The core message of this book seems to say that the United States of America is not as structurally or societally ‘broken’ as many suggest., bur problems exist due to Americans not being motivated, informed and engaged enough to work for their country’s best. Citizens are not pulling towards the common cause in other words.
Within, the author(s) seemingly seek to highlight apparent miss-connections and wasted opportunities that, if realised, would help unify the country and lead it to greater things. The message, at times, is lost in a fog. The unnamed contributors to this self-published book imply that America – the system – does work for those who use it wisely, with the counter-suggestion that many do not, and it is those who tend to complain about ‘victimisation’ and ‘domination’ by so-called uncaring, remote elite forces. It is not a book about gender, race or sexuality – the claims and issues transcend that.
The solution should be relatively simple, if America through its citizenry ‘woke up’, became vigilant (to their preferred perspective) and began to cooperate towards the American ideal and the great potential it apparently offers. Is the damage as real as suggested? Can things change sufficiently? Should it?
It is difficult to tell for sure, as a neutral outsider. The book lacks clarity, direction and polish. It raises some interesting points, but whether they are credible or just a biased opinion is moot – maybe the perspective of the typical reader in the U.S. would be better-placed to answer that. Perhaps the answer is a yes-no one: the system can be both broken but not broken, as strange as that may seem, or sub-optimal, hanging in there by threads and in need of a visit to the emergency room before it is too late. The cause or the causes of the sickness may be recoverable – some treatments being more natural than others. Is the collective patient and its associated caregivers and extended family ready for what may be a comprehensive, extensive and lengthy treatment programme with a bit of pain, sacrifice and change? The patient may be lethargic: this is an anathema to the American system of collective participation. Changing that position, migrating away from the yes-no R-versus-D slanging match may help. This book is not a call for a one-party state, nor a proposition for a radical overhaul to the country’s political fortunes, but in the past things may have been functionally better even with the same system.
It is a book that you need to work with. It could express the same opinions in half the space. As it is, perhaps only the most-engaged will read it, yet those who need to become more engaged will inevitably not pick up the book, and even if they did they will probably not plough through it. Knowing a bit about the authors, their backgrounds, their credentials and other information may help too – there may be a good reason why the author(s) choose to be anonymous, but if they are confident about their claims, why not come on the record and endorse them?
Unfortunately, it is hard to endorse the book. It needs a significant edit to bring coherence to its text, as well as bringing the writing up to par. It has been let down with its execution, so any merit that may exist with its philosophy may be lost by it being passed by.