{"id":"601d1b0d6cee070007e6c14f","slug":"how-to-destroy-america-in-three-easy-steps-en","title":"How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps","audio_url":"https://hls.blinkist.io/bibs/601d1b0d6cee070007e6c14f/601d1b0d6cee070007e6c151-T1612520488.m4a?Expires=1656769543&Signature=AyEPFxKYgMABMK7~htkagQxhnDQjvDMxiurq7zzWfTOksmJB2lHbcjd0Wd-2-af6E9rn4YqLbL3nWPwo5GNsNPpwoznn7~bD7P86GEoZefREAChZW~NGST2KSG52zVYZ8A0eL2kfeeNY2pxDeQefZcFnxFWeW15dFalpJT54qSZtcDRp0lels~vUm8WmgYagGbKINTsQ57UWjsGbFSE06pHiGzjBDiTCABRfUpLbeWKDpk1zF0lttHUcQ8HW~mk4XY2niTphXEEqRAwmknG1~TqFLR80Jr4liFX~qUjM5fF3kIAfUoUzo3Tl7YRxRsFd63fPNLZcmpw81RfbYNr3gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJXJM6BB7FFZXUB4A","chapters":[{"id":"601d1b0d6cee070007e6c151","title":"Americans have long been united by three simple and fundamental beliefs.","text":"

These days, it seems that Americans have less and less in common. One political row after the other means we’re constantly at each other’s throats. And we’ve become more intolerant and argumentative on social media. Often, it seems the nation is on the brink of tearing itself in two.

It seems that Americans really have fallen into two broad camps. There are those, like the author, who think we’re fundamentally a united people. And then there are those who prefer to focus on the divisions instead. The author calls the first group Unionists. The second group he calls Disintegrationists.

So, how did we get here? To answer that question, we first need to understand the traditional philosophy of the United States.

The key message here is: Americans have long been united by three simple and fundamental beliefs.

According to Unionists, there are three basic beliefs that have always underpinned American unity. They are enshrined front and center in the Declaration of Independence.

The first is an insistent focus on rights – namely, the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” According to the Declaration and to those who uphold its values, these rights are natural human prerogatives that can never be taken away. In this view, humans are automatically entitled to certain basic provisions because human beings are inherently valuable and possess the ability to reason. Rights, in short, rest on human nature.

The second unifying belief also appears in the Declaration. It’s the assertion that all men are created equal.

Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone has equal abilities and characteristics. We all know that some of us are smarter than others, some kinder, and some more athletic. What equality does mean here is that the law should apply to everyone equally. Rather than discriminating between citizens on unfair, arbitrary grounds, authorities should treat everyone equally and impartially.

Now for the third and final unifying belief. This is the idea that the government exists in order to protect our rights and to make sure we’re treated equally – and that it should do very little beyond that. In other words, the government shouldn’t interfere with the private lives of American citizens. Provided people don’t meddle with anyone else’s rights, Unionists argue, the traditional American attitude is to let them do whatever they please.

"},{"id":"601d1b0d6cee070007e6c152","title":"Disintegrationists reject traditional American philosophy.","text":"

So Unionists believe in the traditional American philosophy of rights, equality, and limited government. How do Disintegrationists respond? Do they admit these are noble aims that we should push ourselves to achieve? Do they think we just need to strive harder to live up to America’s founding ideals?

Well, not exactly. In fact, the Disintegrationist outlook rebuts every aspect of traditional American philosophy.

Disintegrationists reinterpret rights in a way that changes the original meaning of the term. They insist that the traditional notion of equality is a sham. And they reject the notion that human nature automatically entitles us to any rights at all.

The key message here is: Disintegrationists reject traditional American philosophy.

According to Disintegrationists, the notion of “human nature” is misleading. Humans, in their view, are essentially malleable. They are entirely capable of being shaped one way or another, and can always be “improved” in the name of progress.

Because Disintegrationists reject human nature, they also reject the Unionist idea that humans possess natural rights just by being human.

These natural rights were only ever there to protect citizens from interference and oppression. But Disintegrationists have invented a whole new set of rights in their place. Instead of traditional rights, which safeguard citizens’ self-determination and freedom, Disintegrationist “rights” are said to guarantee goods and services – like healthcare and a good education.

