Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$21.87$21.87
FREE delivery: Tuesday, April 2 on orders over $35.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $9.16
Other Sellers on Amazon
FREE Shipping
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation Hardcover – June 29, 2021
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Purchase options and add-ons
2022 International Book Award Finalist in Best New Nonfiction
Amazon Bestseller in Rationalist Philosophy, Comparative Politics, Political Parties, Rationalism Philosophy, Political Freedom, and Civics
"Those seeking to heal our divided nation should read American Schism. In an age of unreason, Seth David Radwell deftly conveys the history of our core values and shows us a reasoned way forward." ―Ana Navarro, CNN contributor
"American Schism is a vigorously written, deeply informed intellectual tour de force and a bracing call to nonviolent arms!" ―David J. Garrow, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Bearing the Cross
An enlightened exploration of history to unite a deeply divided America
Two disparate Americas have always coexisted. In this thoroughly researched, engaging and ultimately hopeful story of our nation's divergent roots, Seth David Radwell clearly links the fascinating history of the two American Enlightenments to our raging political division. He also demonstrates that reasoned analysis and historical perspective are the only antidote to irrational political discourse.
"Did my vision of America ever exist at all, or was it but a myth?" Searching for a fresh and distinctive perspective on the recent corrosion of our civic life, Radwell's very personal and yet broadly shared question propelled his search back to our nation's founding for a fresh and distinctive perspective on the recent corrosion of our civic life - and led to a surprising discovery. Today's battles reflect the fundamentally divergent visions of our country that emerged at our nation's founding and have been vying for prominence ever since. The founding principles that shaped the United States may be rooted in the Enlightenment era. But the origin of our dual Americas is a product of two distinct Enlightenments - Radical and Moderate.
American Schism begins with a quick reintroduction to the pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages and then takes readers on an in-depth journey through the revolutionary Enlightenment period including the eventual schism that began in Europe but then found its way to American shores. Radwell shows the impact of this schism on American history from the early expansion of the U.S. through Jim Crow and The Age of Trumpism.
In an optimistic and rigorous final section, Radwell lays out an analysis of our current governmental structure and a plan to move forward, demonstrating that it is only by embracing Enlightenment principles that we can build a civilized, progressive, and tolerant society - where Americans can firmly ground their different views in rationality.
- Print length496 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherGreenleaf Book Group Press
- Publication dateJune 29, 2021
- Dimensions6.25 x 1.75 x 9.25 inches
- ISBN-101626348618
- ISBN-13978-1626348615
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together

Similar items that may ship from close to you
Editorial Reviews
Review
PRAISE for AMERICAN SCHISM
"Almost every book I read about America these days makes me more pessimistic about the country’s future. Seth Radwell’s American Schism is a rare exception. Mr. Radwell shows that Americans have argued angrily...from the founding onwards. But he also shows that disagreements have not prevented them from forging creative consensus. ―Adrian Wooldridge, author of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World
"American Schism makes a counterintuitive yet compelling case: we shouldn’t overcome our disagreements; we should accentuate the right disagreements―those rooted in the competing, but always fact-based, visions that emerged in the Enlightenment and shaped America’s founding. Deftly moving from philosophy to history to contemporary politics, Seth David Radwell illuminates an innovative path to a better society.” ―Jacob S. Hacker, professor of political science, Yale University, co-author of Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality
"It is not often that one encounters history powerfully combined with analysis of our present, deeply troubling reality in a way that compels us to reconsider and reset our own political notions . . . Seth David Radwell, with his engaging style, has done just that, escorting us from the America of the Enlightenment to the United States of today in a way that will cause a great many of us to rethink.” ―Jonathan Israel, leading Enlightenment scholar and Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
"With America facing an ever-expanding slew of challenges, the only bipartisan solution often seems to be blaming the other side. What this reflects, according to Seth David Radwell, is the divide between two distinct visions of the Enlightenment, one moderate and one radical, that has been present since the nation’s founding and continues to shape our politics. I wholly recommend Radwell’s book as a vital foundation on which to build a better understanding of not just the problems of twenty-first-century America but of the solutions we require.”―Katherine M. Gehl, author of The Politics Industry
“...the roots of our current division are much deeper than we may have thought. American Schism provides a compelling account of our nation’s past and present and makes a vigorous case for a hopeful future.” ―Stephen Darwall, Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of Philosophy, Yale University
"Radwell makes a powerful argument that many of America’s greatest internal conflicts―past and present―are part of a titanic, ongoing struggle between conflicting camps of Enlightenment thought, one championing a democratic republic, the other an aristocratic one." ―Colin Woodard, author of Union: The Struggle to Forge the Story of United States Nationhood and American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
"For those of us who are anxious about the state of democracy in the US and beyond, Radwell’s book is a salve. ...behind our current divisions, Radwell glimpses the prospects for a more hopeful future―one which requires re-committing ourselves to certain Enlightenment ideals. ... Radwell’s vision [is] compelling: historically nuanced, well-argued, and with a focus firmly on what we all have reason to hope is a better future together.” ―Sanford C. Goldberg , Chester D. Tripp Professor in the Humanities and professor of philosophy, Northwestern University, professorial fellow, Arché Research Center, University of St. Andrews
"As the political polarization in our country deepens seemingly by the day, Seth David Radwell’s American Schism could not --.
