Book Review: American Schism by Seth David Radwell
I was fortunate enough to connect with Seth David Radwell this year through LinkedIn. It was an absolute pleasure to get a chance to read and offer an honest review of his book. Seth was kind enough to meet with me after the fact to discuss the book, so I promised I’d share an honest review on my site, as well. You can find a copy of American Schism by Seth David Radwell for purchase here and you can read my review on Amazon here.
The short version of the book
Author Seth David Radwell walks readers through the philosophical history of the Age of Enlightenment, with a particular emphasis on the philosophies of key figures in the American and French Revolutions. Part I dives deep into the philosophical history that you need to understand regarding the ability of the public to knowledgably govern themselves, the function of government, and the role of organized religion in governance of society.
Part II picks up speed as more familiar names come into view, and the diverging philosophical views of the founders are dissected. Interestingly, a topic I’ve never personally learned much about (despite holding a bachelor’s degree in political science - cue personal embarrassment here) is the intersection of the American founders’ religious and political views - especially in terms of how much influence organized religion should have in American government. I appreciated the look at the glacial pace of expanding engagement in government throughout the 19th and 20th centuries by whom we (as a nation) have believed to be worthy of participating. The last chapter of Part II (Chapter 13) analyzes the rise of Trumpism and, to be quite honest, could have been an entire book on its own!
Part III brings things full circle - we now know how we got here: “here” defined as a place where we are ostensibly a meritocracy, but money is a key element of earning social mobility and of commanding the loudest voice in American politics. Radwell offers a series of suggestions, ranging from policy (a “baby bond” program to promote more equitable outcomes for children; banning dark money and political advertising), education initiatives (a renaissance of the teaching of civics and humanities x a million), and voting reform (rank choice voting; retiring the Electoral College) that could begin to close the schism.
I’ve included snapshots of the Table of Contents from American Schism below, as the titles offer a more in-depth preview of the book. [Screenshots from Amazon.com book listing.]
Some of my high-level takeaways from the book:
I’m even more convinced that local government should play a role in preserving local journalism. At the 2023 ICMA conference, I attended a micro-certification course entitled “Protecting Democracy at the Local Level.” A major takeaway from our group discussion between municipal managers and government consultants was that independent journalism (which acts as a government watchdog) is essential — but is dying on our watch.
Enlightenment philosophies around government center around supporting and empowering public goods. Maybe I am a cynical millennial, but I feel that the working goal of government and those who are at the very top is self-enrichment. There hasn’t been a politician in recent memory whom I didn’t believe was pursuing higher office in the interest of personal enrichment. Radwell advocates strongly in Part III and in his personal work for the removal of all dark money in American politics, by way of a constitutional amendment.
Our employer-driven education policy is regressive and harkens to much darker historical times. Radwell notes that perhaps our focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has come at the sacrifice of education in the humanities. Living in Wisconsin, I have seen the manufacturing sector lobby successfully up and down state government to entice youngsters to careers in STEM fields. Two-year colleges that were once accessible resources for humanities education are closing, and many young people are deciding that they don’t in fact “need” a college education after all. As a biased holder of two liberal arts undergraduate degrees, I’m gravely disappointed by this trend.
I have always argued that the liberal arts don’t simply teach you what to think, they teach you HOW to think. My liberal arts undergraduate work in economics and political science showed me how to think through social issues, economic systems, and philosophical arguments, and to better understand how to navigate the world. This K-12 school-to-manufacturing pipeline is no better than a contemporary version of Fuedalism 2.0: this time, instead of a monarch controlling your economic and social mobility, an empoyer does. See above: my point that all decisions come back to enrichment of someone.
Points Seth and I discussed:
As I always am when someone sends me something to read, I was full of both opinions and follow-up questions, which Seth was kind enough to discuss with me. Some of the areas we discussed further:
The reasoning behind banning political advertising: Radwell’s book reveals a critical truth — that political speech is so protected that it is not held to the same standards as private advertising. Radwell has served in high-level, C-suite positions for a number of corporations, including Proactiv. The Federal Trade Commission requires that private business advertisements must be truthful and evidence-based. Under the definition of what it means to be “non-deceptive,” advertisements must not be likely to mislead consumers, or unfairly present or misrepresent information in a way that is material to a consumer’s decision. Political advertising, I believe we can all agree, is not living up to these standards. If we can’t guarantee truth or evidence-based information in political advertising, should we allow it at all?
This is particularly interesting living in a swing state as I do (Wisconsin) where I receive an exorbitant amount of unsolicited mail and text messages. I’ve recently landed in the camp of belief that I should have a right to not be pursued relentlessly by political interest groups. Why do private organizations have the right to inundate me in the privacy of my own home even if I remain off of television and social media?
I kid you not: this text advertisement from a PAC (political action committee) came to my phone as I was writing this review. Is there no way of escaping advertising in 2024?
Unlike in past pendulum swings of American political history, our most recent swing has occurred post-Fairness Doctrine. I have to admit, as a child born in the last nine months of Ronald Reagan’s second term, I’d never heard of the Fairness Doctrine. I’ve never had the privilege of knowing what it was like to have media outlets required to not abuse their broadcast license. In contrast to a time of evidence-based, well-crafted journalism offered to the people, we live in an age of clickbait. Media success is based on numbers of clicks and eyeballs — accuracy be damned.
If the supply side of journalism (national news networks) is a barrel full of rotting apples, how do we reinstate critical thinking skills in younger generations? This is particularly concerning as AI and social media become breeding grounds for misinformation, and social media feels no obligation to serve the public good.
This is also the first pendulum swing in the age of social media - which lead to an interesting discussion of how the model of social media is inherently broken. Jarod Lanier’s thought piece on the ills of social media posits that if you do not pay for a product, you are the product being sold to advertisers. These platforms, which claim to sell us connectedness, are in fact just selling us. Should we ban social media right along with political advertising?
Are we too dumb to be entrusted with the keys to the car? Not quite, but it’s getting alarmingly close. Enlightenment philosophers went back and forth throughout the 17th-19th centuries about WHOM was qualified to manage the massive undertaking of governance. Much of our glacial movement forward in the United States’ nearly 250-year history has consisted of slooooooowly granting the management of governing to more demographics (while simultaneously using gerrymandering to ensure that the minority dictates the outcome to the majority). I hesitate to say this, but we remain in a place where critical thinking is such a rapidly eroding skill (helped along through social media, AI, and our educational system’s failures) that perhaps many of us wouldn’t meet the Founders’ qualifications to manage critical thinking in the interest of governing.
How do we begin to challenge the erosion of critical thinking and spur interest in civic engagement? A few thoughts: begin to change to construct that an education is a key to employment. What if education was a key to being a better global citizen? Too ambitious?
Seth and I also discussed the idea of a (perhaps compulsory) post-high school civics program where individuals work on community-level projects, preferably in a different part of the country from which they hail. Think AmeriCorps, kinda sorta. Could a domestic (vs. study abroad) civic-study engagement help young people to better understand communities unlike their own and to understand the role of civics in developing communities?
In Summary
Few non-fiction books that I read actively make me feel less cynical, so I have to graciously thank Seth for not only sharing a copy of his book with me, but taking the time to discuss these nuanced challenges with me. Above all, the book has inspired me to think harder about which institutions actively work against democracy, and how we can overcome them in the interest of preserving American democracy beyond our own lifespans.
