A great dissatisfaction with the government rests within society, yet the discussion continues to revolve around the same issues. In 7 essays, scholars propose that the real problem is size and scale, suggesting that the country is simply too big for one central government. This thought-provoking book begins a debate on how to divide it on a more human scale. Such scholars as Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Yuri Maltsev, Donald W. Livingston, Kent Masterson Brown, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Rob Williams contribute to the debate.
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap
In this thought-provoking collection, editor Donald Livingston presents seven essays addressing the modern paradigm of centralization. An outgrowth of the Abbeville Institute Scholars' Conference held in Charleston, South Carolina in February of 2010, this collection presents an exploration of state nullification, secession, and the human scale of political order. Scholars from a variety of backgrounds delve into such complex issues as nationalism, government by judiciary, the effects of size on the republican tradition, and natural progressions in rethinking nationalistic government. By returning to original source materials, including the Constitution, the essayists clarify topics as diverse as the source of nationalism and influences of early political figures, the role of size in government, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union with parallels evident in the United States. The essays provide clear evidence of the centralized government's ongoing power struggle with individual states. They offer concise justification for immediate action to preserve the sovereignty of member states while protecting all citizens from the ever-expanding federal government and restrictions on freedoms. As a collective, they provide a modern cautionary tale for the twenty-first century. About the Authors Editor Donald Livingston is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Emory University. He is the president of the Abbeville Institute, an organization of higher education devoted to the study of what is true and valuable in Southern tradition. Kent Masterson Brown is a practicing attorney who has argued cases in constitutional law before the Supreme Court and in several state supreme courts. Dr. Marshall DeRosa is a professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University and the author of several books on politics and the Confederate constitution. Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo is a professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His articles have been published widely in academic journals and major newspapers. Kirkpatrick Sale is the author of twelve books and director of the Middlebury Institute for the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination. Yuri Maltsev received a doctorate from the Institute of Labor Research in Moscow, Russia and served on the senior team of Soviet economists on Gorbachev's economic reform programs. He is a professor of economics at Carthage College and has lectured around the world. Rob Williams is the editor and publisher of Vermont Commons: Voices of Independence, an independent multimedia news journal. He is also professor of media/communications at Champlain College.
From the Back Cover
Is the United States simply too big to govern? These essays begin the discussion. In 2003 Donald Livingston and a group of academics formed the Abbeville Institute, an organization of higher learning dedicated to a scholarly study of what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition. In 2010 the Institute sponsored a conference to focus on "State Nullification, Secession and the Human Scale of Political Order." Scholars from across the political spectrum came together to examine the unwieldy political strategy of centralization and the resultant expanding scale of government. This collection of essays grew out of that discourse, providing fresh insights at a time when the nineteenth-century nationalistic language of "one and indivisible" is losing its salience. Kent Masterson Brown demonstrates that the Constitution ratified in 1789 was, and is, a compact between distinct political societies. Marshall DeRosa reviews the current revival of states' rights in the Tea Party movement. Thomas DiLorenzo examines the transformation of a federative constitution grounded in state sovereignty into a nationalist constitution in which the central government defines the limits of its own power through judicial review. Donald Livingston explores the question of size, scale, and true republican government in historic context. Yuri Maltsev brings forth the modern secessionist example, discussing in depth the peaceful separation of fifteen states from the Soviet Union and the lessons to be learned by thoughtful Americans. Kirkpatrick Sale seeks to raise awareness that the republican values of self-government and rule of law cannot exist unless certain conditions of size and scale are satisfied, while questioning what the optimum size should be. Rob Williams examines secession as it exists today, providing a substantive history of the movement and its introduction into the mainstream discussion of runaway centralization.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful
By Brad Green
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
It is a pleasure to recommend a new book edited by Donald Livingston. The book is titled Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century (Pelican Publishing Company, 2012). The book consists of seven essays, plus an Introduction written by Livingston. The book springs out of a conference held by the Abbeville Institute in 2010.