What the Disintegrationists have essentially done is extend the notion of rights to include anything and everything that strikes them as desirable.

And they’ve also done considerable damage to America’s traditional understanding of equality. Instead of being content with equal rights and equal treatment before the law, Disintegrationists are dissatisfied with anything less than equality of outcome. That means that they see all disparities between sexes and races as indications of discrimination and injustice.

In their minds, there could be no other explanation. It’s not that men naturally gravitate toward some jobs, and women toward others, for example. Every difference in outcome, they argue, is evidence of injustice – and it’s the job of the government to set things right.

This is the final blow to traditional American philosophy. If all disparities between people are unjust, and if the government is in charge of dispensing justice, then we get the Disintegrationist conclusion: the government should interfere more and more in order to cure imaginary problems.

"},{"id":"601d1b0e6cee070007e6c153","title":"The US is held together by a culture of rights, private virtue, and liberty.","text":"

So the United States is torn between two competing worldviews – a Unionist one based on the Founders’ vision for America, and a Disintegrationist one, which sees our traditional philosophy as hopelessly outdated.

But philosophies don’t exist in a vacuum, and political theories don’t materialize out of thin air. They’re rooted in something much broader and more fundamental. American philosophies rest on American culture – specifically, American political culture.

At its peak, Unionist philosophy relied on a strong, self-confident political culture. But just what was that culture like? What did it consist of, and does it still exist today?

The key message here is: The US is held together by a culture of rights, private virtue, and liberty.

Rights, as we know, are a fundamental aspect of Unionist philosophy. But they’re also a hallmark of broader American culture. As US citizens, we don’t just talk about rights as abstract ideals; we insist on our rights with fierceness and with courage.

The United States’ culture of rights has left its stamp on some of the nation’s greatest achievements. Lincoln made his case against slavery in the name of human rights. And Martin Luther King’s campaign was a fight for civil rights.

This culture of rights depends on a special kind of tolerance – a typically American willingness to “live and let live.” After all, we don’t always like everything our fellow citizens do. But because we recognize their rights, we’re willing to tolerate anything but criminal behavior. This attitude is best exemplified by America’s traditional culture of free speech. We might not agree with what other Americans say, but we accept that, as Americans, they’re free to say whatever’s on their minds.

The Founders were reluctant to interfere with private conduct. But that doesn’t mean they were inviting Americans to behave immorally. On the contrary, they wanted Americans to conduct themselves virtuously.

But virtue, they understood, should be private. That means it should be fostered by institutions like the family and the church – and not be mandated from on high by the government. The extent of government’s role, the Fathers believed, should be limited to protecting citizens’ rights.

By restricting the role of government in this way, the Founding Fathers were really protecting American citizens’ liberty. This is why they enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution. The Fathers knew that an armed population could defend its rights – and its values – against an oppressive and oversized government.

"},{"id":"601d1b0e6cee070007e6c154","title":"Disintegrationism inverts the values of America’s traditional political culture.","text":"

At this point, you’re probably starting to see a pattern emerge. All of the values that once served to unify the United States, and promote a strong and stable political culture, are increasingly coming under assault from Disintegrationists.

Disintegrationists could be calling on Americans to be true to their ideals. But they aren’t. Instead, they’re denigrating traditional principles – and jeopardizing American unity in the process.

Against the culture of rights and tolerance, they emphasize safety and constraint. Against the right to self-defense, they argue for dependence on the government. And it doesn’t end there.

The key message here is: Disintegrationism inverts the values of America’s traditional political culture.

There was a time in American history when, when it came to citizens’ rights, the burden of proof fell on the government. If the government wanted to prevent us from doing something, it had to put forward a strong case arguing its point. It had to explain why we didn’t have the right to do as we pleased.

Now, though, attitudes have changed. These days, people ask what gives you the right to behave in a certain way – not what gives the government the right to stop you. This is a clear sign of the Disintegrationists' efforts. They’ve eroded the culture of rights and changed the way political arguments work.

To make this even clearer, look at the issue of free speech. Even though it’s still legally protected, the culture that sustains freedom of speech is weakening by the day. According to a recent poll, 59 percent of people aged 18 to 34 want the First Amendment changed in order to restrict “hate speech” and “reflect the cultural norms of today.”

