What do you think?
Rate this book
We Must Not Be Enemies: Restoring America's Civic Tradition
At the end of his first inaugural address, delivered to a nation deeply divided and on the brink of civil war, Abraham Lincoln concluded, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.” Lincoln’s words ring true today, especially for a new generation raised on political discourse that consists of vitriolic social media and the echo chambers of polarized news media. In We Must Not Be Enemies, Michael Austin combines American history, classical theories of democracy, and cognitive psychology to argue that the health of our democracy depends on our ability to disagree about important things while remaining friends. He argues that individual citizens can dramatically improve the quality of our democracy by changing the way that we interact with one another. Each of his main chapters advances a single argument, supported by contemporary evidence and drawing on lessons from American history. The seven arguments at the heart of the book We need to learn how to be better friends with people we disagree with.2. We should disagree more with people we already consider our friends.3. We should argue for things and not just against things.4. We have a moral responsibility to try to persuade other people to adopt positions that we consider morally important.5. We have to understand what constitutes a good argument if we want to do more than shout at people and call them names.6. We must realize that we are wrong about a lot of things that we think we are right about.7. We should treat people with charity and kindness, not out of a sense of moral duty (though that’s OK too), but because these are good rhetorical strategies in a democratic society.For anyone disturbed by the increasingly coarse and confrontational tone of too much of our political dialogue, We Must Not Be Enemies provides an essential starting point to restore the values that have provided the foundation for America’s tradition of democratic persuasion.
231 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 15, 2019
2 people are currently reading
103 people want to read
About the author
Michael Austin
138 books297 followersI am an English professor who became an administrator who dreams of being a political pundit. After eleven years teaching English and writing books like this, I accepted a position as the Provost and Academic Vice President at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas. All the while, though, I dreamed of being a talking head. Soon after moving into administration, I started to write the Founderstein Blog, which examines contemporary politics from a historical perspective. My most recent book is That's Not What They Meant Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America's Right Wing, a 75,000 word op-ed piece that treats the misuse of history by conservative politicians and media personalities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 23, 2025
I teach a bioethics class with students all over the political spectrum. Things in the class were becoming so polarized that having a good discussion was becoming impossible. Chapters from Michael Austin's excellent book and Austin himself provided an extraordinary context for having productive and necessary conversations among an extremely politically divided group. And it worked! This book is a masterpiece and provides clear advice on having these vital conversations. It shows the best way to manage the current divide among diverse viewpoints is through honest and open discussions and conversations with the people we agree with and those we don't. This book is a treasure; anyone invested in trying to heal a fractured nation will find this a rich resource for finding ways to have the necessary conversations. We must not be enemies, indeed!
July 1, 2020
I can't gush enough about how great this book is. I have been trying to educate myself more about political theory, and one of the big questions I have been wrestling with and trying to find answers to is how the personal and political spheres relate to each other. Do things like ethics and kindness matter in politics, or should politics follow a different logic from that of personal relationships? How much do political conflicts and solutions mirror interpersonal fights and arguments?
The author isn't really setting out to ask and answer that question directly - rather, he is concerned with the question of how we should talk and argue with each other about politics and how our choices of how we treat each other in arguments affect the health of our country, the United States, and its government as a constitutional democracy. But in the process, he sheds a lot of light on how interpersonal ethics and politics can relate to each other. And he does so with a beautifully constructed narrative that is clear, illustrated by fascinating stories, and full of charm and humor. Basically he writes to the reader like the kind of friend you would want to talk about politics with, because you know he is going to be thoughtful and open-minded and will have smart, funny, interesting things to say. And this tone and style perfectly harmonizes with the argument of the book that we should argue with each other in a spirit of civic friendship.
The big overarching theme he explores is the nature of friendship, and how democracy works best within an ethic of friendship, and how our civic well-being becomes much more fragile without that ethic underpinning it. It is a crucial point that democratic institutions and governmental structures by themselves cannot save us from corruption or dysfunction or creeping authoritarianism - we've seen these things on the rise in the U.S. and in "illiberal democracies" elsewhere in the world, where governments retain the form of democracy but lose the spirit and purpose and goals of it. Austin argues that the problem isn't with our democratic form of government - and we can't cure our ills by just changing our system or discarding it and starting over. Rather, we have to recognize that no system by itself will protect us if self-interest and hatred and dehumanizing views of other people spread as the ethical drivers of our national discourse.
