fine; if ten politicians stand in a circle holding hands and chant in unison, “You’ll like to code, heed this refrain, despair not, you shall retrain,” those millions of workers shall all move to Seattle and become Amazon Web Services technicians.
But beyond this chapter, the other content is interesting but not required reading.
December 8, 2021
I’ve read all of Yang’s books and enjoyed them. I do think this is the worst of his three, but I don’t say that disparagingly — it’s still pretty solid.
In a nutshell, it’s an overview of his failed 2020 presidential bid and what’s happened since. He gives the reader insights into the entire process and makes it more human. For example, he talks about the grueling schedule, the strangeness of remote interviews, and the difficult positions the news networks often put candidates in to boost ratings.
Politics aside, I just think Yang is a smart, caring, and articulate person. That comes across in almost all of his writings — this one included. The only real flaw I found in the book was his occasional “resting on his laurels.” By that, I mean he does, at times, sound content to sit back and let the rest of the Democratic Party steer the ship. I found that to be slightly disappointing because his new ideas and approaches are precisely why I started following him in the first place.
Having said that, however, Yang does end this one on a high note by countering that notion a bit and announcing the formation of his new political party. I know nothing about that process, but I’ll definitely say that I admire the gumption and ambition. That’s why most of us bought / will buy this title, anyway.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
In a nutshell, it’s an overview of his failed 2020 presidential bid and what’s happened since. He gives the reader insights into the entire process and makes it more human. For example, he talks about the grueling schedule, the strangeness of remote interviews, and the difficult positions the news networks often put candidates in to boost ratings.
Politics aside, I just think Yang is a smart, caring, and articulate person. That comes across in almost all of his writings — this one included. The only real flaw I found in the book was his occasional “resting on his laurels.” By that, I mean he does, at times, sound content to sit back and let the rest of the Democratic Party steer the ship. I found that to be slightly disappointing because his new ideas and approaches are precisely why I started following him in the first place.
Having said that, however, Yang does end this one on a high note by countering that notion a bit and announcing the formation of his new political party. I know nothing about that process, but I’ll definitely say that I admire the gumption and ambition. That’s why most of us bought / will buy this title, anyway.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
March 20, 2022
A great book about the problems facing our nation and why regardless of party, nothing seems to change. Yang offers an exciting and practical way forward - we need to get involved!!! I was inspired - he is s candidate I would get behind and could actually imagine campaigning for. This book gives me hope.
March 21, 2024
Andrew Yang is in a minority among political candidates in that he genuinely wants to make the world a better place. And he’s a minority even in that group as being rational - he knows and says reasonable things even when it might not be in his political interest to do so.
This book is a great demonstration of his thinking on the most important matters facing society. He spends a bit of time recounting his experience in running for president in 2020, which is interesting, but even better are the well-expressed explanations of his eminently rational positions.
Some examples of his refreshing wisdom:
- “running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader.” (p. 74) This is an obvious problem. It’s rare to find a candidate who’s good at the nonsense required for campaigning and also a great leader. And even if there are some in this group, there’s no guarantee they can win against those who are experts at campaigning but terrible as leaders.
- “loyalty in politics has a way of keeping things from changing.” (p. 152) For historical reasons, loyalty has come to be seen as a positive quality, but this is no longer valid, if it ever was. We are conditioned to be loyal to friends, family, colleagues, team members… but this is flat out wrong in cases where the object of our loyalty is behaving badly.
- “The purpose of an economy should be to improve the way of life of its people—that is, to improve the measurable quality of life of each and every person in a society.” (p. 202). Many leaders would deny that this is even the goal of society, while others, even if they agree, don’t put their efforts toward actually accomplishing it.
Yang’s ideas are reasonable proposals to improve things. In chapter 19, he champions:
- Universal Basic Income. His signature proposal, which has become well-known thanks largely to his efforts. It seems clear that there will soon be more people than jobs, and in any case no one _deserves_ to have to work at all. We’ve been conditioned, again, historically, to think it’s necessary to survive, even when society has the means to eliminate the necessity.
- Health care for all. Blindingly obvious that this should be a human right.
- Taxing automation. A logical and feasible way to pay for the above.
In chapter 20, he calls for:
- Ranked choice voting. A clear improvement that mitigates the problems with our entrenched two party system by allowing people to vote for the candidate they really want to win without fear of “wasting their vote”.
- Term limits: As Yang says, “three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole, while individual members sport reelection rates of 94 percent.” (p. 174). This makes no sense. Incumbents are obviously cruising to reelection based on name recognition and contacts. Even if they are actually good leaders, and surely some of them are, that’s not an argument for allowing them to hold the job indefinitely.