If there is an overarching thesis of the book, it may be found in the following words from Livingston, in his introduction. The essays in the book are "efforts to rethink the philosophical, political, moral, and constitutional assumptions that have led us to think that size and scale do not matter in political things and that have produced a regime suffering from elephantitis, with little understanding of its condition and even less inclination to seek such understanding" (p. 23).
Here are the chapter titles:
Introduction: "The Old Assumptions No Longer Apply" (Donald Livingston)
Chapter 1: "Secession: A Constitutional Remedy that Protects Fundamental Liberties" (Kent Masterson Brown)
Chapter 2: "The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion" (Thomas DiLorenzo)
Chapter 3: "The Tenth Amendment Awakening, the Supreme Court Be Damned (Marshall DeRosa)
Chapter 4: "American Republicanism and the Forgotten Question of Size" (Donald Livingston)
Chapter 5: "'To the Size of States There is a Limit': Measurements for the Success of a State" (Kirkpatrick Sale)
Chapter 6: "Too Big to Fail? Lessons from the Demise of the Soviet Union" (Yuri Maltsev)
Chapter 7: "Most Likely to Secede: U.S. Empire and the Emerging Vermont Independence Effort" (Rob Williams)
The editor, Donald Livingston, is a first-rate David Hume scholar who has also written at length on the question of political order and economy of scale. His chapter (on the question of the size of political units, or the question of the economy of scale) is an excellent way to begin to work through intellectually the question of political order, and when one might begin to say, "It's simply too big!" And Maltsev's chapter on the break-up of the Soviet Union is simply a joy to read.
These essays are an excellent introduction to thinking through fundamental questions of political order.
If there is an overarching thesis of the book, it may be found in the following words from Livingston, in his introduction. The essays in the book are "efforts to rethink the philosophical, political, moral, and constitutional assumptions that have led us to think that size and scale do not matter in political things and that have produced a regime suffering from elephantitis, with little understanding of its condition and even less inclination to seek such understanding" (p. 23).
Here are the chapter titles:
Introduction: "The Old Assumptions No Longer Apply" (Donald Livingston)
Chapter 1: "Secession: A Constitutional Remedy that Protects Fundamental Liberties" (Kent Masterson Brown)
Chapter 2: "The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion" (Thomas DiLorenzo)
Chapter 3: "The Tenth Amendment Awakening, the Supreme Court Be Damned (Marshall DeRosa)
Chapter 4: "American Republicanism and the Forgotten Question of Size" (Donald Livingston)
Chapter 5: "'To the Size of States There is a Limit': Measurements for the Success of a State" (Kirkpatrick Sale)
Chapter 6: "Too Big to Fail? Lessons from the Demise of the Soviet Union" (Yuri Maltsev)
Chapter 7: "Most Likely to Secede: U.S. Empire and the Emerging Vermont Independence Effort" (Rob Williams)
The editor, Donald Livingston, is a first-rate David Hume scholar who has also written at length on the question of political order and economy of scale. His chapter (on the question of the size of political units, or the question of the economy of scale) is an excellent way to begin to work through intellectually the question of political order, and when one might begin to say, "It's simply too big!" And Maltsev's chapter on the break-up of the Soviet Union is simply a joy to read.
These essays are an excellent introduction to thinking through fundamental questions of political order.
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful
By mek1959
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Professor Donald Livingston from Emory University does an excellent job bringing together a new brand of academics pushing back on the old story line of the War between the States; this book might just challenge everything you've been taught about 1860-1865. Written for the "layman," this book is an easy read and I personally read it in one day...and then read it again!
In particular, Professor Livingston's article about the "scale" of government is an eye-opener. This notion of scale may very well end up as the best chance the "Liberty Movement" possesses to offer an alternative to the national government now occupying Washington DC. However, before the solution can be properly understood, it is important to understand how the national (vs. federal) government came to being. Professor Livingston and the other academics in this book provide the answers. Uncomfortable truths indeed! If you care about liberty and fear the explosion of national government control over our lives, this is a MUST read!"
