Book Review Of Ameritopia

[rwetmore]

Anyone read the book yet?

Dick Morris on February 8, 2012

A Book Review of Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America by Mark R. Levin

I took Contemporary Civilization at Columbia College. It had a reading list that was a smattering of excerpts from all the great thinkers who shaped western civilization. We referred to it as the “cocktail party course.” The readings were neither long enough nor sufficiently representative of the body of work of the author to give you a real grasp of what they were saying. But they gave you enough to get by and sound erudite.

Now Mark Levin revisits these philosophers and explains how their thinking shaped the world in which we live.

Broadly, he divides them into two camps: Utopians and Libertarians. He explains how utopians laid the basis for modern socialism, leftism, and Obamaism and how the libertarian (he calls it Americanism) enlightenment philosophers set the stage for modern conservatism and free market economics.

His most important intellectual contribution is to identify the search for utopia — the perfect world — with the politics of the left. From Plato’s Republic through Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia and Hobbes’ Leviathan and Marx’ Communist manifesto the storyline is the same: A super-lawgiver brings about a transformation of our flawed society into a perfect world. To Plato the superhero is the philosopher-king. To Moore it is King Utopus. To Hobbes it is the super dictator/strong man. To Marx it is the working class dictatorship. But the formulations are all the same – a big strong man saves the world. No democracy needed here. All we need is the right man in charge.

Levin realizes that this search for perfection – both in the outcome and the leader – underscores the futile search in which liberalism has been engaged for the past century. Like a secular second coming, it never quite happens, but the true believers on the left never give up hope. And, when a leader comes along who, in Chris Matthews’ memorable formulation, sends a “thrill up his leg,” then hope and change sprout like wildflowers and it seems utopia is finally at hand! Until reality sets in.

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends. Democracy, education, enlightenment, free markets, deregulation lead to the best outcomes for humankind. Levin explains how John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu shaped a philosophy that relies on the consent of the governed and human freedom to shape good outcomes. And then, he hammers it home by chronicling Alexis de Tocqueville’s real life observations about how these ideas were playing out in early America.

We all read – and some of us write – books about what is wrong and how to correct it. But Levin understanding that it is the hope for utopia itself that leads us astray is a key insight. Regardless of whatever else you are reading, read this book. It explains the cause of all that’s happening.

[BWV 1080]

I like this part:

To Hobbes it is the super dictator/strong man. To Marx it is the working class dictatorship. To Bill Kristol its George W Bush - But the formulations are all the same – a big strong man saves the world. No democracy needed here. All we need is the right man in charge. This search for perfection – both in the outcome and the leader – underscores the futile search in which neoconservative foreign policy has been engaged for the past century. Like a secular second coming, it never quite happens, but the true believers in the American Empire never give up hope. And, when a leader comes along who, in Bill Kristols’ memorable formulation, sends a “thrill up his leg,” then hope and change sprout like wildflowers and it seems utopia is finally at hand! Until reality sets in like it did in Iraq & Afghanistan

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

[jbuck919]

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends. Democracy, education, enlightenment, free markets, deregulation lead to the best outcomes for humankind. Levin explains how John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu shaped a philosophy that relies on the consent of the governed and human freedom to shape good outcomes. And then, he hammers it home by chronicling Alexis de Tocqueville’s real life observations about how these ideas were playing out in early America.

Those men only thought in terms of white male property-owning humankind, the limits of their sense of "democracy, education, enlightenment," which in any case do not belong on any list with "deregulation". As for the (ironic in this context) term "free markets," the market didn't and never would have provided "best outcomes" for anyone else; that required government action achieved after Herculean struggle.

[RebLem]

The review was by Dick Morris, and reading anything by an habitual liar like him will disorient and rot your mind. I refuse to read it.

[keaggy220]

I like this part:

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

I think Levin is annoying but I can't help but listen to him occasionally because he's so brilliant.

[jbuck919]

I like this part:

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

That sounds like an admission that to libertarians it doesn't matter where we end up as long as we maintain ideological purity in getting there. This is consistent with my assumption that if libertarianism ever did become the ruling doctrine of American political economics, its representatives would allow us to sink into and stay in a major depression for years without admitting that it might be their philosophy that is the problem, or that we should try something different.

[rwetmore]

I think Levin is annoying but I can't help but listen to him occasionally because he's so brilliant.

Yes, his personality and presentation can be a bit harsh at times, but he is absolutely brilliant. His depth of knowledge on all these things, in particular both US history and world history, is astonishing to me. IMO, there represents no bigger threat or impediment to the advancement of left's agenda than Mark Levin. In some respects, I feel sorry for them as they have absolutely no chance against him. If every American listened to Mark regularly in addition to all of the other sources of news and information they listen to, it's over. I genuinely do not think they couldn't even a get 1/3rd of the vote.

In Mark's own words:

"I am so damn effective they (the left) don't know what to do with me". So true I think.

