Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

Mark Levin, the author of this book, is one of the leading voices on right-wing talk radio. However, he is distinguished from his main competitors Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, by the fact that his programs (both radio and TV) go far beyond mere discussions of current events and delve into the ideas that underlie the issues of the day and the debates of the moment.Thus, on his programs one can hear (and in this book, read) in-depth discussions of such subjects as individualism and collectivism, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx, Adam Smith, and F.A. Hayek. These discussions not only shed important light on the events and disputes of the moment, but sometimes offer startling insight that illuminates a broad swath of human history. First and foremost in this category is a discussion drawn from Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which Smith essentially explains the difference in attitudes between a statesman and a tyrant.A major value that this book provides is the understanding it gives of the intellectual transformation that occurred in American political philosophy during the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century, the country went to sleep with Washington and Jefferson as its leading political figures and the Constitution and Bill of Rights as its leading political documents. By the early 20th century, it woke up with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as its leading political figures and the Constitution and Bill of Rights pushed to the side and no longer taken seriously or considered binding by the country's intellectuals. The new political philosophy that had emerged was “progressivism,” a combination of collectivism, egalitarianism, and contempt for the notion of immutable truths. The country has not yet recovered.I recommend this book to everyone who wants to improve his understanding of where we are intellectually and how we got here.George Reisman, Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics

I wanted to wait until completing this yet another incredible piece of work by Mark Levin before writing this review, but was just “chomping at the bit” (to quote Mark) to express my appreciation to him. As with all Mark’s books, every line and even every word is carefully considered, as he pours the wisdom of the centuries into his virtual “intellectual meat grinder” and lays it all out for all of us on a silver platter.I have been an avid listener of Mark’s since he began substituting for Sean over a decade ago, and through Mark, got my first genuine lessons about the true meaning of Liberty, limited government, and the natural rights of man. During this period, I began a new career and went back to school for a law degree, ultimately opening my own law practice. As all encompassing a task that is, I wasn’t about to stand by while our Country was being destroyed by corrupt politicians pushing destructive ideologies, and decided to take whatever action was available to me in order to fight this. Politics is not for me, but I have teaching experience, and have raised my children in a home in which I have made sure to imbue them traditional and conservative principles. I realized, however, that this may not be enough as I watch the society descending into an abyss that threatens to steal their futures, and that of future generations. Since two of my boys (twins) are currently in High School, I contacted their principal (they attend a Jewish private school), and explained that I wanted to teach a course on Liberty and Constitutional principles. He loved the idea, and offered the course as an elective to Juniors and Seniors. I just completed my first year of teaching the course to a terrific group of boys, and over the year, heard several times from the Civics and American Government teacher that my students are the most outspoken in his class, and they have helped to open up the eyes of their classmates with what they have added to class discussions.I am pleased to say that I have been invited back to teach the course again this year, and just as I did with this past year’s course, I sit with Mark’s books (at my dining room table), organizing my material using the incredible resources that Mark’s efforts have provided me. I have also amassed an enormous electronic reading list which I make available to my students, courtesy of Mark’s wealth of references and end notes. As I go through Mark’s latest master work, “Rediscovering Americanism,” I continue to expand my own perspectives and understanding, which I will hope to successfully pass on to my students in the coming year.None of this would have been possible without Mark and his incredible books. We have a daunting task ahead of us to get this country back to its founding principles, but I have a small degree of comfort in knowing that I am doing whatever is in my power to effect change, and I am extremely proud to consider myself one of Mark’s loyal foot soldiers in his intrepid battle to restore our Liberty and our Constitution.Just one final comment, which is a bit off the topic of Mark’s latest book. I would like to thank Mark for taking the time during his recent trip to Israel to share his enlightening experience with his millions of listeners. I was absolutely sure that once on site, Mark would instantly size up the situation, and broadcast its eternal truths to a world that is riddled with lies and misinformation. Mark clearly understands from where our enlightened founders drew their wisdom, which traces back to principles we inherited from the divine revelation of three and half millennia ago.I do not know that any of my words in this comment could adequately express my gratitude to Mark for what he has taught me, and has added to my life. Mark, thank you for your incredible broadcasts, thank you for your brilliant books, thank you for your delectable and caustic humor, thank you for your compassion, and a very special thank you for your fiery passion. Please just know that your efforts have single-handedly cultivated me and I'm sure thousands of other “foot soldiers,” who stand with you in this crucial effort to spread this essential and timeless message. My appreciation goes deeper than anything I could possibly express in this small comment, but for me personally, my greatest prize will be the opportunity to one day have the opportunity to thank you personally, for everything!-singer721@gmail.com

I've always enjoyed listening to Levin's radio show, and somehow I was convinced that this book was comprised of original thought and content.On the contrary, out of 250+ pages in this volume, I don't think Levin wrote five pages of original text. Instead, it seems to be simply a curated collection of others' works.It's page after page of quoted text from Thomas Jefferson, Herbert Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, John Locke, John Dewey, ad infinitum. Many of these politicians/authors hailed from a time when verbose, convoluted language was considered de rigueur, making the bulk of the text in this volume excruciating to read, without benefit of any kind of modern interpretation.Levin's contributions consist of things like:"But, on the contrary, the Marquis de Blah Blah said this in his speech in 1767: <three pages of quoted text>""His viewpoint was not unique though, for the Earl of Tedium expanded on that in 1768: <five pages of quoted text>""Then, a noted intellectual in France wrote this: <seven pages of quoted text>"I'm determined to finish the book, so I'm slogging on. But frankly, its primary value at this point is to save me the effort of looking up all the various references on my own. And I suppose that's worth two stars.