In particular, Professor Livingston's article about the "scale" of government is an eye-opener. This notion of scale may very well end up as the best chance the "Liberty Movement" possesses to offer an alternative to the national government now occupying Washington DC. However, before the solution can be properly understood, it is important to understand how the national (vs. federal) government came to being. Professor Livingston and the other academics in this book provide the answers. Uncomfortable truths indeed! If you care about liberty and fear the explosion of national government control over our lives, this is a MUST read!"
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful
By Observer
Format:Hardcover
This challenging essay collection examines alternatives to the United States government, which is now a centralized, unitary state with almost unlimited powers over its citizens. Seven essayists are concerned with remedies for the size to which the U.S. has grown in population and territory and the impossibility of the centralized U.S government being truly responsive to its citizens. An eighth explains how economic policies can cause national collapse as well as regeneration.
Donald Livingston, editor and essayist, notes that their question is posed at a time when "Many political, business, and cultural elites are shifting their allegiance away from their nation-states to supranational entities."
Livingston notes, however, that George Kennan, architect of U.S. policy to contain the Soviet Union, argues that the U.S. has become too big for the purposes of self-government. The U.S. now rules more than 305 million people, by imposing one-size-fits-all rules, which result in a "diminished sensitivity of its laws and regulations to the particular needs, traditions, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and the like of individual localities. "
Size, Kennan says, has encouraged an abstract ideological style of politics that favors universalistic, egalitarian solutions applied across the board to all parts of the population. "Particularly is this true of the United States, with its highly legalistic traditions, its dislike...of any sort of discriminating administration, its love for dividing people into categories, its fondness for regulating their lives in terms of these categories and treating them accordingly, rather than looking at the needs of individuals or of smaller groups and confronting these on the basis of common sense and reasonable discrimination."
Livingston says, "Congress is more interested in the struggle over how to spend $5 trillion in a single year than in tackling politically controversial issues and has turned these over to the federal courts."
Kennan's concern with size is not about reducing U.S. spending, or bureaucracy, but with the territorial division of the U.S. into a number of smaller political societies. He thinks there should be public debate about how the U.S. might downsize a government that has become too large to enable self-government by its citizens. The goal is to achieve ease, flexibility, and intimacy of government. The essays in this book, Livingston notes are a contribution to that discussion.
Kent Masterson Brown's essay explains why secession was and is a legal, constitutional remedy, by states, to protect their citizens' freedoms. He also refutes arguments by those that claim the U.S. was created as an indivisible union.
Thomas DiLorenzo, reviews John C. Calhoun's fear that constitutional provisions that limit U.S. governmental powers were insufficient, because those for whom the protections were provided were given no means to enforce them. Calhoun wrote that the party controlling government shall always oppose any restrictions on its powers. They "would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints--and endeavor to elude them."
DiLorenzo writes that, at the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton proposed a permanent president or king that would appoint all governors and be able to veto all state legislation. Hamilton's suggestions were discarded, but as the new government began to operate, he and others that favored a nation instead of a federal government found ways to pervert the constitution to serve their view. The term "implied powers" was coined by Hamilton and used by centralizers to undermine federalism.
DiLorenzo says, "All the worst tyrants in world history have been enemies of federalism and states' rights and champions of consolidated or centralized state power." He notes that Southerners were the only Americans to seriously challenge the nationalist theory, and recapitulates military and civilian deaths, crimes against civilians, and property destruction caused by Lincolns War, which he says were amongst the greatest war crimes in world history.
Following Lincolns War, "Americans became the servants rather than the masters of their government and have been miseducated about their own political history every since by the state's many court historians." "It is this miseducation...that serves to prop up the centralized, neo-mercantilist empire..."
Marshall DeRosa writes about attempting to revive the U.S. Constitution's 10th amendment, which supports the principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people. He notes that a major block to reviving this amendment is that the U.S. government, mainly the Supreme Court must approve such a request.
