Very few talk today talk about the Enlightenment. What i loved about American Schism is the journey it provides to just how the age of reason forged our young nation.

It is not surprising that with the disappearance of reason in our political dialogue, this book resonates so clearly today.

I would consider American Schism the freshest history /politics book i have read in a long time. Bravo!

America seems distant yet near. The local news is presented according to the American political course. The disruptions on American soil are portrayed as the beginning of the end of the whole civilized world. Notwithstanding the apparent contradictions in the modern political atmosphere, America still positions itself as a beacon of hope.

America, America, America… Started as a kind of social experiment, ruled by the people and for the people, its growing ambiguity puts into question the success of republicanism. Freedom of speech degenerates into quarrels on minor matters while significant problems are intentionally ignored. Cries to unite against exterior enemies silence the voices of inner peace’s advocates. To resolve the contemporary issues, one has to go back in time and find the deep, in-rooted reasons for the polarization of opinions so that America would not collapse under its pride. That’s precisely what does Seth David Radwell in his captivating book.

‘American Schism: How Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing of Our Nation’ is, indeed, thorough research that ties together the French Revolution, Founders, and Trump, not to mention other prominent figures. The author explores American history as a fighting arena of three sets of ideas: Radical Enlightenment (egalitarianism, secular education, and voting); Moderate Enlightenment (rule of the elite, exclusion of specific categories of people from decision-making); and the Counter-Enlightenment (superiority of church over the state). These contradicting forces have been present during the four centuries of American history. Ardent adherents of the three currents are the reason for the modern division in public life.

The book contains three chapters. Three sets of ideas have incompatible differences; the three chapters of the book have a distinct character.

In my opinion and against the others’ viewpoint, the book’s main flaw is its redundant lengthy sentences. The whole book could be reduced by a quarter if the author removed unnecessary questions and repetitions of the same thought. This fault is especially explicit in the first chapter that focuses on the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The research of professor Jonathan Israel of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, is the chapter's foundation. I was sometimes left with the feeling that it was just a retelling of professor’s books on the topic, and Radwell himself added nothing new. The foreword by the professor and the style of the chapter are almost indistinguishable.

The second chapter is the nadir of the book. After leaving Founders, Radwell applies three Enlightenments to explain the twists and turns of American politics up to the modern era. Elegantly galloping through three centuries, the narrative also manages to touch on such sensitive topics as African American rights and suffrage. However, the positive attitude is spoiled by a subchapter dedicated solely to besmirch Trump and Republican Party. Though it is undoubtedly that Trump’s presidency was extraordinary in the bad sense of the word, Radwell’s antagonistic spirit is too negatively charged to be acceptable in historical research.

The third chapter is dedicated to the conclusions. Basing the politics on Enlightenments’ similarities rather than differences is the way out of the political cul-de-sac that characterizes modern-day America. Fight unreason with reason; the thought goes as the red thread throughout the book.

Highly educating, the book’s two chapters were a challenging read, while the central one was an out-of-outer, authentic viewpoint. Thus, my rating is 3/5 stars. I would recommend the book to a mass reader. Yet, be prepared to sometimes strife through lengthy sentences.

Thank you to the author and NetGalley for the ARC of the book.

An eye-opening read. While it's easy to believe the current divide in the country is a recent event, this book uncovers the history of how divided the country has been throughout history and that, while not easy, the path to coming together is in front of us if we're willing to do the work.

Few books are written for the general public that blend academic-level qualitative analysis of the past with sustainable solutions for the present while maintaining readability for those new to the content covered. Seth Radwell's book, which traces the origins, continued legacy, and recent dilution of the U.S. Enlightenment and classical Liberal thought, does just that.

Influenced by Professor Jonathan Israel's work, Radwell argues that there were two contending schools of Enlightenment thought —the radicals (Spinoza in Europe and Jefferson and Paine in the U.S.) and moderates (Locke in Europe and Hamilton and Adams in the U.S.). The former group was more supportive of secularism, democracy, and egalitarianism, while the latter was friendlier to established ideas and institutions such as the Christian Church, the protection of property, and hierarchy. It was for this reason that there was such contestation during the first decades of the U.S. Radwell also argues that, while the word "Enlightenment" has left our vernacular, these two competing visions for America have continued to influence policy and society. In tracing this history, Radwell includes an allegory that is later revealed and expanded on in the final part of the book; that while the formulation of this nation was filled with contestation, both camps subscribed to reason and the quest for objective truth. It was through these thought processes that compromise was attained. To Radwell, this way of thinking has been lost and has culminated with counter-enlightenment ideas that have caused our nation to be divided.

Radwell's book thus conveys two ideas that are important to the U.S.' future: one, it shows the continued importance of liberal thought to the U.S. even as we either forget, misinterpret, or neglect it; and secondly, that even though there will always be divergent views on how the U.S. should run, creative consensus can be attained through rationalism and adherence to finding objective truth. For anyone looking to gain a solid grasp of the ideological foundations of this nation and its continued impact, this book is a great place to start. The author has done a wonderful job bringing these ideas together and narrating their evolution while providing a comprehensive bibliography for further reading.

I am teaching a class American History as an elective and a friend recommended this book.

The discussion of the Enlightenment is very helpful and illuminating, especially related to the founding of the United States.

But the most fascinating part was how the book uses the differing Enlightenment philosophies as lens to better understand discrete epochs of American History, such as Reconstruction, the populist movement, and the civil rights era.