"As the political polarization in our country deepens seemingly by the day, Seth David Radwell’s American Schism could not come at a better time. In contrast to the widespread belief that our current state of affairs is unprecedented, Radwell shows that, in fact, its roots date back to the origins of this country in the form of ‘The Two Enlightenments.’ American Schism is a fascinating historical work, but Radwell also offers an optimistic look forward and a detailed road map for how we can restore our unity and greatness.”
― Whitney Tilson, co-author of Poor Charlie’s Almanack, More Mortgage Meltdown, The Art of Value Investing, and The Art of Playing Defense, and a well-known value investor and philanthropist.
--."An intriguing exploration of how past historical conflicts continue to play out in our present divisions.”
―Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen
--.About the Author
SETH DAVID RADWELL is an internationally known business executive and thought leader in consumer marketing. A common thread across all his leadership and business endeavors has been his passion for our shared democratic values and his interest in American public policy.
Mr. Radwell served as president of e-Scholastic, the digital arm of the global children’s publishing and education conglomerate. In an earlier role he was president of Bookspan/Bertelsmann, where he was responsible for all editorial, marketing, media, and digital functions for such iconic brands as Book of the Month Club, Doubleday Book Club, and Literary Guild. Until 2018, Mr. Radwell served as the CEO of The Proactiv Company, the leading skincare brand for acne. Previously, he served as president and chief revenue officer of Guthy-Renker, the worldwide leading direct-to-consumer beauty company. Prior to his publishing career, Radwell served as senior vice president, content, for Prodigy Services Company, where he pioneered new ecommerce revenue streams for the online service business. Before that, he spent six years with management consulting firm McKinsey & Company.
Seth David Radwell received a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He holds a bachelor of arts degree, summa cum laude from Columbia College, Columbia University. He currently divides his time between New York, Los Angeles, and Paris.
Product details
- Publisher : Greenleaf Book Group Press (June 29, 2021)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 496 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1626348618
- ISBN-13 : 978-1626348615
- Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.25 x 1.75 x 9.25 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #112,475 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #62 in Political Parties (Books)
- #101 in Civics & Citizenship (Books)
- #191 in U.S. Revolution & Founding History
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

SETH DAVID RADWELL is an internationally known business executive and thought leader in consumer marketing. A common thread across all his leadership and business endeavors has been his passion for our shared democratic values and his interest in American public policy.
Mr. Radwell served as president of e-Scholastic, the digital arm of the global children’s publishing and education conglomerate. In an earlier role he was president of Bookspan/Bertelsmann, where he was responsible for all editorial, marketing, media, and digital functions for such iconic brands as Book of the Month Club, Doubleday Book Club, and Literary Guild. Until 2018, Mr. Radwell served as the CEO of The Proactiv Company, the leading skincare brand for acne. Previously, he served as president and chief revenue officer of Guthy-Renker, the worldwide leading direct-to-consumer beauty company. Prior to his publishing career, Radwell served as senior vice president, content, for Prodigy Services Company, where he pioneered new ecommerce revenue streams for the online service business. Before that, he spent six years with management consulting firm McKinsey & Company.
