My Review of How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps

When I subscribed to and actively promulgated the Marxist ideology of the far Left as a professor, my colleagues and friends and I raged and spouted frothing criticism of the USA daily. It was only after I departed academe did I come to realize not only how very skewed this perspective was, but how insincere my colleagues were. Although Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach, "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it," they did nothing but talk and deride those who provided "bandaid" solutions to systemic problems

A major turning point for me was a convention of several thousand conservative homeschoolers, who contextualized the past sins of the USA as part of humans' fallen nature, transcended with human reason and God's grace. They celebrated America's singular history of freedoms and respect for individual rights, culture of self-reliance and striving, and its philosophical roots in Jerusalem and Athens. They awarded prizes to students for their knowledge of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. They were a joyful and patriotic bunch.

I wondered about the reasons for the sharp contrast between these folks and the lack of a similarly balanced view and good humor on the Left.

Shapiro provides a cogent analysis in this uplifting book sure to be enjoyed by anyone with interest in U.S. history. In each section, he defines what he perceives to be the distinguishing characteristics of American philosophy, culture, and history as he builds the case that a shared understanding of these elements bonds Americans together. The dissolution of that bond will lead to the very disintegration of the nation.

Shapiro's defense of the Unionist perspective against the Disintegrationists is a nuanced one. He does not gloss over the troubling aspects of American history, but he demonstrates quite clearly that the foundational principles work when adhered to and striven for, and should be retained rather than jettisoned. Unionists side with originalists who seek to discern the will of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution as one might use holy writs as a moral compass; Disintegrationists perceive the Constitution as a period piece in dire need of serious revision or, more likely, abrogation. "Disintegrationists see themselves as new founders of the country" (199).

Philosophy

American philosophy is founded on natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that preexist government; on the equality of individuals before the law; and on the notion that government is instituted only to protect those preexisting rights and equality of individuals before the law, not "override them in the name of some greater good."

The section on philosophy introduced me to the concept of negative rights and positive rights. The difference between the two is foundational to Shapiro's argument, but I had to seek clarification elsewhere, which I provide for you:

"A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction" and prohibit the government from interfering. Negative rights are Unionist. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an example. The baker had a right to control his labor (an extension of property) and not create a cake that would infringe on his Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Requiring people to use others' preferred pronouns is a similar violation.

In contrast, "A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action." Disintegrationists want more of these, like the [pseudo] "rights to housing, health care, food, and social security" (38). Individuals thus become reliant on the government for their wellbeing, instead of taking responsibility for it themselves. The rights of the landowners, doctors, food producers, etc. are violated because they can be coerced to provide services without their consent, and taxpayers are forced to pay. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835, the American "has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its power only when he cannot do without it" (77); this self-reliance, a defining principle of America, is eroded by the Disintegrationists.

An additional major sticking point between the two factions is that the Founders [and Unionists] regarded rights as pre-existing government, they are "inalienable;" they cannot be given or taken away, even by consent of the electorate. Historically, God has been the ultimate source of legitimation of rights and law; the government protect them. Wherefore the source of rights in an atheistic society? Common convention and agreement are too subjective and inconstant.

The argument concerning equality of opportunity should be evident to anyone involved in a field that applies Affirmative Action: "seeking 'equality of opportunity' through disparate treatment of individuals means violating the rights of some on behalf of others. But Disintegrationists maintain that "all disparities result from societal injustice rather than human differences" (43). Unionists, in contrast, see that "Equal protection under the law is a far better remedy than restorative discrimination" (46).

Traditionally, the phrase "states' rights" has been used as a dog whistle for racism due to its association with the slavery defended by the Southern Democrats, but since there are significant regional differences in this country, there is much to support subsidiarity, the principle that whenever possible or feasible, issues should be resolved or engaged by the most local entity rather than a centralized authority. Politics becomes high stakes in the US because the Disintegrationists explicitly intend to erode delegated powers and check and balances in favor of broader powers for government.