- Banning lobbying. Giving money to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment is the very definition of bribery. Even if it’s not illegal, it’s clearly unethical, and should not be acceptable in modern society. One example in particular is the fact that “[t]he IRS should be able to tell us how much we owe and automatically file our taxes for us.” (p. 260) Of course it should, and this is the way it works in some countries. The main reason it isn’t done this way in the US is due to the lobbying efforts of TurboTax maker Intuit and other unethical tax preparation companies, who are following incentives to make more money as opposed to making life better for people.
And then there is “fact-based governing—that is, … policies based on their ability to deliver an improvement to some attribute or measurement of societal progress or health.” (p. 255)
Yang is also an eminently decent person, encouraging us to “extend a sense of grace and tolerance toward the people who disagree with us or who are different from us in some way—even those who attack us.” (p. 274) This may be the hardest thing for readers to accept, and while I agree that this is an admirable goal, I’m not convinced that it’s always the right thing to do. Yang justifies his position as follows: “If one’s psychological makeup helps determine our political views, then I should not hold your politics against you, because there’s a substantial chance you were born with a disposition toward the candidates and party you support.” (p. 253) Fair enough, but on the other hand, if someone’s political views contribute demonstrably to making society worse rather than better, we can’t be “tolerant” of those views. Ideas are not deserving of respect; only people are, and only then until they do something to lose that respect. Getting back to the fact-based governing mentioned above, we need “evidence, facts, and results and … legislator accountability based on whether they can demonstrate that they’ve helped move us in a better direction.” (p. 256) If a politician doesn’t meet that standard, then those who support him are simply wrong.
All this to say that this book is absolutely recommended for anyone interested in improving our society, which ought to be all of us. We need more people like Yang to move us in the right direction: forward.
This book is a great demonstration of his thinking on the most important matters facing society. He spends a bit of time recounting his experience in running for president in 2020, which is interesting, but even better are the well-expressed explanations of his eminently rational positions.
Some examples of his refreshing wisdom:
- “running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader.” (p. 74) This is an obvious problem. It’s rare to find a candidate who’s good at the nonsense required for campaigning and also a great leader. And even if there are some in this group, there’s no guarantee they can win against those who are experts at campaigning but terrible as leaders.
- “loyalty in politics has a way of keeping things from changing.” (p. 152) For historical reasons, loyalty has come to be seen as a positive quality, but this is no longer valid, if it ever was. We are conditioned to be loyal to friends, family, colleagues, team members… but this is flat out wrong in cases where the object of our loyalty is behaving badly.
- “The purpose of an economy should be to improve the way of life of its people—that is, to improve the measurable quality of life of each and every person in a society.” (p. 202). Many leaders would deny that this is even the goal of society, while others, even if they agree, don’t put their efforts toward actually accomplishing it.
Yang’s ideas are reasonable proposals to improve things. In chapter 19, he champions:
- Universal Basic Income. His signature proposal, which has become well-known thanks largely to his efforts. It seems clear that there will soon be more people than jobs, and in any case no one _deserves_ to have to work at all. We’ve been conditioned, again, historically, to think it’s necessary to survive, even when society has the means to eliminate the necessity.
- Health care for all. Blindingly obvious that this should be a human right.
- Taxing automation. A logical and feasible way to pay for the above.
In chapter 20, he calls for:
- Ranked choice voting. A clear improvement that mitigates the problems with our entrenched two party system by allowing people to vote for the candidate they really want to win without fear of “wasting their vote”.
- Term limits: As Yang says, “three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole, while individual members sport reelection rates of 94 percent.” (p. 174). This makes no sense. Incumbents are obviously cruising to reelection based on name recognition and contacts. Even if they are actually good leaders, and surely some of them are, that’s not an argument for allowing them to hold the job indefinitely.
- Banning lobbying. Giving money to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment is the very definition of bribery. Even if it’s not illegal, it’s clearly unethical, and should not be acceptable in modern society. One example in particular is the fact that “[t]he IRS should be able to tell us how much we owe and automatically file our taxes for us.” (p. 260) Of course it should, and this is the way it works in some countries. The main reason it isn’t done this way in the US is due to the lobbying efforts of TurboTax maker Intuit and other unethical tax preparation companies, who are following incentives to make more money as opposed to making life better for people.