We can see a similar shift in thinking about the right to bear arms. Americans once cherished the ability to own guns; in that right we saw evidence of our liberty and our capacity to overthrow tyranny. Now, however, the Second Amendment is increasingly under threat. In a telling example from 2018, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens even called on Americans to repeal the Second Amendment.

How much longer can our rights survive when fellow citizens continue to lose faith in them?

"},{"id":"601d1b0e6cee070007e6c155","title":"American history contains more good than bad.","text":"

America’s history is not unblemished. Like with all nations, it has dark episodes as well as bright ones. It contains tales of bravery, compassion, and justice – but also tales of cowardice, cruelty, and oppression.

It’s only right that, even as we remember former triumphs, we also bear in mind past failings. The treatment of Native Americans and of Black Americans, especially, should never be forgotten or glossed over.

So, if we keep in mind the defects of the past and assess American history with an open mind, what verdict can we reach? How should we judge the history of the nation?

The key message here is: American history contains more good than bad.

From the Unionist point of view, American history is a story of progress. It’s an account of how glorious founding ideals gradually became a reality for all Americans. The Founding Fathers, though often flawed, were great men, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution set in motion powerful forces for good.

This doesn’t mean that things improved immediately. Slavery was widespread in the new republic, and Native Americans were systematically persecuted and dispossessed. For these victims, the early years of US history were terribly painful.

But the US wasn’t alone in these misdeeds. At the time of the American founding, slavery was common throughout the world. And, although a number of the Founding Fathers owned enslaved people, many criticized the institution of slavery and looked forward to its demise. This by no means excuses the actions of early Americans – but it shows, at least, that they weren't exceptionally vicious.

Set against these deplorable actions are the achievements of the United States – at home and on the world stage. Domestically, the US created an increasingly prosperous and fair society as the centuries marched on.

Abroad, its achievements were even greater. In the twentieth century alone, the US helped to win World War I, proved decisive in winning World War II, financed the rebuilding of Europe, and oversaw the fall of the USSR. It’s hard to appreciate these achievements when you utter them in one breath, but stop for a minute and imagine the consequences for Europe’s Jewish population if the US hadn’t intervened against the Nazis when it did.

US history is both glorious and tragic. To say that the good outweighs the bad is not intended to minimize the pain of the downtrodden. It’s merely to observe that the world is better off for the existence of the United States.

"},{"id":"601d1b0e6cee070007e6c156","title":"Disintegrationist history rewrites the past in order to darken the United States of today.","text":"

Needless to say, Unionists and Disintegrationists disagree about American history. Unionists find that, on the whole, the US has been a force for good in the world. Disintegrationists, however, argue that American history is little more than a catalog of injustices and abuses.

Of course, this argument concerns the past. But it’s not only of historic interest.

When Disintegrationists sully American history, they do so with an eye on the present. History is so tarnished, the argument goes, that we need to take radical steps to set it right – immediately.

According to their view, racism, oppression, and discrimination are embedded in American DNA; the only way to fix historic failings is to tear down the system that emerged from the past.

The key message here is: Disintegrationist history rewrites the past in order to darken the United States of today.

Disintegrationists argue that America was born in sin and has never been able to escape its racist past. In their view, the injustice of slavery and anti-Black discrimination, as well as the cruel treatment of Native Americans, were never fully addressed. Instead, Americans’ racist impulses simply took new, more covert forms and seeped into all aspects of American life.

This stance often leads Disintegrationists to deny that the US possesses any real social glue. Instead, the notion of the US as “United” only serves to paper over a host of unjust hierarchies and competing factions.

This view of American history was popularized by a historian named Howard Zinn, whose famous book, A People’s History of the United States, has sold millions of copies. According to Zinn, the United States is composed of “dominators and dominated,” who have always been at odds.

Many contemporary historians portray American history in this way. They splice the past along lines of class, race, and sex – and argue that focusing on what unites us is merely a way to distract us from existing racist and sexist hierarchies. These arguments take a fundamentally accurate premise – that American society was once both racist and sexist – and expand it into a false narrative about present-day America.

Instead of uniting around stories of shared history, Disintegrationists mine the past in order to divide us in the present. Unfortunately, their efforts so far have been quite successful. If they keep succeeding, who knows what will happen to this great nation.

"}]}

Log in to Blinkist

Sign up for Blinkist

Learn more, live more