[keaggy220]

I like this part:

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

That sounds like an admission that to libertarians it doesn't matter where we end up as long as we maintain ideological purity in getting there. This is consistent with my assumption that if libertarianism ever did become the ruling doctrine of American political economics, its representatives would allow us to sink into and stay in a major depression for years without admitting that it might be their philosophy that is the problem, or that we should try something different.

To me it simply means liberty is worth it - whatever "it" is.

Regarding your example of slipping into a depression... The reality is that liberalism (as played out by both Democrats and Republicans) has sunk this country in an a debt that is obviously moving us into oblivion and we are still denying that this philosophy is a problem.

[BWV 1080]

I like this part:

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

That sounds like an admission that to libertarians it doesn't matter where we end up as long as we maintain ideological purity in getting there. This is consistent with my assumption that if libertarianism ever did become the ruling doctrine of American political economics, its representatives would allow us to sink into and stay in a major depression for years without admitting that it might be their philosophy that is the problem, or that we should try something different.

its an admission of humility - recognizing we do not really know how to shape desired ends therefore there is no justification for means that violate the rights of others

[jbuck919]

Regarding your example of slipping into a depression... The reality is that liberalism (as played out by both Democrats and Republicans) has sunk this country in an a debt that is obviously moving us into oblivion and we are still denying that this philosophy is a problem.

Oh I see: When the Republicans were running up the debt they were playing the role of liberals. Yes indeed, prosecuting two wars without paying for them, initiating an enormous tax without paying for it, allowing an unregulated industry to plunge the nation into an economic collapse requiring more indebtedness to keep from being even worse, yes, that's classic liberalism if ever there was such a thing. As for the current right coalition, as long as they impede economic recovery you can continue to blame centrists, excuse me liberals, because clearly the problem is that their influence has not been eliminated, while if the right takes over and disaster ensues, you can say the problem is they are still too liberal. Nice how you've worked that out.

[jbuck919]

I like this part:

By contrast, the libertarians focus more on process than on outcome. To them, the ends do not justify the means. It is the means that shape the ends.

That sounds like an admission that to libertarians it doesn't matter where we end up as long as we maintain ideological purity in getting there. This is consistent with my assumption that if libertarianism ever did become the ruling doctrine of American political economics, its representatives would allow us to sink into and stay in a major depression for years without admitting that it might be their philosophy that is the problem, or that we should try something different.

its an admission of humility - recognizing we do not really know how to shape desired ends therefore there is no justification for means that violate the rights of others

I don't consider taxing the rich on a progressive basis or regulating corporations to be matters of violating rights. Yours is a religious doctrinal kind of purity. Ends not justifying the means is one of the arguments the Catholic Church uses against birth control, but you have to buy into their ridiculous notion of what constitutes evil means in the first place to accept that.

[John F]

Besides, it depends on the ends and on the means. Ending racial segregation in America, for example, was an end that justified the means of passing federal laws that impinge on the freedom to discriminate on racist grounds. But even that end would not have been worth the means of assassinating George Wallace. (Which was actually attempted, though not for that reason.)

[keaggy220]

Regarding your example of slipping into a depression... The reality is that liberalism (as played out by both Democrats and Republicans) has sunk this country in an a debt that is obviously moving us into oblivion and we are still denying that this philosophy is a problem.

Oh I see: When the Republicans were running up the debt they were playing the role of liberals. Yes indeed, prosecuting two wars without paying for them, initiating an enormous tax without paying for it, allowing an unregulated industry to plunge the nation into an economic collapse requiring more indebtedness to keep from being even worse, yes, that's classic liberalism if ever there was such a thing. As for the current right coalition, as long as they impede economic recovery you can continue to blame centrists, excuse me liberals, because clearly the problem is that their influence has not been eliminated, while if the right takes over and disaster ensues, you can say the problem is they are still too liberal. Nice how you've worked that out.

Can you name one war in history that was paid for in advance?

Also, I'm assuming you made a typo and meant to say initiating an enormous tax cut without paying for it? You do understand that tax revenues went up after the tax cut, right? You can look it up. Besides, economic recession and expansion have a much greater impact on tax revenues than tax cuts or tax increases.

Also, I'd like to think you understand that the banking and housing industry is in fact regulated. I just sat through a very informative panel discussion on Wednesday regarding the housing bust. The panel was remarkably balanced when it came to the blame game. The bottom line, there was plenty of blame to go around, and the political blame starts during the Clinton years and ended with Bush. There were plenty of D's and R's very cozy with the entire build up.

And yes, I don't think there's been a true 100% conservative since Calvin Coolidge. I love this quote: Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business. Wow.

[keaggy220]

Besides, it depends on the ends and on the means. Ending racial segregation in America, for example, was an end that justified the means of passing federal laws that impinge on the freedom to discriminate on racist grounds. But even that end would not have been worth the means of assassinating George Wallace. (Which was actually attempted, though not for that reason.)