Seth David Radwell received a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He holds a bachelor of arts degree, summa cum laude from Columbia College, Columbia University. He currently divides his time between New York, Los Angeles, and Paris.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Harold DeRienzo
American Schism by Seth David Radwell
Greenleaf Book Group Press (2021)
American Schism is a timely, enjoyable and well-written book. For the reader seeking an historical review of the founding principles of this nation, it provides a condensed, yet comprehensive, overview. The basic thesis of the book, however, is problematic in a way that mirrors the democratic dilemmas of our current time.
The author looks to the philosophical tensions inherent in our founding as forming a primary basis for the problems we experience today. The tension is framed as emanating from adherents of “Moderate Enlightenment” in contrast to the founding adherents of “Radical Enlightenment.” Under the latter, there is an inherent suspicion and fear of centralized authority, which militates towards a decentralized system of ground up democracy. The advocates of this radical enlightenment are represented by the views of Franklin, Jefferson and Paine. They believed that government must operate by the active consent of the governed and that this is attainable with an educated and informed citizenry. Under the former, there is an inherent suspicion of the capacity of the “common man” to actively participate in politics and a fear that ground up democracy will inevitably lead to demagoguery and mob rule. The advocates of this position are represented by the views of Adams and Hamilton, among others, and they believe in a form of rule by elites – those propertied members of society who have the time, experience and aptitude to be actively involved in political matters. The founders believed in certain enlightenment principles, such as freedoms of speech and association, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be free of arbitrary and unchecked authority. Complicating these two policy tensions is what the author describes as “Counter-Enlightenment” forces, which attempt to infuse religion into political affairs.
The author uses the metaphor of a pendulum frequently, with society fluctuating over time between one model (republican) or the other (aristocratic). Race/racism is mentioned in various parts of the book, but race is not explicitly recognized as complicating the pendulum analogy. For example, models that promote states’ rights would be consistent with Radical Enlightenment. But states’ rights are what gave us slavery, the Black Codes, Jim Crow, convict leasing systems of neo-slavery, and more. These are hardly consistent with enlightenment principles, whether radical or moderate. Also, it is ironic that many of the founders feared mob rule as a consequence of applying Radical Enlightenment principles. I say this because our form of American democracy comes closest (as the author agrees) to a Rousseauian form “elective aristocracy.” In spite of that, this country came very close to a coup in the events leading up to and immediately following the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building.
Regarding the issue of religion and its infusion into politics (“counter enlightenment” actions), I entirely agree with the author on the intentions of the founders to ensure a separation of church and state. He rightly points to the fact that the founders were mostly comprised of those who could be described as Unitarians, Deists, and atheists. The founders were enlightenment devotees and assuredly believed that our new country’s political framework should be based upon rational approaches to problems and reasoned judgment for development and operation of political systems, processes, and institutional arrangements. What is not mentioned, which is one of the primary motivations for enlightened thinking, is the recognition of the understood absurdity of the religious wars that plagued the European continent prior to the enlightenment period. To quote Bertrand Russell (The History of Western Philosophy) “Early liberalism…regarded the wars of religion as silly. It valued commerce and industry, and favoured the rising middle class rather than the monarchy and aristocracy…” Wars based upon idiosyncratic religious distinctions and irrational mandates to go to war over them was counter-productive and undermining of the Liberal Democratic thinking of that period.
However, as much as I agree with the proposition that the founders were not intent on founding a “Christian nation,” he does devote much of his historical narrative to the “Second Awakening,” which was obviously a dominant undercurrent of the European-American citizens of the time. How do we define the “founding” of a nation, especially one that is an “experiment?” Does the founding begin and end with the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and conclusion of the 1787 Constitutional Convention? Or, does the founding of this nation extend to the period of time when the founding principles are put into operation. The Second Awakening came into prominence less than a decade after the 1787 convention and extended through to the first third of the 19th Century. Considering that the initial settlement of Europeans in North America was based upon religion (laws were actually enacted by colonial assemblies requiring the payment of “tithes” by local property owners to local ministers) and given that the Second Awakening was not something that just developed out of thin air, there is an argument to be made that the United States has always had an undercurrent of religion infused into its politics, as much as that thought distresses me.
Towards the end of the book, the author gets into prescriptions to remedy the current political division in this country. After assuring us that Radical Enlightenment is not communism, or even socialism, he urges the reader to work to rekindle the spirit of 1776, embodied in the Declaration of Independence. There are some problems with this as well.