He says the motive for stripping the 10th amendment of its original meaning was to legitimize "imperialistic public-policy interests of a nationally based ruling class". He explains how and why the general government created by and for sovereign states became an involuntary association of states dominated by the U.S. government and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court---a court that has left it to Congress to decide limits on its own legislative powers.
DeRosa reviews U.S. economic imperialism and notes similarities between post-war U.S. economic exploitation after Lincolns War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I. He says political rhetoric incapacitated clear thinking about Lincolns War and Lincoln's rhetorical statements have since been essential to ensure Americans are willing to "`make the world safe for democracy' by foreign interventionist excursions." However, he says, Woodrow "Wilson's imperialistic policies, domestic and foreign, would have been improbable without the centralization of power in the chief executive." And Lincoln was the president most responsible for that consolidation of executive power.
He explains Lincoln's actions that ignored constitutional law and how they were made palatable to many by the inclusion of abolition in them. Even so, they served the Republican Party's business interests. In that way, ruling-class interests and abstract justice overwhelmed reasoned opposition.
Lincoln considered the Union to be an aggregate of the American people, in which the numerical majority can bind the minority. Political situations affecting Supreme Court case law and the post-bellum South show the destructive effect Lincoln's view had on the rule of constitutional law. DeRosa cites important examples that undermined the 10th amendment and sees, in Pres. Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 "the latest rendition of uncontrollable centralization" begun by Lincoln.
DeRosa says,"The U.S. Supreme Court facilitated and is a partner in this tyrannical accumulation of powers to the national government." His curative for centralization is enforcement of states' rights, but "the original meaning of states' rights has been replaced with a dominant nationalism by the very nationalistic forces it was designed to thwart." Therefore, states should rely on their own constitutions to enforce the 10th Amendment and accomplish decentralization.
He then quotes Jefferson, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal..."
Donald Livingston's essay states the thesis that limited size is a requirement for republican government and beyond a proper size it becomes dysfunctional. He describes "some of the most important ways the republican tradition has tried to define the proper size and scale of republican politics, how Americans contributed to that effort, and how they eventually abandoned it."
In reviewing political organizations, he notes that republican tradition for more than 2,000 years was that republic's populations should be small: about 200,000 people. He discusses a political organization propounded by Jefferson: the division of states into smaller states and counties into smaller, self-contained governing units. That would have resulted in a large number of Swiss-style federative states. But America did not do that "and in time would collapse into a greater centralization of power that anything eighteenth-century monarchs could have imagined.
He says a republic has plenary powers over individuals and is small, and a federation is a voluntary, symbiotic relationship between sovereign states, a central authority, and is large. That, he says, leaves the question of whether republican-style politics can be in effect in a large state that is not a federation.
Livingston relates David Hume's suggestion, in his essay "Idea for a Perfect Commonwealth" and compares it with the U.S. Congress. Hume's plan would result in one representative for every 900 people, while a U.S. congressman is currently supposed to represent 700,000 people, "which is not even remotely within a republican scale". To reduce representation to 900 people, there must be 5,000 representatives, which "would be impossibly large for a lawmaking body". "(W)e have evidently reached the point where talk of republican government is utterly meaningless."
Livingston cites George Kennan's proposal that the U.S. "downsize through secession and division into a number of federative units on the continent forming a voluntary commonwealth of American federations. He also states his support for a Hume-like plan to abolish the House of Representatives and make state legislatures a joint national legislature. Read more ›
Donald Livingston, editor and essayist, notes that their question is posed at a time when "Many political, business, and cultural elites are shifting their allegiance away from their nation-states to supranational entities."
Livingston notes, however, that George Kennan, architect of U.S. policy to contain the Soviet Union, argues that the U.S. has become too big for the purposes of self-government. The U.S. now rules more than 305 million people, by imposing one-size-fits-all rules, which result in a "diminished sensitivity of its laws and regulations to the particular needs, traditions, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and the like of individual localities. "
Size, Kennan says, has encouraged an abstract ideological style of politics that favors universalistic, egalitarian solutions applied across the board to all parts of the population. "Particularly is this true of the United States, with its highly legalistic traditions, its dislike...of any sort of discriminating administration, its love for dividing people into categories, its fondness for regulating their lives in terms of these categories and treating them accordingly, rather than looking at the needs of individuals or of smaller groups and confronting these on the basis of common sense and reasonable discrimination."