And then there is “fact-based governing—that is, … policies based on their ability to deliver an improvement to some attribute or measurement of societal progress or health.” (p. 255)
Yang is also an eminently decent person, encouraging us to “extend a sense of grace and tolerance toward the people who disagree with us or who are different from us in some way—even those who attack us.” (p. 274) This may be the hardest thing for readers to accept, and while I agree that this is an admirable goal, I’m not convinced that it’s always the right thing to do. Yang justifies his position as follows: “If one’s psychological makeup helps determine our political views, then I should not hold your politics against you, because there’s a substantial chance you were born with a disposition toward the candidates and party you support.” (p. 253) Fair enough, but on the other hand, if someone’s political views contribute demonstrably to making society worse rather than better, we can’t be “tolerant” of those views. Ideas are not deserving of respect; only people are, and only then until they do something to lose that respect. Getting back to the fact-based governing mentioned above, we need “evidence, facts, and results and … legislator accountability based on whether they can demonstrate that they’ve helped move us in a better direction.” (p. 256) If a politician doesn’t meet that standard, then those who support him are simply wrong.
All this to say that this book is absolutely recommended for anyone interested in improving our society, which ought to be all of us. We need more people like Yang to move us in the right direction: forward.
December 12, 2024
Andrew Yang only spends the last ten pages or so talking about the Forward Party, but the whole book provides a lot of insightful detail about how to deal with health care, AI, police brutality, the death of local journalism, and ranked choice voting. We don’t deserve him!
abandoned
September 17, 2024Read up to about p 137 and DNF'd. I like Yang, and there's some interesting tidbits about running a political campaign, but overall I didn't find this as engaging as his earlier books.
February 19, 2023
This guy should run for president. Based on his ideas and personality, and not name recognition alone, he would outlast over a dozen mayors, governors, members of congress, and the senate. He would be endorsed by the richest man in the world. After he gracefully bows out not wanting to accept anymore donation money from hard-working supporters because he can't win, a lot of his predictions of the economy, job loss, and the need for cash relief will come true. And then haters will assume he's just a Silicone Valley tech bro.
But seriously.
I'm not sure how I felt about learning how the sausage was made during his presidential run. Parts of it were really fascinating about certain unscripted moments and what went into all the preparation. Other moments that I was hoping were unscripted and genuine turned out to be calculated. In all, he was by far the most likeable and genuine person in the field of candidates, probably ever.
In the book he talked about how running for president isn't for the faint of heart. People get mercilessly attacked and it's really hard work. He says because of the disruption to their comfort zone, these people are not doing it for personal gain. Yang is just too optimistic for his own good. Most people on those stages are trying to revive a dying brand, get a cushy job as a cabinet member, or sign bigger book deals. I don’t believe they are altruistic angels of hope.
Why is Yang different? Because when he is personally attacked, he doesn't leverage his minority status for clicks and soundbytes. He doesn't say that Trump is the root of everyone's problems like every other politician, rather, Trump is a symptom of a disease in America that we all need to fix. Yang isn't in it for publicity and fomented partisanship. He sincerely has faith in humanity and believes everyone has the best intentions. That's why his economic, incentive-based solutions make sense. He doesn't present anecdotal quips as to why his social and moral platform is superior, he makes calm, rational decisions based on history, statistics, economics, and people's best interests.
While most others want the status quo in a system that incentivizes inaction and corruption, Yang's proposals of terms for congress, ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, restrictions on lobbying, and democracy dollars would make today's politics unrecognizable in the best way. People and good ideas would be represented and encouraged, not money and tribalism.
But seriously.
I'm not sure how I felt about learning how the sausage was made during his presidential run. Parts of it were really fascinating about certain unscripted moments and what went into all the preparation. Other moments that I was hoping were unscripted and genuine turned out to be calculated. In all, he was by far the most likeable and genuine person in the field of candidates, probably ever.
In the book he talked about how running for president isn't for the faint of heart. People get mercilessly attacked and it's really hard work. He says because of the disruption to their comfort zone, these people are not doing it for personal gain. Yang is just too optimistic for his own good. Most people on those stages are trying to revive a dying brand, get a cushy job as a cabinet member, or sign bigger book deals. I don’t believe they are altruistic angels of hope.
Why is Yang different? Because when he is personally attacked, he doesn't leverage his minority status for clicks and soundbytes. He doesn't say that Trump is the root of everyone's problems like every other politician, rather, Trump is a symptom of a disease in America that we all need to fix. Yang isn't in it for publicity and fomented partisanship. He sincerely has faith in humanity and believes everyone has the best intentions. That's why his economic, incentive-based solutions make sense. He doesn't present anecdotal quips as to why his social and moral platform is superior, he makes calm, rational decisions based on history, statistics, economics, and people's best interests.
