The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution

Every so often, I come across one of those books that really makes me think. Michael Lind's penetrating look at modern America, "The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution," is one of those books. I should elaborate a bit on that statement: books that REALLY make me think are ones that I will ponder at odd times during the day, or think about as I am falling asleep at night. I usually don't do that with a mass-market paperback or the latest popular novel. No, certain books on history, society, or philosophy sometimes find me puzzling out their theses while I engage in the mundane activities of daily life. Not every book has such an effect on me, but Lind's effort did. Written nearly ten years ago, "The Next American Nation" asks questions and puts forth conclusions imbued with intelligent insight and forceful conviction. It's iconoclastic, attacking the dogmas that presently govern every facet of our society. Despite the book's age, the issues Lind addresses continue to have relevance in the here and now. The author was once an editor at Harper's and The New Republic, as well as a contributor to The New York Times and The Washington Post."The Next American Nation" probably falls under the category of American Studies, a once vaunted field of scholarship that fell on hard times once the multiculturalists took over academia. Lind's explorations borrow liberally from history, politics, sociology, and philosophy in a quest to put forth an overarching argument about where America should go in the future. According to the author, the United States has experienced three revolutions during its history, and it must experience a fourth one if it is to survive. Lind claims these revolutions birthed three distinct republics: Anglo-America (1789-1861), Euro-America (1875-1957), and Multicultural America (1972-present). Each republic put forth a national formula unique to its time. Anglo-America associated itself with Protestant Christianity flowing from a dominant Anglo-Saxon population. Euro-America embraced all white Europeans as authentic citizens while supporting a broader Judeo-Christian ethic. Multicultural America, which Lind despises for reasons he explains in minute detail, rejects the emphasis on Americans of European descent by elevating minorities to the status of autonomous nations within the larger society. Multiculturalists reject Christianity, replacing it with secular humanism as the new civic religion. Wars and other social turmoil led to the rise of these republics. Each republic survived due to grand compromises, extraconstitutional bargains that allowed the upper classes to thrive. Anglo-America's implicit agreement between the northern upper class and the southern planters allowed slavery to thrive until the Civil War. In Euro-America, the agreement was between white industrialists and poor white laborers to keep non-whites out of the work force. Multicultural America thrives on the repudiation of wh

It is impossible to do justice to such a wide-ranging book in only a few paragraphs. Fundamentally, Lind provides a three-phase interpretation of American history. As he sees it, the U.S. has experienced three genuine "revolutions": the American Revolution which led to the era of "Anglo America" (1789-1860), the Civil War/Reconstruction which led to "Euro-America" (1876-1954) and the Civil Rights Revolution which led to "Multicultural America" (1970-present).The book's middle chapters are a devastating critique of today's status quo. Lind finds fault across the political spectrum. "Since the 1970s ... racial preference policies, associated with the political left, have been extended into one area of American life after another ... [Meanwhile] government policies unfavorable to labor, of the kind one thinks of as conservative, have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations." However, "In reality there is no contradiction between left-wing civil rights policy and right-wing economics."Instead of threatening the system, multiculturalism is corporate America's secret weapon. In the early 1970s it was President Nixon who instituted the first great wave of affirmative action and school busing, with the intent of driving a wedge between the labor and civil rights movements. (The strategy worked.) After the 1990 census, the first Bush administration collaborated with the civil rights establishment to reapportion and create as many black and Hispanic congressional districts as possible, thereby pulling the rug out from under white Democrats in surrounding districts and making it easier for the GOP to win control of Congress in 1994. As Lind notes: "Tokenism provides suitably 'progressive' camoflauge for a system of divide-and-rule politics ... Without the political division of wage-earning white, black and Hispanic Americans along racial lines, it is doubtful that the white overclass would have been able to carry out its agenda of destroying unions, reducing wages, cutting employee benefits, replacing full-time workers with temps, and shifting the burden of taxation from the rich to the middle class, with so little effective opposition."Today there is no two-party system in the U.S. Rather, we have a one and a half party system -- a socially conservative corporate party (the Republicans) and a socially liberal corporate party (the Democrats). The "conservative" elites on Wall Street and the "liberal" elites in Hollywood both support outrageously high rates of immigration, affirmative action, and a dogmatic commitment to free trade.Lind puts forward a series of policy proposals that are an iconoclastic blend of conservatism and liberalism. Lind favors a system of "proportional voting" that would blow up the two-party duopoly and open the door to new parties and policy options. He would break the grip of special interests by banning all paid political advertising and replacing it with free and equal media time and mandatory debates.

Mr. Lind has provided us with an excellent look of America's past, present, and our possible future. His encouragment of interrmarrige to further unite the nation, and to increase assimilation is outstanding. I have some problems with his analysis of the "white Overclass" however. He makes it seem as if there is a group of super wealthy elites whoes only purpose in life is to destroy the middle-class. He points mainly to the growing wealth gap in America. However, he ends the book on a postive note. He shows us how to fix the problems in our society, and showing us that in the past, time and time again, Americans have always reinvented their state and society to point America in a better direction.

I read this book because it was mentioned in "Civil War II" by Thomas Chittum. I like Linds book for his description of the way things are in our society, but I don't like the solution he proposes to the increasing level of ethnic conflict, which is intermarriage. I really enjoyed this book and I think it had a greater impact on me than the other reviewers because I read Chittum's book first.

Michael Lind provides a fantastic reinterpretation of American history while asserting a unique and contrarian vision for the future. He divides American history into three eras -- the first from before the Revolution through the Civil War, the Second from the Civil War to the early 60s, and the final one from the 60s to the current. He says the epochs differed from each other in that each one had its own informal (but very real) set of criteria that would determine whether a particular individual qualified as a "true" American citizen. To qualify for that title in the first era, one had to be white, Anglo-saxon, and Protestant. In the next era, a de facto American was considered to be anyone who was white and Christian. He describes the current era in overwhelmingly negative terms. First, he points out that affirmative-action programs have served to divide, rather than unite, the people of this nation by making individuals conceive of themselves as members of some artificial bureaucratically-invented ethnic group, rather than as members of an ethnically diverse America. Everyone except white males gets preferences these days, and Lind calls for the abolition of affirmative action by quoting the noble Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite taking a conservative stance on that one particular issue, (and, arguably, a few of his other stances are fairly conservative) Lind is no right-wing ideologue. In fact, he argues that the Republican and Democratic Parties (he used to be a Republican before changing his tune) are both dominated by the rich and influential through our campaign-finance system, which he likens to bribery. Lind writes extensively on the concentration of wealth in this country that has occurred over the last 25 years, and he blames conservatives who shifted the tax burden from the rich onto the poor. He proposes free college education for everyone, and a return to a progressive tax system based on one's ability to pay. Lind takes issue with the theory of free trade, whi! ch he asserts has worked only to the benefit of the rich and upper-middle class in this country. He also argues for a more restrictive immigration policy that is based on the admission of technically skilled foreigners into the country, asserting that such a policy would improve equality and efficiency in the economy. Lind addresses so many issues with such intelligence and insight that it is difficult to detail them all here. Lets just say he offers a brilliant and onorthodox view of history, and advances a comprehensive plan to get American past our current quagmire, and into our "fourth era." His policy prescriptions and social perspective are developed by taking the very best ideas from the right and left, and melding them together. (on the balance, he is slightly left of the center, but certainly unique even among people in that grouping) While I didn't agree with everything he said (i'm somewhat more to the left), I was very impressed with this boo