I think this is great read.

I got a preview copy of this book and was really surprised by how engaging it was.

I don't always love books about contemporary politics but usually like history. This book has great historical analysis and some very interesting takes on American events of the last centuries.

But it also presents an entirely fresh take on how crazy our public debate has become and suggests returning to a more respectful appreciation of our differences.

I would recommend highly. I feel like I learned so much and have a new appreciation for the ideals that make America unique. (l

American Schism by Seth David Radwell provides a fresh perspective on the current political dilemma in this country. Instead of each side blaming the other side, Radwell takes a deep dive into history to make better sense of what is happening to our republic today.

Through a deep dive into foundational documents and the influence of the European Enlightenment, Radwell uncovers that today’s raging conflicts have their roots in the fundamentally different visions of America that emerged at our nation’s founding. In American Schism, Radwell looks at our country’s history and ongoing political tensions through the lens of the Radical Enlightenment versus the Moderate Enlightenment, and their dynamic interplay with Counter-Enlightenment movements over the last few centuries. With a firm grasp of historical context and reality, he offers a new vision for America with practical action steps for repairing our rift and healing our wounds.

Ultimately what Radwell recommends in an entirely novel approach. He argues, we need to change the nature of today’s political debate by fighting unreason with reason, by returning to a rational discussion divorced from the extreme views on both the left and right. Our current debate is not only counterproductive but it is tearing us apart. Radwell believes we have more that binds us together.

A must read for anyone interested us coming together as a nation.

American Schism is a foundational work for understanding the ideological conflicts in the United States from the founding era to today. Radwell does an incredible job in charting the two strains of "Enlightenment" thought: one radical, one moderate, that has formed the underlying basis for many of the debates in American politics. It will serve a wide audience struggling to make sense of the divisions in our country and hopefully provide a way forward for reconciliation and progress.

I have read a fair amount of political commentary, both magazines and books, related to the dysfunctional nature of our current political environment. Many are quite superficial.

I found Radwell's approach in American Schism quite unique. By using the lens of the Enlightenment, he sheds much light not only on today's political debate but on many of the most important eras in our history.

I learned so much from this book, and really enjoyed the comparisons the author draws to other countries, particularly France. While I knew something of the Enlightenment, I never realized there were such radically different schools. And I had no idea that the competition between these schools was so consequential for the founding of the United States.

Finally, while the book proposes and discusses some fascinating and quite difficult issues, it does so in a style that is quite approachable and not academic. For example, the discussion of populism and its positive and negative effects on society were illuminating

I would strongly recommend this for anyone concerned about our democracy.

Intriguing Premise Marred by Hyperpartisanship and Hypocrisy. This is a very well documented polemic whose bibliography comes in at nearly 30% of the text, so that is definitely a positive. The premise, spinning the common American knowledge that the American Founding was grounded on Enlightenment thought on its head and declaring that the wars between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were actually wars between two competing strains of Enlightenment thought, is genuinely intriguing. In laying out the history of what Radwell considers these two separate strains of Enlightenment thought, Radwell is particularly strong - possibly because that is one area of my own knowledge that is somewhat lacking. While knowing Paine and Locke (among others, all of whom Radwell considers on the same side of this divide), the majority of those Enlightenment thinkers that Radwell claims were more radical are ones I had never heard of, much less read or even considered.

It is when Radwell leaves the Founding generation that his hyperpartisanships and hypocrisies become ever more blatant, particularly in his excessive time attacking Donald Trump for his "Counter Enlightenment" philosophies while never once acknowledging - and even actively glossing over - when Democrats do the same things in the same manners. Radwell claims objective truth exists and reason should guide us, yet disparages the recent election security measures taken by Georgia and Texas despite very clearly not having actually read either bill. (Full disclosure: I've read the Georgia bill, and indeed have a history of having read - for at least one term - *every single bill presented in the Georgia General Assembly*. That particular accomplishment was over a decade ago, but I daresay it gives me the authority to challenge the author on this point. ;) ) Further, his hyper progressive blinders are very firmly in place in his disdain for Citizens United - which *defended Hillary Clinton*, for those unaware -, his frequent (in the latter stages of the book) calls for term limits on a wide range of elected and appointed officials, and his disdain for the US Senate and the Electoral College - crucial elements in ensuring the minority's voice is heard at the national level.

Indeed, Radwell's very clear hyperpartisanships and hypocricies when discussing more modern events - including events of 2021 - brings into doubt his thinking, if not his actual scholarship, regarding events hundreds of years old. (While it is hard to doubt such an extensively cited discussion, it is also very easy to cherry pick those sources who confirm one's preconceived ideas and other prejudices.)

I wanted to like this book, based on its description. I wanted to be able to write a glowing review and scream this book's praises as I did two similar books last year. Unfortunately this book simply fell far from the required objective standards to allow me to do so. And yet it *is* an intriguing premise, and if one can wade through the hyperpartisanships and hypocricies, it does actually have a few interesting and discussion worthy points. Thus I believe I am satisfied with giving it two stars, but cannot justify even a single additional star according to my own reading of this text. Perhaps those whose own preconceptions and prejudices more fully align with the author's will feel differently, but I also know of many readers who would likely throw this book off a cliff by around the 35% mark (which is about halfway through the discussion itself). Recommended, but make sure you read many other sources about the issues and histories in question as well.