Actually I believe the means for ending racial segregation was provided by the founding fathers.

[jbuck919]

Besides, it depends on the ends and on the means. Ending racial segregation in America, for example, was an end that justified the means of passing federal laws that impinge on the freedom to discriminate on racist grounds. But even that end would not have been worth the means of assassinating George Wallace. (Which was actually attempted, though not for that reason.)

Actually I believe the means for ending racial segregation was provided by the founding fathers.

Now I'm worried about both of you.

Passing federal laws that impinge on the "freedom" to discriminate on racist grounds is not a questionable means, John. More in the gray area is affirmative action, which, let's face it, had a big down side. And if you want a more brutal example, anything the allies did in the way of hastening the end of WW II in their favor, with all the civilian deaths those measures caused, are very arguably a legitimate case of the ends justifying the means.

And keaggy, what on Earth are you talking about? One of the great failings of the founding fathers was compromising us out of the possibility of ending racism without going through a series of worst-case scenarios. The real way racism was combated, however, is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, for what else can civil disobedience be called?

[keaggy220]

Besides, it depends on the ends and on the means. Ending racial segregation in America, for example, was an end that justified the means of passing federal laws that impinge on the freedom to discriminate on racist grounds. But even that end would not have been worth the means of assassinating George Wallace. (Which was actually attempted, though not for that reason.)

Actually I believe the means for ending racial segregation was provided by the founding fathers.

Now I'm worried about both of you.

Passing federal laws that impinge on the "freedom" to discriminate on racist grounds is not a questionable means, John. More in the gray area is affirmative action, which, let's face it, had a big down side. And if you want a more brutal example, anything the allies did in the way of hastening the end of WW II in their favor, with all the civilian deaths those measures caused, are very arguably a legitimate case of the ends justifying the means.

And keaggy, what on Earth are you talking about? One of the great failings of the founding fathers was compromising us out of the possibility of ending racism without going through a series of worst-case scenarios. The real way racism was combated, however, is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, for what else can civil disobedience be called?

I guess it's predictable that people in 2012 would think the founding fathers could have just ended slavery while forming a nation. Can you imagine confronting such a passionate and divisive subject while trying to unite a country? Can you imagine the economic implications on our young broke nation? Good heaven, ending slavery almost ripped our firmly established nation apart 90 years later.

Whether through wisdom or providence the founding fathers left us with all the ammunition needed to rectify what was impossible for them to accomplish at the time. Liberty for all flows through the DNA of the foundations of our nation.

[jbuck919]

I guess it's predictable that people in 2012 would think the founding fathers could have just ended slavery while forming a nation. Can you imagine confronting such a passionate and divisive subject while trying to unite a country? Can you imagine the economic implications on our young broke nation? Good heaven, ending slavery almost ripped our firmly established nation apart 90 years later.

This person in 2012 does not think any such thing, but an inevitable failure is still a failure. The founding fathers knew what a problem they were leaving in place, however apparently necessarily, and it is not as though they could not and did not anticipate where it might lead. If they could not end slavery and make the black man equal, if in fact that produced a fundamental document that recognized slavery and laid the foundation for its legal status for nearly a century, then how did they create the means for an end to that mess?

Whether through wisdom or providence the founding fathers left us with all the ammunition needed to rectify what was impossible for them to accomplish at the time. Liberty for all flows through the DNA of the foundations of our nation.

That is mystical nonsense. The United States was the last important country of its time to abolish slavery and was considered by the rest of the world a reprobate dinosaur for having done it so belatedly. Where were all those other countries that did it before us getting their patriarchal inspiration when ours was evidently failing us?

You are (deliberately?) creating confusion about the word "means." The means for ending slavery was a horrible war under the leadership of a president with the imagination to make sure that abolition coincided with victory, and the means for further advancement of civil rights was an extensive and exhausting movement that involved extraordinary and sometimes extra-legal efforts short of violence. Talk about the end justifying the means.

[keaggy220]

Whether through wisdom or providence the founding fathers left us with all the ammunition needed to rectify what was impossible for them to accomplish at the time. Liberty for all flows through the DNA of the foundations of our nation.

That is mystical nonsense. The United States was the last important country of its time to abolish slavery and was considered by the rest of the world a reprobate dinosaur for having done it so belatedly. Where were all those other countries that did it first getting their patriarchal inspiration when ours was evidently failing us?

You are (deliberately?) creating confusion about the word "means." The means for ending slavery was a horrible war under the leadership of a president with the imagination to make sure that abolition coincided with victory, and the means for further advancement of civil rights was an extensive and exhausting movement that involved extraordinary and sometimes extra-legal efforts short of violence. Talk about the end justifying the means.

The means for ending slavery is found throughout the writings of our founding fathers. An ideal was formed - the magnificent prose which changed the world - that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Brits were fortunate to have a tenacious Christian spend 25 years of his political life being ridiculed in his fight to end slavery.