As I ride through Georgia, where I currently live, even now (more than a year after the 2020 election) there are signs on lawns that “Trump Won” or “God, Guns and Trump” or “Trump is Still my President.” The most radical elements of Trumpism will look at a document, such as the Declaration of Independence, and see it as their clarion call to overthrow what they see as an illicit government – one that does not represent the interests of “the people.” And even though the author makes clear that there is an “exhausted majority” within American society that subscribes to neither radical left or right extreme views, this cannot be seen as a saving grace in and of itself. At the time of the Russian Revolution of 1917 there were only about 23,000 communists in Russia, a country of (I think) about 90 million at the time (see Yuval Harari, Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow). If circumstances are aligned such that there exists an aggrieved and motivated minority, an apathetic or alienated majority, a vested elite and a substantial crisis, that is all that is needed for a demagogue to push a political system, particularly a democracy, into autocratic rule. The author himself points out that a substantial number of millennials have no faith in or allegiance to democracy.
Another problem is with his prescription, borrowing from Danielle Allen’s work, that we have, in the battle between freedom and equality, allowed freedom to win. The problem with this is that it represents a basic misunderstanding of the concept of freedom. The common understanding of freedom is what Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom) referred to a “negative freedom.” We see this playing out recently in local school board meetings, with vehement objections to even wearing a mask during a pandemic. Negative freedoms are freedoms from constraints. Positive freedoms manifest in circumstances where we are provided with the space and the opportunities to develop into whole persons, to self-actualize while at the same time connecting to the world around us. To quote Fromm, in a positive freedom “the individual exists as an independent self and yet is not isolated but united with the world, with other men and nature…” By this understanding of freedom, there is no contradiction between freedom and equality, as long as equality is defined (as the author does) as the ability to realize our respective potentialities, which will have us operating (if the society is truly democratic) in a system of equality of unequals.
The author’s prescriptions make a lot of sense, such as eliminating the Electoral College, even the Senate. But it is hard to imagine how these will occur. His call for a “baby bond” as a way to get to Thomas Paine’s call for “universal income,” also make sense as a way to level the playing field and truly provide everyone with (equality of) opportunity.
Notwithstanding the critiques, what should be evident from this review is that the book is an excellent source for expanded thinking, discussion, and interaction. The author ends up in exactly the place that he should. To quote from the book, “One of the most reliable remedies to heal our political discourse is person-to-person contact.” Groups such as Braver Angels are actively working to promote just such respectful dialogue. This is a good start but at some point we need to take a more critical look at the necessary medium for productive democratic relations. I believe, as John Dewey did, that community is the best, and likely only, vehicle for the exercise of truly democratic relations.
The Moderate Enlightenment philosophy asserted that the state should be tolerant of other religions but still promote a single religion as part of national identity, have a government with checks and balances, and only allow certain citizens to vote. Moderate Enlightenment thinkers include John Locke, a British philosopher, who argued that the goal of the state should be to protect individual and property rights. Montesquieu, a French philosopher, and scholar argued the division of governing powers between courts and different branches of government as well as local and state government. And Jean Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher, advocated for political equality for all groups but was critical of pure democracy. Moderate Enlightenment thinkers in America include Alexander Hamilton, George Wasghtion, and John Adams, who advocated for American Independence from Britain's monarch but advocated for limits on democracy and a strong executive branch.
The Radical Enlightenment thinkers, by contrast, advocated for a complete separation of church and state, a secular education system that promotes civic knowledge, and a democratic political system where all groups of people have the same levels of the voting power. Radical Enlightenment thinkers in Europe include Dennis Diderot, a French philosopher, and scholar, who advocated for secular scientific knowledge as being the key to understanding the natural world. Baron D’Holbach, a French Philosopher, criticized monarchy and theocracy as inherently oppressive forms of government and criticized religion generally as being unnecessary and superstitious. And marquis Condorcet, a French philosopher, advocated for equal rights for women and minorities. Radical Enlightenment thinkers in America include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, who advocated for secularism and representative democracy. Although Radwell argues that Jefferson's actions as President were more in line with Moderate Enlightenment philosophy than the beliefs he held while writing the Declaration of Independence.
