Someone left this book on a table at my local bookshop, and since I had some time to kill, I speed-read through it. This is possible because the font size is slightly larger, the book itself relatively slender, and the prose rambling but not especially difficult to follow. And I was intruigued enough about the author to look him up. He has some speeches on YouTube and has been the subject of the occasional article in a few major publications.
The construction values of the book itself were also far from terrible for a minor press. It should hold up for a while although the boards are awfully thin. It might not "shelve" well in a tight bookcase without developing a spine slope and unaffixed leaves. But. the dust jacket photo is also positively grim, and the photographer and publisher should be embarrassed. But, to the book itself.
First off, kudos to any child of any age who wants to write. This should always be encouraged. And in one of the recent interviews I saw, the young man disdained the current use of inflammatory rheoric in political discourse like "socialist" and "fascist." And this is not at variance with the overall muted tone of the book in spite of its bloated title. Further, his regard for Professor William Bennett is unabashed and admiring. This is evident for reasons I will explain.
My concerns about the author himself are as follows. He is a child actor, literally. Although this is hardly a disqualifier, his speeches as CPAC were, indeed, "hammy" and overly-rehearsed, more recitations of the talking points popular at that time than anything fresh or new. This is not a problem, though. Speeches at such political events are routinely canned to fit the audience. It is rare that, say, a Bob Barr will take an "outrider" position at rah-rah affairs regardless of political orientation. Still, I always have a narrow suspicion of actors as paid political commentators in the vein of, for example, Meryl Streep's congressional testimony about Alar and apples years ago. Second, this book, according to the "Times," also had the aid of a "grammarian." So, I have to wonder about the extent of the undisclosed ghost writing involved. Lastly, I am always deeply concerned when children are used as political shills. Be it Sarah Palin's baby, the young man who spoke at the "Million Man March" some years back and whose name now escapes me, or the young gentleman here, it always strikes me as odd - and even weird - when minors, no matter how gifted or adorable, are deployed in such a fashion. One has to wonder if "Pinocchio" is a real boy or still something of wood and string.
Questions of credibility aside, the book itself was completely, totally unremarkable save the novelty value the author provides. Nothing in it was original insofar as I could see, and it also struck me that parts of it were little more than watered-down rehash of sections of Bill Bennett's "The Book of Virtues." Given the author's uncritical (insofar as any young adolescent is capable of higher order critical thinking) admiration for Bennett, this is perhaps not surprising. But, the "moral lessons" are nothing but a feeble paraphrase of Bennett's anthology at best and self-help lingo at worst. And the citations to great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle seemed, to me, to be more than a protracted exercise in "name dropping" than anything approaching a comprehensive engagement of thought as it might - or might not - apply to the modern era. And I am sorry to say this, but Krohn is obssessively Manichean in his "analysis," a notorious trait of most adolescents simply as a matter of human development. Philosophy and understanding philosophy come at least as much from age and sober, measured experience as reading great works, and it is not possible for me to accept that someone of this age possesses those experiences enough to comment on people like the incredibly complex and urbane Jefferson, for example, in anything but the most superficial manner. Being "gifted" and "understanding" are different quotients. I don't blame him for trying, though. It's tough.
As to the political sections, I will leave those alone. The one and two star reviews in this thread do a superior job in dissecting those, and I really have nothing to add that has not already been said a millon times. And again, the watchword is "superficiality." But one must needs expect nothing less from a child, especially one who is doing little more than parroting what others have already discussed or said. And that's really all he does. It's definitely "Reader's Digest" fare.
But, two stars for the fact that a child who writes, even in this cynical circus, might be an example to others who dream of publishing something one day, political patronage or no.
But, overall, this book is dreadful for adult readers, nothing more than a protracted excercise in paraphrase. A teen might like it. Maybe. But I would not press it.
"And a child will lead them," as the old chestnut goes. Just watch out for the cliff. It's a whopper.
No recommendation.