While most others want the status quo in a system that incentivizes inaction and corruption, Yang's proposals of terms for congress, ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, restrictions on lobbying, and democracy dollars would make today's politics unrecognizable in the best way. People and good ideas would be represented and encouraged, not money and tribalism.
October 9, 2021
Forward is a compelling look into the ego-annihilating/-gratifying experience of running for office as a relative nobody to unpredicted success. Yang offers a deep and honest analysis of the absurdity of the process by which we elect leaders into office, and why the system and the incentives involved need drastic, yet practical change. It is a unique and hopeful call to action. It’s for anyone hoping to solve the issues of democracy, and decrease political tension, without the emotion culture war issues invoke that keep us all banging our heads against the walls of each other’s moral tribe.
January 1, 2022
Full disclosure: My politics do not generally align with those of Andrew Yang and I am generally position on the right.
Having said that, I have always found Yang to be interesting and he genuinely seems like a decent, family man that truly wants a better country without all of the nonsense that we often see in Washington. I don’t believe that a Freedom Dividend would make a major difference in most American’s lives. I don’t believe that a lot of impoverished Americans would make any meaningful change in their lives simply by sending them free money. I think that our recent Covid checks have proven this. However, I completely agree with Yang’s concerns with technology and job loss are issues we need to address seriously and I’m glad that he is highlighting this. I also have issues with his stance on police brutality and solutions to fix the problem. Although it has been an issue in our country, he seems to spout the same “fixes” that other politicians repeat at nauseam. These people obviously have no idea what cops deal with or what their jobs actual entail. As someone that works with police on a daily basis at my job, I see what these men and women actually deal with. Overall, most cops are great people trying to protect citizens in their community. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people that they deal with are drug or alcohol addicted, violent, mentally unstable, or have no regard for others. Therapy sessions and hugs will not change these people just as harsh prison sentences won’t either. This is something we all need to understand when talking about large changes in policing. Overall, I liked this book and enjoyed catching more of a glimpse in to the mind of Andrew Yang. We need more activists and politicians that have the heart that he does. Let’s continue to try and improve ourselves in order to build a more prosperous and unified country that we can be proud to leave to our children.
Having said that, I have always found Yang to be interesting and he genuinely seems like a decent, family man that truly wants a better country without all of the nonsense that we often see in Washington. I don’t believe that a Freedom Dividend would make a major difference in most American’s lives. I don’t believe that a lot of impoverished Americans would make any meaningful change in their lives simply by sending them free money. I think that our recent Covid checks have proven this. However, I completely agree with Yang’s concerns with technology and job loss are issues we need to address seriously and I’m glad that he is highlighting this. I also have issues with his stance on police brutality and solutions to fix the problem. Although it has been an issue in our country, he seems to spout the same “fixes” that other politicians repeat at nauseam. These people obviously have no idea what cops deal with or what their jobs actual entail. As someone that works with police on a daily basis at my job, I see what these men and women actually deal with. Overall, most cops are great people trying to protect citizens in their community. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people that they deal with are drug or alcohol addicted, violent, mentally unstable, or have no regard for others. Therapy sessions and hugs will not change these people just as harsh prison sentences won’t either. This is something we all need to understand when talking about large changes in policing. Overall, I liked this book and enjoyed catching more of a glimpse in to the mind of Andrew Yang. We need more activists and politicians that have the heart that he does. Let’s continue to try and improve ourselves in order to build a more prosperous and unified country that we can be proud to leave to our children.
September 5, 2025
Yang gives an incredibly in depth analysis of the core issues facing this country. Reading this book a few years after its release really shows how well he understands the workings and nature of society, and the solutions he presents offer a lot to consider. Whether you agree with Yang’s views and support his solutions, or don’t, it’s clear this book is vital to the conversations we as a country need to be having about how we can save our democracy, and our economy.
February 10, 2023
What a well-written book. Yang does a great job at highlighting a vast selection of issues faced by most Americans along with how to solve those problems. Additionally the plans that he outlines in order to fix the very evident problems in our country should be followed. I look forward to reading other books from him.
July 3, 2024
Very easy read. I enjoyed his previous book ‘the war on normal people’ more, this gave interesting insights on his experiences as a presidential candidate and his thoughts on how we can move forward. That being said it was nothing too original that I hadn’t already encountered & parts felt grandiose with his emphasis on how ‘famous’ he became.
