How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps - Book Summary

Unmasking the demons ripping apart the United States: A closer look at its deep-seated political divide

The United States, in all its vast glory, seems to have lost the ability to embrace diversity in political views. It's becoming a battlefield where dissenting opinions are no longer just different perspectives, but weapons against unity. It appears as if we have tunneled so deep into our differences that we have forgotten the golden bridge of unity that binds us all.

Fortunately, there's hope amidst this chaos. If we reach back into the roots of American ideology, tracing the evolution of its culture and history, we could unearth the panacea. The salve that could heal the current divide lies within the traditional American values of liberty, equality, and rights.

Sure, these stalwart principles have recently come under fire. Yet, in them, we can find the only real chance at stitching back together the fragmented fabric of America.

As we dive into this enlightening journey, you'll discover:

How rights have emerged as a focal point in America's ongoing political controversies,

The alarming ways American history is manipulated to serve political ends, and

Why the concept of human nature is causing major rifts in the political landscape.

Three crucial cornerstones: The pillars that once held the American populace together

Nowadays, it feels like the shared values among Americans are dwindling at an alarming rate. Political disputes keep us on constant alert, our voices raised in anger, and the increasing toxicity of social media discourse only adds fuel to the fire. At times, it feels as if the nation is standing on a precipice, threatening to cleave into two irreconcilable halves.

Essentially, Americans seem to have splintered into two major factions. One faction, which includes the author, firmly believes in the inherent unity of the American populace. The other, however, chooses to magnify the fractures instead. The author refers to these factions as the Unionists and the Disintegrationists, respectively.

How did we end up here? To understand this better, we need to delve deeper into the traditional philosophy that once held the United States together.

The core insight here is: There were once three basic, yet powerful beliefs that acted as the bedrock of American unity.

Unionists argue that the foundation of American unity is built on these three fundamental beliefs, immortalized in the venerable Declaration of Independence.

The first belief stems from a relentless emphasis on rights, specifically, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As per the Declaration, and those who honor its principles, these are not just rights but basic human entitlements that can never be revoked. In this perspective, every human being is inherently valuable and capable of rational thought, and this intrinsic human nature justifies the existence of rights.

The second cornerstone of unity, also featured in the Declaration, is the bold proclamation that all men are created equal.

This doesn't imply that everyone shares the same abilities or characteristics - we all know that some are intellectually gifted, while others excel in kindness or physical prowess. Instead, what the term 'equality' implies in this context is that the law should be applied impartially, regardless of who you are. In other words, authorities should refrain from unfair or arbitrary discrimination and treat all citizens on an equal footing.

The third and final belief is about the role of the government. It posits that the government's primary duty is to protect our rights and ensure equal treatment for all — and its interference should largely stop there. This philosophy subscribes to the idea that the government should keep its hands off the personal affairs of its citizens. As long as individuals don't trample over others' rights, the traditionally American stance is that they should be left to their own devices.

Disintegrationists: A radical rejection of traditional American philosophy

While Unionists uphold the classic American principles of rights, equality, and limited government, where do Disintegrationists stand? Do they too appreciate these principles as noble goals, nudging us to strive harder to reflect the founding ideals of America?

Sadly, the answer is far from affirmative. Disintegrationists stand in stark opposition to every facet of the traditional American philosophy.

They cleverly redefine rights to twist their original meaning. They declare that the long-held notion of equality is nothing but a pretense. Furthermore, they outright deny that any rights spring from human nature.

The crux of the matter here is: Disintegrationists dismiss traditional American philosophy.

Disintegrationists view the concept of "human nature" as a deceptive construct. In their perspective, humans are essentially pliable beings, open to any molding or modification for the sake of progress.

Consequently, since Disintegrationists renounce the idea of a fixed human nature, they also refuse to accept that humans intrinsically possess natural rights.

Originally, these natural rights served as protective shields against unwarranted interference and oppression. However, Disintegrationists have replaced these safeguards with an entirely new set of "rights." Instead of defending individuals' autonomy and freedom, these revamped "rights" allegedly ensure entitlement to goods and services, like healthcare and quality education.

In essence, Disintegrationists have stretched the definition of rights to encompass everything they deem desirable.