Finally, the Counter-Enlightenment arose in response to the perceived failure of the Radical Enlightenment revolutionaries in France and the elitism of the Enlightenment thinkers in America. Counter-Enlightenment figures include Maxamline Robpseire, the French lawyer and statesmen, who took control of the French government, organizing and ordering the killings of an estimated 50,000 for not being fully supportive of his regime. Counter-Enlightenment thinking in America arose from the Second Great Awakening, and while much less militant than Counter-Enlightenment thinking in France, American Counter-Enlightenment philosophy similarly empathized absolute adherence to an Authoritarian philosophy and anti-intellectualism.
Radwell argues that the line between Counter-Enlightenment and Moderate Enlightenment philosophy was often blurry and that Moderate Enlightenment thinkers like Hamilton used Counter-Enlightenment methods of fear-mongering to advance their own ends. For example, Hamilton pointed to Jefferson's support of the early stages of the French Revolution as an endorsement of the more violent later stages of the Revolution. What Radwell misses is that the French Revolution was violent long before Robspeire took over the French government in 1793. In 1789 for example after the storming of the bastille, the French Revolutionaries put the head of Governor de Launay, the aristocrat in charge of the prison, on a pike that was carried through the streets. In 1789 the French Revolution also rioted at the monarch's estate in Versailles and nearly killed King Louis XVI and his wife Maria Antionte. This type of barbarism was deemed acceptable because it was targeted at a privileged group of aristocrats that were blind to the suffering of the French working-class people. But as the experience of not only the French Revolution but other so-called people's revolutions like the Russian and Maoist Revolutions teach us: barbarism against a so-called enemy group is never contained to just the wealthy, and ultimately hurts working-class people the most. Furthermore, Jefferson supported the Revolution in its most bloody stage writing in 1793:” My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam & an Eve left in every country, & left free, it would be better than as it is now.” As National Review’s Jonah Goldberg summarizes, “In other words, killing everybody would be worth it if there were a couple of people left who agreed with the Jacobins.”
Radwell also argues that despite Federalism's initial opponents being in the Radical Enlightenment camp, which was more opposed to slavery, arguments centered around States rights and limited government were used by confederates and white supremacists to justify the oppression of black people in the Southern States. It's worth pointing out that Southerners were very inconsistent in their State' rights-focused arguments. Southerners made State rights arguments to justify allowing the issue of slavery to be left to newly admitted States and to justify succession. But Southern' also became advocates of strong central power when it suited their pro-slavery aims. As Henry Brook Adams writes,” The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas ‘by joint resolution’ [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the Slave Power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of States' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy.” In summary, when Southerns saw a opportunity to use the federal government to defend and expand slavery, they were quick to throw their States rights arguments under the rug. Moreover a political philosophy that argues that the most governing powers should be left to local and State government leaves ample room for protection of minority rights. Along with championing limited government and State rights, Jefferson and Madison also were strong proponents of the Bill of Rights which placed certain individual rights beyond the reach of majorities. If the Bill of Rights was applied correctly, there should have been no legal framework where slavery could exist because of the right of freedom of association outlined in the first amendment. In fact, the Libertarian philosophy of Jefferson and Madison provides a much clearer framework for the prohibition of slavery than Radwell’s Progressiv philosophy. Radwell argues that the chief ideal American politics should strive to achieve is democracy. Yet in a pure democracy, a majority of the population is free to force its will on the minority of the population. Yes, blacks in the South were disenfranchised from the ballot box but would slavery and Jim Crow be justified if they were left to a referendum where blacks only had 13% of the vote? The only way for minority rights to be protected in a democracy is for the government to have clearly defined limits on what rights it can not infringe. Radwell criticized Mitch McConnel for telling Democrats to go home when the Republicans won all three branches of government and said that in a democracy all voices should be heard. But how does a system that functions solely on the vote of a majority of the population leave any room for the voices of the minority to be heard? The only way for the minority party to be heard is through mechanisms like the filibuster that allow the minority party to have some sway over what laws will be passed, yet Radwell is a strong opponent of the filibuster. Don’t get me wrong, the filibuster is currently in need of reform to allow for a more efficient legislating process, but over its history, the filibuster has been able to give minority parties a voice while keeping the legislative process efficient. As George Will points out, the ability to overturn a filibuster through the consent of ⅔ of the Senate was not added to the filibuster until 1917 through a mechanism called the cloture motion. How many times cloture motion was used over time can give us a pretty good idea at what periods of time the majority party in the Senate was able to compromise with the minority party, and what periods of times major bills could be passed only if the majority party overruled a filibuster. From 1917 to 1970 only 58 cloture motions were filed, since 1970 there have been over 1,700. What changed? In 1975 the Senate passed a reform known as the “two-track system” where, through unanimous consent or consent of the minority leader, the Senate could set aside a filibuster and move onto any matters. Because there was no longer any pressure for the majority party to compromise in the face of a filibuster, there was less compromise.