Livingston says, "Congress is more interested in the struggle over how to spend $5 trillion in a single year than in tackling politically controversial issues and has turned these over to the federal courts."
Kennan's concern with size is not about reducing U.S. spending, or bureaucracy, but with the territorial division of the U.S. into a number of smaller political societies. He thinks there should be public debate about how the U.S. might downsize a government that has become too large to enable self-government by its citizens. The goal is to achieve ease, flexibility, and intimacy of government. The essays in this book, Livingston notes are a contribution to that discussion.
Kent Masterson Brown's essay explains why secession was and is a legal, constitutional remedy, by states, to protect their citizens' freedoms. He also refutes arguments by those that claim the U.S. was created as an indivisible union.
Thomas DiLorenzo, reviews John C. Calhoun's fear that constitutional provisions that limit U.S. governmental powers were insufficient, because those for whom the protections were provided were given no means to enforce them. Calhoun wrote that the party controlling government shall always oppose any restrictions on its powers. They "would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints--and endeavor to elude them."
DiLorenzo writes that, at the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton proposed a permanent president or king that would appoint all governors and be able to veto all state legislation. Hamilton's suggestions were discarded, but as the new government began to operate, he and others that favored a nation instead of a federal government found ways to pervert the constitution to serve their view. The term "implied powers" was coined by Hamilton and used by centralizers to undermine federalism.
DiLorenzo says, "All the worst tyrants in world history have been enemies of federalism and states' rights and champions of consolidated or centralized state power." He notes that Southerners were the only Americans to seriously challenge the nationalist theory, and recapitulates military and civilian deaths, crimes against civilians, and property destruction caused by Lincolns War, which he says were amongst the greatest war crimes in world history.
Following Lincolns War, "Americans became the servants rather than the masters of their government and have been miseducated about their own political history every since by the state's many court historians." "It is this miseducation...that serves to prop up the centralized, neo-mercantilist empire..."
Marshall DeRosa writes about attempting to revive the U.S. Constitution's 10th amendment, which supports the principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people. He notes that a major block to reviving this amendment is that the U.S. government, mainly the Supreme Court must approve such a request.
He says the motive for stripping the 10th amendment of its original meaning was to legitimize "imperialistic public-policy interests of a nationally based ruling class". He explains how and why the general government created by and for sovereign states became an involuntary association of states dominated by the U.S. government and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court---a court that has left it to Congress to decide limits on its own legislative powers.
DeRosa reviews U.S. economic imperialism and notes similarities between post-war U.S. economic exploitation after Lincolns War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I. He says political rhetoric incapacitated clear thinking about Lincolns War and Lincoln's rhetorical statements have since been essential to ensure Americans are willing to "`make the world safe for democracy' by foreign interventionist excursions." However, he says, Woodrow "Wilson's imperialistic policies, domestic and foreign, would have been improbable without the centralization of power in the chief executive." And Lincoln was the president most responsible for that consolidation of executive power.
He explains Lincoln's actions that ignored constitutional law and how they were made palatable to many by the inclusion of abolition in them. Even so, they served the Republican Party's business interests. In that way, ruling-class interests and abstract justice overwhelmed reasoned opposition.
Lincoln considered the Union to be an aggregate of the American people, in which the numerical majority can bind the minority. Political situations affecting Supreme Court case law and the post-bellum South show the destructive effect Lincoln's view had on the rule of constitutional law. DeRosa cites important examples that undermined the 10th amendment and sees, in Pres. Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 "the latest rendition of uncontrollable centralization" begun by Lincoln.
