Tag: democracy

Posted on

#BookReview: Nations Apart by Colin Woodard

The BlueSky Crowd Will Love This Goldmine. “Clashing regional cultures” didn’t shatter America. America is strong and survived this for generations. What has shattered America in these past 20 ish years has been the hyper partisanship and doomerism that Nate Silver now calls “BlueSkyism” – which is why that crowd will love this book. Everyone else, don’t waste your time.

With that TL;DR already dealt with, let’s dive into the details. First, “goldmine”, above. My personal worst possible rating for a book. It means you’re shifting through a ton of shit to find something redeemable… but at least there *is* a fleck or two of something approaching redeemable here.

Second, backing up and briefly mentioning my own background, Woodard himself will probably just excuse this particular review knowing that I am a Son of the South who grew up at the border of what he calls “Greater Appalachia” and “Deep South” according to his own maps, directly along the path of that war criminal terrorist bastard William Tecumseh Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign – and my home County literally still bears its physical scars to this day, in places readily seen even as their history isn’t as readily known anymore.

Now let’s truly discuss the book. To get to a one star rating means I had four major issues with the book, in this case and in no particular order:

-dearth of bibliography
-shoddy “journalism”
-elitism
-doomerism

The bibliography here, calculated as the point when the “Acknowledgements” section begins, is just 14% of this text, which falls short of my expectation from reading many nonfiction books over my over seven years as a book blogger of between 20-30% documentation. Further, given the rather extreme nature of this book generally, the Sagan Rule – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – applies, meaning even more documentation is actually needed… which this book failed to supply. So there goes one star.

Next, shoddy “journalism”. For one, Woodard cites in at least one incidence that Donald Trump claimed the people at the “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA were “very fine people”. This has been resoundingly debunked… simply by showing the entire transcript of that very speech in question. Furthermore, Woodward speaks quite often of “voter suppression” and (accurately) proclaims that the right’s fears of “voter fraud” are excessively rare so as to be near 0 actual incidents… except that the actual evidence of “voter suppression” turns out to be just as scant, despite Woodard openly proclaiming it happening quite often. In areas where his side is losing, of course. Note that even here, Woodward is blatantly and openly lying as he claims that Georgia does not allow people to be given water while waiting in line to vote. And these are only the things I have direct and personal knowledge of myself. So there goes another star.

Next, elitism. Simply put, Colin Woodard thinks he knows everything about every political issue… and even a lot of non-political ones. Colin Woodard needs to learn a bit of humility… and this is coming from someone often accused (at least earlier in life) of exactly what he is accusing Woodard of here. Let me be clear here: The general theory of the twelve nations is revolutionary and seems to have quite a bit of merit. It is why I was interested in this book to begin with. But when Woodard leaves this theory to comment on things such as climatology or virology, among many others, he inevitably winds up simply repeating extreme leftist talking points rather than actual history or science. And yet he makes these claims openly proclaiming them to be absolute fact and openly mocks those who disagree… even when he is blatantly wrong and, as a scholar, *should* be aware of just how wrong he actually is here. But again, blinded by his elitism. So there went another star.

Finally, doomerism. I mean, the subtitle of this book really does give that part away, I’ll grant that. But particularly in light of the two attempted assassinations of now President Trump in 2024 (which happened as Woodward was still writing this book), followed by the assassination of former Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman in June 2025 and then the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk in September 2025 (admittedly barely a week before I write this review), the doomerism in politics must end.

To do my part in helping end this scourge, I will do the one thing I can as a book reviewer, the one tool I actually have: I’ll remove one star every time I see this in a nonfiction politically oriented book, beginning here.

There never was a place for such doom and gloom as “my opponents will end all elections!”. It was wrong when the right did it, and I called it out back then. It is equally wrong when the left does it, and I call it out now. Elections for both Congress and President were held during the most trying times in US history – the US Civil War from 1861 – 1865 and World War II from 1941 – 1945. If we as a country can hold elections even in those circumstances, we’re going to keep holding them in every peacetime circumstance, no matter what Woodard and other doomerists claim.

No, the only outcome of such doomerist proclamations is that more people will die both from suicide – as suicide is almost inevitably from a loss of hope for one reason or another – or from murder, as more and more people begin to believe that the only hope remaining is if their political opponents are dead. THIS. IS. WRONG. It is 100% unacceptable, and we as a society must verbally oppose this ideology with as much force as our words can possibly carry.

America can survive as a federation of twelve nations. We have for 250 years in just a few more months – and yes, we will absolutely make it to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence next summer. We’ll also make it tot he 250th anniversary of our current Constitution first being ratified on June 21, 2038, when we will have at least one and possibly two Presidents post-Donald Trump.

We just have to have hope. We have to believe in the processes we have created, and that we can make the changes within them to continue to make ourselves a “more perfect union”.

No matter the doomerism of Woodard and others.

Not recommended. (But you already knew that if you got here. 😉 )

This review of Nations Apart by Colin Woodard was originally written on September 19, 2025.