December 14, 2024
While I'm not on board with all of his ideas, Yang is the only person running for office that I've heard talk about the hard truth of confronting a changing economy. His ideas and demeanor give my cynical GenX heart some much needed hope-ium. 🇺🇲
December 13, 2021
As Mr. Yang said a basic income guarantee has been around for a long time. I first heard about it in 2007. I rather liked this book, though I could’ve done with more how to do it, than reminiscing over his campaign trail, even though it was interesting and informative. He does explain how to do somethings but more detail was needed for a person who really wants to shake things up. I borrowed it from the library, but I’m going to buy the book because in the end there were interesting things I hadn’t thought of and need a reference for when I decide to get off my a$$ and shake things up and move us forward.
December 14, 2021
I enjoyed learning about his ideas and possible solutions to make a difference in how government functions and improve people’s lives.
November 29, 2021
As in his previous book, Andrew Yang presents a clear picture of the political landscape and actionable positive steps that can be taken to correct some of the worst inadequacies of our current system. I highly recommend this book for anyone that is tired of the inaction our current duopoly has been displaying.
November 30, 2021
Important ideas regardless of affiliation.
November 26, 2021
A path back from the brink
Forward is an easy to follow, logical breakdown of today’s major societal problems and proposals to fix them. Andrew Yang uses his own personal experiences on the presidential campaign trail to illustrate many of the issues. He sets forth a path with realistic near term and long term solutions that can hopefully, if undertaken, reverse our course toward ever increasing societal discord and back to an era of peace and prosperity for all Americans.
Forward is an easy to follow, logical breakdown of today’s major societal problems and proposals to fix them. Andrew Yang uses his own personal experiences on the presidential campaign trail to illustrate many of the issues. He sets forth a path with realistic near term and long term solutions that can hopefully, if undertaken, reverse our course toward ever increasing societal discord and back to an era of peace and prosperity for all Americans.
April 25, 2025
In Forward (2021), Andrew Yang presents a compelling case for reimagining America’s economic and political systems, particularly in Part III, where he outlines his vision for “human-centered capitalism” and systemic government reform. As someone who broadly aligns with Yang’s perspective and appreciates his innovative solutions, I find his ideas inspiring and pragmatic. However, his post-publication struggles—most notably his failed 2021 New York City mayoral run and the backlash against ranked-choice voting (RCV) at state and local levels—reveal significant shortcomings in navigating the political landscape, tempering the optimism of his proposals.
Comparing Yang’s approach to Vivek Ramaswamy’s Truths (2024) highlights two bright outsiders shaking up politics with contrasting strategies: Yang’s disruptive, systemic reforms versus Ramaswamy’s tactical alignment with the MAGA base for immediate impact but less transformative ideas.
Human-Centered Capitalism: A People-First Economy
Yang’s concept of human-centered capitalism prioritizes people over profits, asserting that the economy’s unit should be the individual, not the dollar. He critiques the overreliance on GDP, noting that even its creator, Simon Kuznets, cautioned against using it as a sole measure of well-being in 1934. Yang proposes bold solutions: universal basic income (UBI), universal healthcare, and “taxing the robots” via a value-added tax (VAT) to address automation’s displacement of labor. His analysis of America’s patchwork healthcare system—rooted in WWII-era price controls, contributing to 66.5% of bankruptcies due to medical costs, and creating job lock—is incisive. It is possible that a UBI could directly address healthcare bills without overhauling the system by a similarly expensive plan (Medicare for all) but a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital could be more feasible and less regressive than a VAT, particuarly if the UBI starts annually rather than monthly, to build support at a lower price.
Infrastructure rebuilding, aligned with initiatives like Build Back Better and the Green New Deal, is another pillar. Yang also advocates for government-subsidized home health aide hiring, potentially through Medicare. I find an infrastructure bank a more robust mechanism to streamline and sustain such investments, offering a clearer path to execution and historical precedent in Hamilton’s national bank to the depression era’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Rewiring Government: Democratic Innovation
Yang’s proposals to “rewire” government are ambitious, aiming to break partisan gridlock and empower voters. His “Democracy Dollars” plan—allocating $100 per person to fund campaigns—could inject $5 billion into elections if just 20% of voters participate, leveling the playing field. Local experiments in Seattle, Maine, and New York City demonstrate its feasibility. Independent redistricting commissions, adopted by six states, and top-five open primaries, inspired by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, aim to foster competition and innovation. Yang highlights California’s top-two primary system, which increased competitive races and legislative approval.