DeRosa says,"The U.S. Supreme Court facilitated and is a partner in this tyrannical accumulation of powers to the national government." His curative for centralization is enforcement of states' rights, but "the original meaning of states' rights has been replaced with a dominant nationalism by the very nationalistic forces it was designed to thwart." Therefore, states should rely on their own constitutions to enforce the 10th Amendment and accomplish decentralization.
He then quotes Jefferson, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal..."
Donald Livingston's essay states the thesis that limited size is a requirement for republican government and beyond a proper size it becomes dysfunctional. He describes "some of the most important ways the republican tradition has tried to define the proper size and scale of republican politics, how Americans contributed to that effort, and how they eventually abandoned it."
In reviewing political organizations, he notes that republican tradition for more than 2,000 years was that republic's populations should be small: about 200,000 people. He discusses a political organization propounded by Jefferson: the division of states into smaller states and counties into smaller, self-contained governing units. That would have resulted in a large number of Swiss-style federative states. But America did not do that "and in time would collapse into a greater centralization of power that anything eighteenth-century monarchs could have imagined.
He says a republic has plenary powers over individuals and is small, and a federation is a voluntary, symbiotic relationship between sovereign states, a central authority, and is large. That, he says, leaves the question of whether republican-style politics can be in effect in a large state that is not a federation.
Livingston relates David Hume's suggestion, in his essay "Idea for a Perfect Commonwealth" and compares it with the U.S. Congress. Hume's plan would result in one representative for every 900 people, while a U.S. congressman is currently supposed to represent 700,000 people, "which is not even remotely within a republican scale". To reduce representation to 900 people, there must be 5,000 representatives, which "would be impossibly large for a lawmaking body". "(W)e have evidently reached the point where talk of republican government is utterly meaningless."
Livingston cites George Kennan's proposal that the U.S. "downsize through secession and division into a number of federative units on the continent forming a voluntary commonwealth of American federations. He also states his support for a Hume-like plan to abolish the House of Representatives and make state legislatures a joint national legislature. Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fine compendium of essays on secession
There is concern among certain people today that there is something terribly wrong with our country and how it is governed. Read more
Published 26 days ago by Efrem Sepulveda
1.0 out of 5 stars
So, Rob Williams caught some flak, eh?
(for working with so-called Libertarians, at a conference) Well, Gawd, I wonder why??? LOL! First off, I totally agree with states right to secede--it is right there in the... Read more
Published 1 month ago by KDelphi
5.0 out of 5 stars
Rethinking the American Union
This book provides some valuable insights for anyone who thinks our government is too big. Interesting read for any student of history and politics.
Published 2 months ago by Matt
5.0 out of 5 stars
Book
My husband loves history, geography, and any books about the United States. When he got this one he was thrilled!
Published 2 months ago by J. Stapleton
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wonderful book on the right to secede from the union.
Lincoln was wrong and we would have been much better off if the south had seceded from the union. Just like the problem we have now with our over bloated and over demanding federal... Read more
Published 2 months ago by David Q. Tognoni
5.0 out of 5 stars
Federal dysfunction explained
If you have ever wondered why the Federal government seems so dysfunctional, unaccountable, and dissociative to the American public, then you need to read this book. Read more
Published 5 months ago by John Avery Emison
5.0 out of 5 stars
Outstanding Read!
This book is an eye opening read! I thoroughly enjoyed reading something that made total sense for a change. Read more
Published 7 months ago by backyardmechanic
5.0 out of 5 stars
Essential
Whether one agrees or not with the authors contained herein, one must confront the issue of how a country our size can remain a "democracy" in the true sense.
Prof. Read more
Prof. Read more
Published 9 months ago by Randall Ivey
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Political Expression of the Created Order
I was introduced to Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century at the tenth annual summer school of the Abbeville Institute. Read more
Published 9 months ago by Robert M. Peters
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Book about a Break-Up
American mainstream political debates are constricted today to the point where they are hardly debates at all. Read more
Published 10 months ago by Eric V Neff
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Democracy
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Civics & Citizenship
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Commentary & Opinion
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > United States > National