Radwell devotes a large portion of the second and third parts of his book to write about the causes of historically slow income growth. Radwell blames the typical left-wing culprits for slow income growth: decline in labor unions, free trade, and automation. Radwell also concedes Trumpian populists have a point that American natives have been “squeezed” by low-skill and high-skilled immigrants. Radwell traces the stagnation of American wages to starting the Regan era, but if our current economic woes started in the 1980s, how does it follow that decline in unionization-a trend that started in the early 1950’s-is responsible for low-income growth over the past few decades? While it is true that average incomes grew at a relatively slow rate from 1973 to 1995 and 2004 to 2014 as union membership fell, incomes also grew rapidly from 1948 to 1973 and from 1995 to 2004 when unionization fell at the same rate. The growth in productivity much more closely matches wage growth in wages than the decline in unionization. And studies looking at the before and after effects of unions find that unions have neutral effects on productivity and wages(see the report from the Heritage Foundation below). Contrary to what Radwell claims, productivity increases in the U.S are met with wage increases; a paper by economist Anna Stansberry and Lawrence Summers found that on average a 1 percent increase in production leads to a 0.53% increase in compensation for non-supervisory employees. Unions may actually decrease wages over long periods of time because unions raise a firm's labor cost by 15% leading to decreased investment and less money for employers to give to their employees. Some studies purport to show that unions increase wages but these studies make apples to oranges comparisons by contrasting firms with unions and firms without unions, without taking into account differences between industries with high rates of unionization and industries with low rates with unionization. Radwell also argues that the decline in manufacturing caused by free and automation is leaving the middle class unemployed and poor. As the Cato Institute Scot Lincicome points out in 1979 when manufacturing peaked as a percentage of the economy 1 in 5 employed people were in manufacturing and the unemployment rate was about 7 percent, in 2019 only 1 in 10 workers were in manufacturing the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent. This suggests that the decline in manufacturing jobs was met with an even greater increase in new types of jobs. Lincicome also points out that the decline in American manufacturing jobs has almost been exactly mirrored in other advanced economies, regardless of whether they are protectionist trade policies or industrial policies. Radwell points to Germany as an example of a country with a successful industrial policy but manufacturing jobs are disappearing in Germany at about the same rate as the US. The new jobs created as manufacturing has declined have mostly been high skill jobs; according to MIT’s David Autor between 1970 and 2016 middle-skill jobs shrunk from 38 to 23 percent of employment, while low skill jobs remained responsible for 31 percent of employment, and high skill jobs increased from 30 to 46 percent of total employment. Immigration has also been a definitive net positive for the economy over the past few decades. Even George Borjas, a Harvard economist, who is one of the most prominent immigration skeptic, finds immigrants have slightly increased wages for all groups (high school dropouts, high school grads, and college grads). Basic supply and demand says when supply increases price should decrease, or when the labor market increases, wages should decrease. But immigrants are largely in low-skill and high-skill jobs, meaning they are not competing with American workers. In fact, immigrants create many high skills jobs, thus increasing supply and demand. As Duquesne University's Antony Davis points out, 5 companies founded or cofounded by first-generation or second-generation immigrants create more jobs than there are immigrants who come into the country.
In Radwells view, the biggest cause of income stagnation is income inequality which is created by Republican policies of tax cuts and deregulation. According to Radwell the rich have reaped almost all the gains from economic growth and passed those gains on to their children. Radwell’s economic views on income inequality and Republican fiscal policy are wrong for many reasons, but for the sake of time, I only listed 4 reasons below.
1)Countries with more billionaires are wealthier.