Posted on

#BookReview: No Democracy Lasts Forever by Erwin Chemerinsky

Unoriginal Hyper-Leftist Wet Dream. In all honesty, had I known that Chemerinsky was the Dean of the Berkely School of Law, I probably would never have picked up this book to begin with. I would have already known most of what he was going to say… and now having actually read it, I can positively say that 95% of my assumptions would have been correct.

Basically, however you feel about the Citizens United ruling, recent SCOTUS decisions, packing the Court, the Electoral College, and the well-debunked “Russian Collusion” conspiracy theory from the 2016 Presidential Election is largely how you’re going to feel about this book. It honestly reads as little more than hyper-leftist dreams about everything that has gone “wrong” with America for the last decade or two. Thus, some of you are going to sing this book’s praises from the highest places you can as loudly as you can. And some of you are going to want to take a window to those places just so you can be assured that you will be able to defenestrate this book from those places.

Chemerinsky *does* get *close* to some genuinely good ideas, ideas that could *actually* solve a lot of the problems he names… and then quickly backs away from them, for the most part. His one consistent good idea is that the process of “Winner Take All” as it relates to Electoral College votes does in fact need to end – a stance I’ve had for much of my adult life, particularly my politically engaged adult life. The more interesting things that he addresses but then thinks *secession* is more viable are as they relate to the number of Congressmen. Chemerinsky correctly points out that the only thing limiting the size of the US House to 435 members is a US law passed less than a century ago – and laws can be overturned in a number of ways. Here again, one weakness of Chemerinsky is that in proclaiming the Constitution a threat – and even spending quite a bit of the text here decrying the SCOTUS as a threat – he openly advocates for SCOTUS to take action against this law. But even this idea is hardly original, as people across the political spectrum have been proposing it for many years already.

Another point Chemerinsky gets truly close to a near-original idea (it has been proposed by at least one writer) is when he proposes – briefly, before quickly retracting it and dismissing it as unworkable – that States be broken into “smaller States”. But if “Democracy” is truly the end goal, and Chemerinsky wants everyone across the US to be as truly even as possible, why isn’t he going full-bore here? As others have written, first, build the House up to its Constitutionally mandated maximum size – every Congressman represents exactly 35,000 people, the Constitutionally mandated minimum number of people per Representative. That gives us something like 11K US Representatives. Now, take Chemerinsky’s own note here that “smaller States” would each get 2 US Senators… and make every single one of those US Rep Districts its own State. That would mean that every US Rep represents 35K people… and every Senator represents 35,000 / 2 == 17,500 people each. Meaning that for every 35,000 people, on average 1 Congressman of some level represents just under 12,000 people. Which in some urban areas is considerably less than an entire block, and in some rural areas could be several hundred square miles of territory. But Chemerinsky doesn’t go here, instead he just continually reiterates hyper leftist talking points rather than seeking actual solutions to the problems he decries.

Ultimately, I deducted two stars from this book – the first is for the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 12% of the text I read weeks before publication. Even being generous and lowering my 20-30% standard, as I’ve been trying to do of late, I just can’t justify allowing such a small bibliography against such grand claims. Even here, the bibliography itself is quite cherry picked and doesn’t show the full scope of what is going on through many of Chemerinsky’s claims, but I’ve never really addressed that issue in other reviews and won’t really address it here either.

The other star really was for the lack of objectivity and just how unoriginal very nearly everything about this book was. If you’ve seen nearly any left-leaning politician or activist speak in the last 20 years, they’re all saying much of the same things Chemerinsky is saying here – including more and more of them openly talking of secession, which would be ruinous on us all.

Again, at the end of the day your feelings about this book are largely going to hinge on just how ideologically aligned with extreme leftist US politics you are, so know that when making your decision to read this book. Some of you are going to LOVE this book, and others are going to HATE it, and it will largely be for exactly the same reasons.

Recommended.

This review of No Democracy Lasts Forever by Erwin Chemerinsky was originally written on July 31, 2024.

Posted on

#BookReview: How To Be A Citizen by C.L. Skach

Making The Case For Practical Anarchy While Proclaiming Non-State Democracy. As an avowed and open Anarchist, any time I find a book proclaiming in its title to be about how to live effectively in community without the State… I tend to pick it up.

Here, Skach makes quite clear that she is terrified of a particular “A” word (that I’ve already used twice in the preceding paragraph) and instead proclaims her arguments to be in favor of State-less democracy… while failing to realize that Anarchy literally means only “no government” – ie, “no State”, ie, “Without the State” (to use the exact phrasing from the subtitle). As Lysander Spooner and other thinkers over the Millenia have espoused, there can be numerous forms of order under Anarchy – Anarchy has never meant “without order”, only “without government”. Thus, Skach’s preference for community-based democracy falls right in line with the very idea.