Ranked-choice voting, adopted in Maine (2016) and Alaska (2020), is a cornerstone of Yang’s reform agenda. By discouraging negative campaigning and empowering minor-party voters, RCV could reshape electoral dynamics without requiring congressional approval. Critics argue it rewards higher-educated voters and propensity, nodding to Jason Brennan’s “epistocracy” (rule by expertise), but I see modest incentives for voter education and candidate moderation as more “noocratic” (rule by wisdom). However, Yang underestimated the resistance to RCV, as seen in post-2021 backlash in states like Tennessee and Florida, where Republican-led legislatures banned or restricted it, fearing it dilutes their base’s influence (e.g., the 2022 “red puddle” midterms where MAGA candidates underperformed).
Other reforms include term limits (18 years in either house), restoring earmarks, abolishing the filibuster, and civic juries for deliberative polling, drawing from experiments in Iceland and Ireland and the work of Lawrence Lessig. Yang also proposes a lobbying ban with a $100,000 stipend for ex-lawmakers to work in nonprofits or academia, alongside congressional pay raises to attract talent. While these ideas are creative, their political viability is questionable given entrenched interests and public skepticism.
Reimagining Media and Civic Discourse
Yang’s media reform agenda tackles polarization and disinformation head-on. He endorses Steve Waldman’s plan to bolster local journalism through tax credits ($250 per person for subscriptions, $5,000 for small businesses to advertise) and matching funds for donations. The Local Journalism Sustainability Act, creating “J-Corps” for local reporting, aligns with this vision. Yang also suggests reinstating a modernized Fairness Doctrine, though he acknowledges its obsolescence in a fragmented media landscape. A better approach, he argues, is labeling news versus opinion—a practice Fox News employs inconsistently.
Reforming Section 230 to enhance data transparency and content responsibility, verifying user identities, and imposing media curfews for minors are forward-thinking but contentious, involving changing incentives for self-regulation rather than government censorship. Yang’s “universal basic media” proposal—vouchers for ad-free website access ($20/month)—is a novel attempt to reduce the media divide, though I see polarization as more a symptom than a driver of deeper societal divides as Yang notes data that political identity does not directly align with policy (25% correlation) and attitudes are heritable to a significant degree (30-50%).
Strengths and Shortcomings
Yang’s strength lies in his ability to diagnose systemic flaws and propose interconnected solutions grounded in data and real-world examples. His Forward Party principles—ranked-choice voting, open primaries, fact-based governance, human-centered capitalism, effective governance, UBI, and grace—offer a cohesive framework. His nod to Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro’s “rational public” era (1940–1990) and Jonathan Haidt’s research on genetic roots of political differences (30–50%) underscores his commitment to evidence over ideology.
Yet, Yang’s political naivety undermines his vision. His 2021 mayoral campaign faltered due to missteps like late entry, tone-deaf messaging, and failure to build coalitions, alienating progressive voters, ironically working against RCV. The Forward Party’s struggles to gain traction and RCV’s mixed reception—empowering moderates but occasionally backfiring for Republicans—highlight the gap between theory and execution. Yang’s optimism about civic juries and media vouchers overlooks cultural and logistical barriers, such as distrust in institutions and administrative complexity.
Comparison to Vivek Ramaswamy’s Truths
Ramaswamy’s Truths takes a starkly different path. Like Yang, he’s a bright outsider—a biotech entrepreneur turned political firebrand—critiquing establishment failures. However, where Yang seeks systemic disruption, Ramaswamy ingratiates himself with the MAGA base for immediate results, evident in his appointment to co-lead DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) with Elon Musk and Trump’s backing for Ohio governor in 2025. Truths focuses on dismantling the administrative state and attacking “wokeness,” offering red meat to MAGA supporters. Yet, Ramaswamy’s civic nationalism, merit-based immigration, and Hindu background alienate hardcore MAGA nativists, creating tension.
Similarities: Both diagnose a broken system—Yang through economic and democratic decay, Ramaswamy via bureaucratic overreach and cultural decline. Both appeal to outsiders, leveraging non-political backgrounds to propose bold fixes. Their optimism, rooted in American potential, resonates with voters frustrated by elites.
Differences: Yang’s solutions are structural—UBI, RCV, media vouchers—aiming to rewire the system over decades. Ramaswamy’s are tactical, leaning into MAGA priorities (anti-woke, anti-bureaucracy) for short-term wins but less transformative scope. Yang’s universalist vision contrasts with Ramaswamy’s civic nationalism, which emphasizes cultural cohesion over systemic economic reform. Yang’s Forward Party struggles, while Ramaswamy’s MAGA alignment yields instant influence, though at the cost of alienating some base voters.