Culture:

American culture is predicated on

1. The tolerance for the rights of others, "particularly when we don't like how others exercise their rights"

2. The cohesion and duties instilled and imposed by social institutions like family, church, and associations of all kinds

3. The insistent desire for freedom

4. The spirit of adventure and risk-taking.

That last one matters a great deal, particularly in the wake of 9/11, which resulted in the PATRIOT Act and its enormous infringement on rights. As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In contrast, Disintegrationists promise "guarantees of positive 'freedom' from want and fear, rather than negative freedoms of speech and adventure--and duties created by the mob, dictated by a cultural elite at best indifferent to and at worst openly opposed to the institutions of church and family" (119).

Shapiro underscores that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not from it. The contemporary narrative avers that the Founders were not religious people, which is demonstrably false from their writings. John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Disintegrationists want to "turn the state into a weapon against" religion; Obama and Clinton both disparaged religion. "The founders believed that an immoral people with rights would slide into childish libertinism, and then into the comfortable swaddling of tyranny" (69); how very prescient.

Nevertheless, with great freedom comes great responsibility, duties, moral obligations to be inculcated by those social institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that while American "law permits ...people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything" (70). For how much longer?

History

Shapiro presents an unabashed and stirringly convincing defense of American exceptionalism in the section on History. For Unionists,

1. "America was born with glorious ideals"

2. "America has been united by those ideals more and more universally over time, rather than divided by sectarian interest, and that adherence to those ideals has been at the center of America's progress"

3. "The world has benefited from America's power and greatness" (123).

The strongest evidence supporting this view is that holding fast to the founding principles "has reduced colonialism and imperialism over time which is why the United States may be the most powerful country in the history of the world but does not rule the largest territorial empire in history of world" (184).

"The story of America is one of the great stories in human history. America was founded on principles; America has struggle to live up to those principles, but with each step toward those principles, America has magnified its own greatness. The world is better off for America. We ought to understand the shadows and curses of our history; we ought to understand how history affects the present. But we all ought to understand, most of all, that we are part of the same history, not rivals in a country divided by identity or class. Yet, as we will soon see, Disintegrationists have reworked American history to do just that" (164).

Disintegrationists identify alternative fundamental principles (169, 181):

1. "America was founded in evil"

2. "America has always reflected divided sects and hierarchies of power"; it is "irredeemably divided and can never escape her past absent dismantling for founding principles"

3. "America's role in the world has resulted in poverty, death, inequality, and injustice".... "on net, terrible for her citizens and terrible for the world."

The Disintegrationist view is without question what I was taught in a Jesuit university in the late 1980s. The reasons for that are best explained by John Ellis in his recent book (see my review), namely the illiberal liberalism, politicization, and neophilia that have taken over academe.

Shapiro provides a corrective to that and its recent manifestations in The 1619 Project and the work of Howard Zinn, Disintegrationist projects which dominate educational institutions. "The founders did accept slavery as part of the founding bargain, since the alternative would have been the division of the United States itself" (57); it would have severed the Southern delegates. Later, we are reminded that Rockefeller and Carnegie grew up poor, "took risks, and read the rewards." The entire country's standard of living increased enormously during the The Gilded Age, but the disparities ushered in the Progressive Era, "the complete rewriting of the bargain between Americans and their government" (144). He proceeds thus through the 20th century into the 21st. Why this matters occupies considerably less space than the argument itself. A nation needs a shared history and common touchstones for its unity.

Conclusion

The Disintegrationists and Unionists have two starkly distinct views of America, its philosophy, its culture and its history. The former demands "ever more adherence, ever more control. They seek to dominate where they cannot persuade and convince. And so America will be left with two choices: submission or disintegration" (201). Shapiro urges resistance to these forces, reaffirmation of the founding principles and the unity of our nation. He believes that American exceptionalism will prevail. He is far more hopeful than I.