Moreover, they've dealt a significant blow to the traditional American comprehension of equality. Unwilling to settle for equal rights and fair treatment by law, Disintegrationists demand nothing short of equality in outcomes. According to them, any disparity between the sexes and races is a clear signal of discrimination and injustice.

In their eyes, there's no other plausible explanation. It's not that men and women naturally lean toward different job choices, for instance. Any discrepancy in outcomes, they argue, is a blatant sign of injustice — and it's up to the government to rectify the situation.

This is the final assault on the traditional American philosophy. If every disparity among individuals is deemed unfair, and if the government is entrusted with administering justice, then we arrive at the Disintegrationist conclusion: the government should increase its interference to resolve these perceived issues.

United by a culture of rights, personal virtue, and freedom

The United States finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with two rival worldviews. On one hand, the Unionist perspective reveres the founding vision of America, while on the other hand, the Disintegrationist viewpoint dismisses traditional philosophy as hopelessly antiquated.

However, it's important to remember that these philosophies don't emerge out of the blue, nor do political theories spontaneously take shape. They are deeply entrenched in something much more profound and elementary—American culture, particularly, American political culture.

At the zenith of its influence, Unionist philosophy thrived on the strength and confidence of a resilient political culture. But, what exactly did this culture entail? What were its constituents, and does it still exist in the contemporary era?

The key insight here is: The US thrives on a culture of rights, personal virtue, and freedom.

Rights hold a central place in Unionist philosophy, yet they're equally integral to the broader American culture. As US citizens, we don't merely discuss rights as lofty ideals; we assert our rights vehemently and bravely.

This culture of rights has played a pivotal role in some of the nation's greatest accomplishments. Lincoln eloquently argued against slavery in the name of human rights, and Martin Luther King's movement was an endeavor for civil rights.

The culture of rights hinges on a unique form of tolerance—a distinctly American propensity to 'live and let live'. Despite our differences, because we acknowledge their rights, we're willing to tolerate all but criminal behavior. This stance is exemplified by America's traditional culture of free speech. We might disagree with the opinions of other Americans, but we respect their freedom to voice their thoughts.

The Founding Fathers advocated for minimal interference in personal affairs. However, that didn't imply an open invitation for immoral behavior. Instead, they expected Americans to exhibit virtue in their conduct.

But they perceived virtue as a private affair. In their view, virtues should be nurtured by institutions such as family and religious establishments—not enforced by government decrees. They believed the government's role should primarily involve protecting citizens' rights.

By limiting the government's role in this manner, the Founding Fathers were essentially safeguarding American citizens' liberty. This is the reason they enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution. They understood that an armed population could stand up for its rights—and its values—against a potentially oppressive and overbearing government.

Disintegrationism turns America's conventional political culture upside down

By now, a pattern is beginning to emerge. The values that once fortified the United States and fostered a robust, stable political culture, are progressively being attacked by Disintegrationists.

Disintegrationists could rally Americans to remain faithful to their ideals. But they choose not to. Instead, they belittle traditional principles, putting American unity at risk in the process.

Against a culture of rights and tolerance, they underscore safety and restriction. In response to the right to self-defense, they plead for dependence on the government. And the list goes on.

The crucial insight here is: Disintegrationism overturns the values that underscore America's traditional political culture.

There was an era in American history when the onus of proving infringement on citizens' rights fell on the government. If the government intended to bar us from doing something, it had to build a robust case to justify its stance. It had to clarify why we were not entitled to act as we wished.

However, attitudes have shifted. Today, people question what entitles you to act in a certain manner—not what gives the government the right to impede you. This signals the Disintegrationists' successful efforts. They have gradually undermined the culture of rights, altering the nature of political discourse.

To clarify this further, consider the case of free speech. Even though it still enjoys legal protection, the cultural foundation that supports freedom of speech is eroding with each passing day. A recent survey reveals that 59 percent of individuals aged between 18 and 34 want the First Amendment modified to restrict "hate speech" and to "reflect the cultural norms of today."

A similar shift in mentality is apparent in the discussion around the right to bear arms. Americans once treasured the privilege of owning guns; they saw it as an embodiment of their freedom and their capability to resist tyranny. Today, however, the Second Amendment is increasingly under siege. As a telling instance from 2018 shows, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens even urged Americans to repeal the Second Amendment.