Impact and Feasibility: Yang’s ideas face steep hurdles but could reshape America, as seen in local successes (Maine, Alaska). Ramaswamy’s proposals, aligned with Trump’s agenda, have immediate traction—DOGE’s mandate to slash regulations by 2026—but risk stalling if his identity fractures MAGA support. Yang’s failure to navigate coalitions contrasts with Ramaswamy’s savvy, though the latter’s reliance on Trump’s orbit limits his independence.
Conclusion
Part III of Forward is a bold blueprint for a fairer, more responsive America. Yang’s human-centered capitalism and democratic reforms resonate deeply, offering hope for a system that serves people over power. His solutions, from UBI to RCV, are well-researched and practical, yet his inability to translate these ideas into political wins since 2021 is dismaying. Ramaswamy’s Truths, by contrast, sacrifices disruption for immediate MAGA clout, critiquing bureaucracy and culture wars effectively but offering less systemic change. Yang’s long-term vision holds greater transformative potential, but Ramaswamy’s short-term wins highlight the power of strategic alignment. For readers seeking reform, Forward challenges the system’s core, while Truths rides the populist wave—two outsiders, one reimagining the game, the other playing it masterfully.
Comparing Yang’s approach to Vivek Ramaswamy’s Truths (2024) highlights two bright outsiders shaking up politics with contrasting strategies: Yang’s disruptive, systemic reforms versus Ramaswamy’s tactical alignment with the MAGA base for immediate impact but less transformative ideas.
Human-Centered Capitalism: A People-First Economy
Yang’s concept of human-centered capitalism prioritizes people over profits, asserting that the economy’s unit should be the individual, not the dollar. He critiques the overreliance on GDP, noting that even its creator, Simon Kuznets, cautioned against using it as a sole measure of well-being in 1934. Yang proposes bold solutions: universal basic income (UBI), universal healthcare, and “taxing the robots” via a value-added tax (VAT) to address automation’s displacement of labor. His analysis of America’s patchwork healthcare system—rooted in WWII-era price controls, contributing to 66.5% of bankruptcies due to medical costs, and creating job lock—is incisive. It is possible that a UBI could directly address healthcare bills without overhauling the system by a similarly expensive plan (Medicare for all) but a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital could be more feasible and less regressive than a VAT, particuarly if the UBI starts annually rather than monthly, to build support at a lower price.
Infrastructure rebuilding, aligned with initiatives like Build Back Better and the Green New Deal, is another pillar. Yang also advocates for government-subsidized home health aide hiring, potentially through Medicare. I find an infrastructure bank a more robust mechanism to streamline and sustain such investments, offering a clearer path to execution and historical precedent in Hamilton’s national bank to the depression era’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Rewiring Government: Democratic Innovation
Yang’s proposals to “rewire” government are ambitious, aiming to break partisan gridlock and empower voters. His “Democracy Dollars” plan—allocating $100 per person to fund campaigns—could inject $5 billion into elections if just 20% of voters participate, leveling the playing field. Local experiments in Seattle, Maine, and New York City demonstrate its feasibility. Independent redistricting commissions, adopted by six states, and top-five open primaries, inspired by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, aim to foster competition and innovation. Yang highlights California’s top-two primary system, which increased competitive races and legislative approval.
Ranked-choice voting, adopted in Maine (2016) and Alaska (2020), is a cornerstone of Yang’s reform agenda. By discouraging negative campaigning and empowering minor-party voters, RCV could reshape electoral dynamics without requiring congressional approval. Critics argue it rewards higher-educated voters and propensity, nodding to Jason Brennan’s “epistocracy” (rule by expertise), but I see modest incentives for voter education and candidate moderation as more “noocratic” (rule by wisdom). However, Yang underestimated the resistance to RCV, as seen in post-2021 backlash in states like Tennessee and Florida, where Republican-led legislatures banned or restricted it, fearing it dilutes their base’s influence (e.g., the 2022 “red puddle” midterms where MAGA candidates underperformed).
Other reforms include term limits (18 years in either house), restoring earmarks, abolishing the filibuster, and civic juries for deliberative polling, drawing from experiments in Iceland and Ireland and the work of Lawrence Lessig. Yang also proposes a lobbying ban with a $100,000 stipend for ex-lawmakers to work in nonprofits or academia, alongside congressional pay raises to attract talent. While these ideas are creative, their political viability is questionable given entrenched interests and public skepticism.
