Perhaps I should put a disclaimer as to why I read this book. I am a "grassroots empiricist," meaning: 1) the literal meaning of words matter and 2) localized community experiences matter more than centralized ideologies. When I first saw the title I immediately was disinclined to read it because: 1) liberty and manifesto do not belong together literally, so 2) I suspected that this was some type of ideological propaganda. I did not really know anything about Mark Levin ahead of time so only the title formed the basis of this opinion.
Precisely because I'm a "grassroots empiricist" that unpacks the meaning of words and puts a premium on actual experiences, my conservative nephew asked me to deconstruct this for him. He agreed with it in principle but thought there were things not quite right about it. As it turns out his intuitions were sound.
The title, in fact, is indicative of a good many hypocrisies wrapped into Levin's thesis. You would be bored to tears if I exposed them all so I'll just feature one. Levin faults the Statist court that came out of the New Deal, and the heavy-handedness of FDR to pack that court. In truth, the Supreme Court was first packed in 1800 by Federalists, and in 1805 had arbitrarily made itself the final arbiter of the Constitution (that role is not accorded to the Supreme Court by the Constitution itself).
Up until the New Deal the Supreme Court demonstrated the same "Statist" tendencies that Levin criticizes, they were just done for a different purpose. Furthermore, by the seventies one could make a fair argument that the "Statist" court had returned to its original nature, branded as the "laissez faire" court in the nineteenth century.
I actually wrote a series of blog posts that unpacked some of the other hypocrisies of this work, once again at the behest of my conservative nephew. I'm neither conservative nor liberal; I believe strongly in fighting the misinformation either ideology tends to generate.
Overall, the work would be better titled: Order and Tyranny. Levin really advocates the type of order typical of a conservative position. There is nothing wrong with that. We need order, just as we need liberty. When you use propaganda to "have it both ways," so to make it seem that your ideology has no trade-offs, is when you create more harm than benefit for society.
Despite these problems I give the book two stars instead of one because, after all, I have no doubt that propaganda is its intent and the book achieves its goal with a fairly well-written style. The people most likely to read it would be likely to embrace it without awareness of the hypocrisies.