The true test to see if billionaires got rich from hoarding a society's resources or providing new wealth is to look at the wealth of countries with high concentrations of billionaires. Another claim made by the Piketty Sites is that billionaires are undemocratic, this too could be easily tested by looking at the level of democracy of countries with high concentrations of billionaires. Both the wealth and democracy of a country are modeled by the U.N’s Human Development Index (or HDI) which shows that 16 of the 20 countries with the most billionaires per capita are also in the top 20 countries with the highest HDI ratings. Suggesting billionaires get rich by providing wealth.
2)The American poor are often richer than the European middle class.
When talking about the woes of American capitalism and the income inequality that arises from it, Progressives like to point out that the U.S has a poverty rate of 32%, one of the highest in the OECD, compared to the 8.5% poverty rate in Piketty’s France. If only we could be more European! Well actually, while it's technically true that the U.S has a higher poverty rate than most of the OECD, a country's poverty rate is defined as living below 60% of a nation's poverty line, meaning different countries have wildly different definitions of poverty. Making a comparison of the incomes of each poor OECD country will give us a much better idea of how the poor live in each OECD country. This type of comparison gives a much more favorable view to the US showing that the U.S has the 4th richest poor people of any country. In fact, the average American household living below the poverty line earns more than the median income of about 11 countries.
3)The poor and rich are often the same people at different points in their lives.
A lot of discussions about income inequality, particularly but not exclusively in left-wing circles, treat the poor and rich as two different groups of people when they are in fact the same people at different points in their lives. A study featured in the national institute for biotechnology (NCBI) followed a statistically representative sample of 6,000 25-year-olds over a 43 year period (followed from 1968-2011), and found that 73% of the 25 years old will make it to the top 10% for at least one point in their lives, and 39% will be in the top 5% at one point in their lives. In fact, there is even a lot of income upward and downward mobility within the mega-rich; the IRS conducted a study of the top 400 taxpayers from 1992-2009 and found only 2% of the taxpayers were on that list for 10 years or more.
4)Republican tax reforms have benefited the low and middle class. And all income groups experienced wage increases that were historically unprecedented during the Reagan Era.
Radwell refers to the 1981 Regan tax cut as a “trickle-down” tax cut on several occasions. While the tax cut did have more dramatic rate cuts for wealthier groups, the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy increased during the Regan years;according to data from the Tax Foundation the share of taxes paid by the top 5% increased from 35 to 44 percent between 1980 and 1990, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% increased from to 18 to 25 percent in that timespan. There are two reasons for this phenomenon, the first is that when the top income tax rate was over 70% the wealthy put their money in tax shelters like bonds because tax rates were too high for most investments to be worthwhile; so when tax rates were lowered the rich changed their behavior and more of their money was available for taxation, the second reason is that the wealthy owned a larger share of wealth during the Regan era. Although incomes of the wealthy grew the fastest during the Regan era, all 5 economic quintiles saw wage growth. In fact, bottom quintile incomes in the Regan era grew faster than the richest quintiles' incomes during the 8 years before and after Regan’s presidency. To quote Winston Churchill, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery.” The same can be said to a lesser extent of Progressivism and Reaganism.
Although I disagreed with many of Radwell’s arguments, I greatly enjoyed his book for its concise and informative summary of different political philosophies and historical events; and its connection of these political philosophies and historical events to modern debates.
There are a lot of commentators -- on the left and the right -- who loudly whipsaw from one issue to another and stake out one inflexible position after another, adding nothing to public discourse but division.
Mr. Radwell does NOT do that. American Schism is audacious. It analyzes the various strands of America's bold and inspiring intellectual heritage and connects it to the seeming breakdown of our current politics. I applaud Seth for diving into Locke and Rouseau and Hobbes and Voltaire and Diderot and Condorcet and so many others. And I appreciate his opinions on how America has gone astray. I disagree with a number of his suggestions, not necessarily because they're wrong, though, but because they are not expansive enough to address what I consider egregious shortcomings on the left, where we both reside politically.
If you want to interpret current events within the broader American narrative...if you want to dive into the revolutionary intellectual underpinnings of our grand democratic experiment...if you want to go beyond the hype and sensationalization of social and television and print media to begin to understand our own generation's culpability in the problems of today...then I highly recommend getting this book for yourself.
We live in the greatest country in the world...the most audacious experiment in human self-government...but only so long as we each are constantly vigilant to explore...understand...adapt...and contribute beyond our own limited spheres of existence and perception and values.



