Reimagining Media and Civic Discourse
Yang’s media reform agenda tackles polarization and disinformation head-on. He endorses Steve Waldman’s plan to bolster local journalism through tax credits ($250 per person for subscriptions, $5,000 for small businesses to advertise) and matching funds for donations. The Local Journalism Sustainability Act, creating “J-Corps” for local reporting, aligns with this vision. Yang also suggests reinstating a modernized Fairness Doctrine, though he acknowledges its obsolescence in a fragmented media landscape. A better approach, he argues, is labeling news versus opinion—a practice Fox News employs inconsistently.
Reforming Section 230 to enhance data transparency and content responsibility, verifying user identities, and imposing media curfews for minors are forward-thinking but contentious, involving changing incentives for self-regulation rather than government censorship. Yang’s “universal basic media” proposal—vouchers for ad-free website access ($20/month)—is a novel attempt to reduce the media divide, though I see polarization as more a symptom than a driver of deeper societal divides as Yang notes data that political identity does not directly align with policy (25% correlation) and attitudes are heritable to a significant degree (30-50%).
Strengths and Shortcomings
Yang’s strength lies in his ability to diagnose systemic flaws and propose interconnected solutions grounded in data and real-world examples. His Forward Party principles—ranked-choice voting, open primaries, fact-based governance, human-centered capitalism, effective governance, UBI, and grace—offer a cohesive framework. His nod to Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro’s “rational public” era (1940–1990) and Jonathan Haidt’s research on genetic roots of political differences (30–50%) underscores his commitment to evidence over ideology.
Yet, Yang’s political naivety undermines his vision. His 2021 mayoral campaign faltered due to missteps like late entry, tone-deaf messaging, and failure to build coalitions, alienating progressive voters, ironically working against RCV. The Forward Party’s struggles to gain traction and RCV’s mixed reception—empowering moderates but occasionally backfiring for Republicans—highlight the gap between theory and execution. Yang’s optimism about civic juries and media vouchers overlooks cultural and logistical barriers, such as distrust in institutions and administrative complexity.
Comparison to Vivek Ramaswamy’s Truths
Ramaswamy’s Truths takes a starkly different path. Like Yang, he’s a bright outsider—a biotech entrepreneur turned political firebrand—critiquing establishment failures. However, where Yang seeks systemic disruption, Ramaswamy ingratiates himself with the MAGA base for immediate results, evident in his appointment to co-lead DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) with Elon Musk and Trump’s backing for Ohio governor in 2025. Truths focuses on dismantling the administrative state and attacking “wokeness,” offering red meat to MAGA supporters. Yet, Ramaswamy’s civic nationalism, merit-based immigration, and Hindu background alienate hardcore MAGA nativists, creating tension.
Similarities: Both diagnose a broken system—Yang through economic and democratic decay, Ramaswamy via bureaucratic overreach and cultural decline. Both appeal to outsiders, leveraging non-political backgrounds to propose bold fixes. Their optimism, rooted in American potential, resonates with voters frustrated by elites.
Differences: Yang’s solutions are structural—UBI, RCV, media vouchers—aiming to rewire the system over decades. Ramaswamy’s are tactical, leaning into MAGA priorities (anti-woke, anti-bureaucracy) for short-term wins but less transformative scope. Yang’s universalist vision contrasts with Ramaswamy’s civic nationalism, which emphasizes cultural cohesion over systemic economic reform. Yang’s Forward Party struggles, while Ramaswamy’s MAGA alignment yields instant influence, though at the cost of alienating some base voters.
Impact and Feasibility: Yang’s ideas face steep hurdles but could reshape America, as seen in local successes (Maine, Alaska). Ramaswamy’s proposals, aligned with Trump’s agenda, have immediate traction—DOGE’s mandate to slash regulations by 2026—but risk stalling if his identity fractures MAGA support. Yang’s failure to navigate coalitions contrasts with Ramaswamy’s savvy, though the latter’s reliance on Trump’s orbit limits his independence.
Conclusion
Part III of Forward is a bold blueprint for a fairer, more responsive America. Yang’s human-centered capitalism and democratic reforms resonate deeply, offering hope for a system that serves people over power. His solutions, from UBI to RCV, are well-researched and practical, yet his inability to translate these ideas into political wins since 2021 is dismaying. Ramaswamy’s Truths, by contrast, sacrifices disruption for immediate MAGA clout, critiquing bureaucracy and culture wars effectively but offering less systemic change. Yang’s long-term vision holds greater transformative potential, but Ramaswamy’s short-term wins highlight the power of strategic alignment. For readers seeking reform, Forward challenges the system’s core, while Truths rides the populist wave—two outsiders, one reimagining the game, the other playing it masterfully.
March 4, 2022
Clearly written and full of interesting ideas on how to change the chaos that is Washington DC.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 177 reviews