Kudos to Mr. Levin, for a concise lesson regarding progressives attack on core American values and traditions.

Very good

I just finished reading this book for the second time. It’s not that it’s an exciting, page turner. But it is an education that reflects on what’s happening in western society. We need to know these things when trying to speak up against the wave of Progressivism. Mark delineates the connection from Rousseau to Hegel to Marx. The ideology of the left needs to be expressed clearly so people know what they’re getting into. Maybe this type of collectivism is exactly what some folks are looking for. If they feel that the State should look after them, from cradle to grave and make all big decisions for them, then today’s heroes, like AOC and Bernie Sanders are perfect. Levin does a great job of reminding us where and from whom, the ideology came from.

Levin has a very poor understanding of the philosophers he criticizes. Levin explains the forefathers relied on Natural Law (pp. 9) as defined by Locke. However Locke never had any examples of what natural law was. At the time, anthropology hadn’t begun and the English never really appreciated any other society’s ideas that well. It’s safe to say that the English believed they had the one right way. That’s why it was their interests to colonize and civilize the world. “More than that, Locke at times seems to appeal to innate ideas in the Second Treatise (2.11), and in The Reasonableness of Christianity (Works 7:139) he admits that no one has ever worked out all of natural law from reason alone.” Locke would say that all people are naturally endowed with reason. Locke adds Natural Law can be known by reason (pp. 11). Toward the end of his career he doubted that he could come up with any examples of Natural Law. Ergo Locke lacked reason.To summarize Levin’s review of Hegel: Levin summarizes Hegel; quotes Hegel; shows one critique by Popper to refute Hegel’s acceptance of contradictions (loosely related to his political argument; pp. 102); and then quotes Popper as saying that there is danger in accepting Hegel (pp. 106). Was Levin hoping to show Hegel was wrong? Not sure. What was Levin trying to do here?In response to Marx, Levin suggests that man’s struggle is well beyond economics and materialism (pp. 108). Levin does a good job to explain that it could be anything and he is right to do so. However, I believe it’s very common sense to view it as a class struggle in society where the lower classes are trying to achieve higher classes or higher statuses from the family or background which they originated. This is especially true in industrial and post-industrial countries. Why else would people go to university? Move to other cities to get better jobs? Any economist will tell you and for as much as I have read in economics: people in general are more motivated by money than psychological factors, values, race, religion, tribalism, geography or any other recorded factor. There might be other factors that we haven’t thought of yet, but none to date can match the power of economic thinking in men generally. Most people want to get ahead in the world. Levin should really address the whole field of economics here before he suggests these things, not just Marx.Levin writes, “In fact, most proletariats don’t feel terrorized by the bourgeoisie and therefore do not spontaneously rise to the revolutionary cause; also, most bourgeoisies are not terrorizing their employees or tenants.” (pp. 112-3). Nowhere does the Communist Manifesto does it use the word terror to describe the relationship between the B. and the P. To me, there is a huge difference between terrorizing and exploiting. The difference apparently doesn’t exist for Levin.Levin writes that "progressive" philosophers offer “a whirlwind of ideological concepts and impossibilities.” (pp. 120). He’s made no attempt to show us how these are impossibilities. Levin made no comment on post-WWII progressive philosophers other than Dewey and what they see as possible. Dewey didn’t publish any books after the war concerning politics. If progressivism’s views are changing, then how about include a more contemporary author?Levin writes “[Progressives] also understandably will want to align themselves with administrative science and reason, with the extraordinary progress made by physical sciences during the past several centuries and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason is all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason” (pp. 126). There’s a lot in this quote. First off, why not use science and reason? Locke surely felt he was using reason. The founding fathers did. Why is it that reason stopped after the signing of the declaration and reason stops after every amendment was signed? After that, we should accept someone’s reason from 250 years ago? Why not accept reason from 300 years ago and call it tradition? What is known as reason changes all the time. What makes the reason at the time of 1776 more special than any other time in history?

An imperative read for every free citizen trying to figure out what liberty is all about and how to save ourselves from tyranny that's always knocking at the door.It's not a casual journey but worth every ounce of the effort that afterwards leaves one certain as to why we must safeguard what we were handed for future generations.

I love Mark and his book is top notch. Well written and very interesting. I have learned so much.