But regardless of Skach’s fear of the “A” word or your own (the reader of my review) preference for any other form of community organization, Skach actually does a truly remarkable job of showing just how a Stateless – ie, Anarchic – society could practically work *even in the current environment*. Yes, there are numerous issues she doesn’t touch, and yes, there is plenty of room for the usual “what if” game that proponents of State and its slaughter of literally hundreds of millions of people in the last 150 yrs alone routinely bring up.

But for those who don’t think it can work even at a very basic level, that survival would be impossible because the world would be “without order”, Skach makes clear that both spontaneous and coordinated order can be had – and can be had in a far better manner than at present – *without* the State.

There will be many who won’t read this book at all or won’t truly consider its ideas, but for those who are willing to at least consider the possibility that perhaps the West (and East, insofar as their systems of government go) could do better, that perhaps the US in particular *has* to have some better way of doing things… maybe pick this book up. Read it slowly. Truly ponder its ideas and trul ruminate over them, asking yourself the hard questions about why you may think the State is the best answer, even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and the fact that this book is releasing in the US going into its biggest State holiday weekend, when the entire country – and, due to the US’s prominence since 1944 or so, even large parts of the entire world – will be celebrating a few hundred thousand people declaring their independence from the *then* global superpower… well, that’s just icing on this particular cake.

I will note, as really more of an aside, that the bibliography clocks in at just 17% of the Advance Review Copy edition of the book I read, which is perhaps a touch low – but I’ve also been openly stating for a bit now that perhaps my 20-30% standard should be lowered a touch given so many more recent books have been a touch lower than this, and 17% seems like it would fit within the true current average, if maybe still a touch on the lower end of the range.

Overall a truly excellent book so far as it goes, I personally just really wish it had more openly embraced the very concepts even its title openly yet not brazenly proclaims. Very much recommended.

This review of How To Be A Citizen by C.L. Skach was originally written on April 11, 2024.

Posted on

#BookReview: Silent Coup by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard

Flawed Premise And (Slightly) Lacking Documentation Mar Otherwise Intriguing Discussion. Make no mistake – Provost and Kennard show quite a few corporate abuses in several different areas throughout this book, and they do in fact make a strong case that this has influenced government to a very strong degree in the post WWII era. Where their premise is flawed (which is where one of the two stars deducted comes from) is that they constantly state that this is “overthrowing democracy” when in fact it is *utilizing* democracy to effect a form of democracy known as “corporatism” – which is a term the authors never once use in the text at all, and which is actually much more precise to their overall premise. The other star deduction comes from the bibliography coming in at just 18% of the text, which is slightly under the 20-30% that is more typical of such texts in my own experience. (Though given how many books of late are coming in closer to 15%, I may in fact need to examine all relevant data and perhaps revise this down?)

Still, even with the flawed premise and not quite enough documentation supporting it, this really is quite an eye opening look at the various abuses of corporate power across the globe and how they have caused quite a bit of harm and perhaps unintended consequences, and for these looks alone, it is absolutely worthy of reading and could enhance the overall discussion of related topics. Recommended.

This review of Silent Coup by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard was originally written on April 25, 2023.

Posted on

#BookReview: On Fascism by Matthew C MacWilliams

Better Title: On Fascism I Disagree With. In this text, MacWilliams does something I’ve literally never seen before, at least not this blatantly. He takes the concept of “prooftexting” from Christian nonfiction/ preaching, wherein the speaker (or writer) selectively quotes particular passages in “proof” of whatever point they are making, and uses the same technique using American History itself as his “inerrant” source. And as with all prooftexters, MacWilliams does indeed make a solid point here or there, but specifically in relation to the other St Martin’s Press title whose review spurred this one – Divided We Fall by David French – this book is but a pale comparison at best. To the level that if one can *only* read one of the two, go with French’s text over this one. Yes, it is longer, and yes, it still comes from a particular ideological background. But it is also *far* more balanced, nuanced, and I daresay insightful. Here, MacWilliams blatantly ignores virtually all authoritarianism from the left, including from current Presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden while consistently railing against that of the current President of the United States, Donald J Trump. He further has a very narrow definition of “democratic” and claims that anyone who doesn’t meet that definition for any reason whatsoever is “authoritarian”, seemingly completely unaware that Anarchists exist and fight “democracy” as nothing more than the iron fist of authoritarianism in the velvet glove of being benevolent to the chosen few.

Finally, in an irony that cannot be ignored by myself in particular – as I run a Facebook page called “He Didn’t F*cking Say That” – MacWilliams begins and ends the text referencing Benjamin Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” line… which didn’t appear in the American lexicon until 1906 according to the Yale Book of Quotations, over a century after Franklin’s death. And yet despite this (or seemingly ignorant of the quote being apocryphal), MacWilliams seems to be unaware of his hypocrisy as he decries McCarthy’s butchering of some of Lincoln’s lines during his own quest for power.

On the whole, this was an interesting and at least quick read. But if one is looking for a complete – or even moderately adequate – takedown of fascism and an exploration of its history in America, sadly this is not such a text. Recommended if only for the few salient points it does make and its brevity.

This review of On Fascism by Matthew C MacWiliams was originally written on September 2, 2020.