One can't help but question how long our rights can withstand the erosion when fellow citizens continue to lose faith in them.

There's more light than darkness in America's history

No nation's history is flawless, and the United States is no exception. Our past is a mixed bag, containing tales of courage, benevolence, and justice, counterbalanced by narratives of cowardice, cruelty, and suppression.

While celebrating past victories, it's essential that we also remember historical shortcomings. The mistreatment of Native Americans and Black Americans should never be glossed over or erased from our collective memory.

So, how do we pass judgment on American history while acknowledging its blemishes? How do we evaluate the narrative of our nation?

The pivotal insight here is: There's more good than bad in American history.

The Unionist perspective views American history as a trajectory of progression. It's a chronicle of how lofty founding ideals gradually actualized for all Americans. Despite their flaws, the Founding Fathers were outstanding individuals, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution initiated powerful forces for good.

That's not to say that improvements were immediate. Slavery was rampant in the new republic, and Native Americans faced systematic persecution and displacement. For these marginalized communities, the early years of US history were laden with suffering.

However, the US was not alone in its transgressions. At the time of the American founding, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. Even though some of the Founding Fathers owned enslaved individuals, many publicly denounced the institution of slavery and anticipated its end. This doesn't justify the actions of early Americans—but it does indicate that they were not exceptionally cruel.

Balanced against these grievous actions are the remarkable achievements of the United States, both domestically and internationally. Over the centuries, the US evolved into an increasingly prosperous and equitable society.

Its international accomplishments were even more monumental. In the twentieth century alone, the US played a crucial role in winning World War I, was instrumental in winning World War II, financed Europe's reconstruction, and witnessed the collapse of the USSR. These achievements may seem commonplace, but consider for a moment the potential fate of Europe's Jewish population had the US not intervened against the Nazis when it did.

The narrative of US history is both commendable and lamentable. Declaring that the good outweighs the bad doesn't trivialize the suffering of the oppressed. Instead, it acknowledges that the world is a better place because of the existence of the United States.

The Disintegrationist perspective reinterprets history to cast shadows on the present United States

It goes without saying that Unionists and Disintegrationists hold differing views about American history. While Unionists regard the United States as a primarily positive influence globally, Disintegrationists perceive its history as an anthology of injustices and atrocities.

This debate, though centered around the past, holds significant relevance in the present.

When Disintegrationists tarnish American history, they do so with an eye towards the present. They argue that history is so stained that immediate, radical measures are needed to rectify it.

According to them, racism, oppression, and discrimination are woven into the fabric of America; the only way to redress historical wrongs is to dismantle the system born out of the past.

The significant insight here is: The Disintegrationist perspective reinterprets history to cast shadows on the present United States.

In the Disintegrationist interpretation, America was conceived in sin and has never managed to shake off its racist past. From their viewpoint, the inhumanity of slavery and anti-Black discrimination, coupled with the brutal treatment of Native Americans, was never appropriately addressed. Instead, Americans' racist tendencies merely morphed into subtler forms and permeated all facets of American life.

Such a perspective often leads Disintegrationists to reject the idea that the US possesses any real social adhesive. The notion of the "United" States, to them, merely masks a myriad of unjust hierarchies and conflicting factions.

This interpretation of American history was propagated by historian Howard Zinn, whose widely-read book, A People’s History of the United States, argues that the United States comprises "dominators and dominated," who have been perpetually at odds.

Several contemporary historians subscribe to a similar portrayal of American history. They dissect the past based on class, race, and sex—proposing that concentrating on commonalities only distracts from persisting racist and sexist hierarchies. They take a fundamentally accurate premise—that American society was once both racist and sexist—and extrapolate it into a misleading narrative about present-day America.

Rather than rallying around shared historical narratives, Disintegrationists delve into the past to divide us in the present. Regrettably, their efforts have thus far been alarmingly successful. If they continue to succeed, the future of our great nation hangs in the balance.

In a nutshell

The quintessential message here is:

The fabric of unity that binds the United States is fraying at the edges. The historical, cultural, and philosophical ties that have long united Americans now face unprecedented threats from forces intent on disintegration and division. The country's hope for continued unity and greatness lies in the collective rekindling of the time-honored American values.