He discusses "us versus them" thinking, the historical development of party politics in the U.S., research on whether and how people can persuade each other, the limits of what debates and arguments can accomplish, and how dangerous it can be when there is too little disagreement between friends. He shows how equating friendship with agreement makes people vulnerable to flattery, demagoguery, and manipulation by unscrupulous actors who can all too easily play on people's hatreds to control them.
He also goes deep into an argument for charity and kindness as civic virtues. I think this is especially important because, given our traditions of separation of church and state, I think a lot of people are hesitant to talk about the role of morality in politics, for fear of sounding like they're pushing a theology or being dogmatic. But Austin handles this deftly by arguing philosophically for humanistic values as a kind of civic faith. It does require a leap of faith to believe in such values, and he acknowledges this with courage and forthrightness by characterizing civic friendship as a risk we can choose to take, in accordance with the dictates of our conscience. By taking this risk, we open ourselves up to certain dangers, but he makes a convincing case that it's a risk worth taking.
I also love the stories he chooses from American history and world literature to illustrate his points - the examples often are borderline novelistic, like the incredibly moving story of the friendship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were on opposite sides politically, and the high-drama debates between Abraham Lincoln and his arch-nemesis Stephen Douglas about slavery. I kind of assumed that just by virtue of growing up American, I pretty much knew the gist of American history; but wow, I had no clue about this stuff, and it's super cool.
The author isn't really setting out to ask and answer that question directly - rather, he is concerned with the question of how we should talk and argue with each other about politics and how our choices of how we treat each other in arguments affect the health of our country, the United States, and its government as a constitutional democracy. But in the process, he sheds a lot of light on how interpersonal ethics and politics can relate to each other. And he does so with a beautifully constructed narrative that is clear, illustrated by fascinating stories, and full of charm and humor. Basically he writes to the reader like the kind of friend you would want to talk about politics with, because you know he is going to be thoughtful and open-minded and will have smart, funny, interesting things to say. And this tone and style perfectly harmonizes with the argument of the book that we should argue with each other in a spirit of civic friendship.
The big overarching theme he explores is the nature of friendship, and how democracy works best within an ethic of friendship, and how our civic well-being becomes much more fragile without that ethic underpinning it. It is a crucial point that democratic institutions and governmental structures by themselves cannot save us from corruption or dysfunction or creeping authoritarianism - we've seen these things on the rise in the U.S. and in "illiberal democracies" elsewhere in the world, where governments retain the form of democracy but lose the spirit and purpose and goals of it. Austin argues that the problem isn't with our democratic form of government - and we can't cure our ills by just changing our system or discarding it and starting over. Rather, we have to recognize that no system by itself will protect us if self-interest and hatred and dehumanizing views of other people spread as the ethical drivers of our national discourse.
He discusses "us versus them" thinking, the historical development of party politics in the U.S., research on whether and how people can persuade each other, the limits of what debates and arguments can accomplish, and how dangerous it can be when there is too little disagreement between friends. He shows how equating friendship with agreement makes people vulnerable to flattery, demagoguery, and manipulation by unscrupulous actors who can all too easily play on people's hatreds to control them.
He also goes deep into an argument for charity and kindness as civic virtues. I think this is especially important because, given our traditions of separation of church and state, I think a lot of people are hesitant to talk about the role of morality in politics, for fear of sounding like they're pushing a theology or being dogmatic. But Austin handles this deftly by arguing philosophically for humanistic values as a kind of civic faith. It does require a leap of faith to believe in such values, and he acknowledges this with courage and forthrightness by characterizing civic friendship as a risk we can choose to take, in accordance with the dictates of our conscience. By taking this risk, we open ourselves up to certain dangers, but he makes a convincing case that it's a risk worth taking.
I also love the stories he chooses from American history and world literature to illustrate his points - the examples often are borderline novelistic, like the incredibly moving story of the friendship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were on opposite sides politically, and the high-drama debates between Abraham Lincoln and his arch-nemesis Stephen Douglas about slavery. I kind of assumed that just by virtue of growing up American, I pretty much knew the gist of American history; but wow, I had no clue about this stuff, and it's super cool.
June 17, 2019
I’ve taken comfort, never more so than recently, in the knowledge that Americans are not nearly as divided—no, not by a long shot—as we were before, during, and after the Civil War. That is to say, if Americans could come back from that hopeless abyss, then we’ll survive whatever pothole we’re currently stewing in.
Except (!) perhaps there are some contemporary realities that might make a return to certain civic traditions very difficult, like skyrocketing income inequality and campaign finance practices, both of which destabilize our democracy. How should we address these and many other problems that have been accompanied by the seismic advent of the internet that segregates people into tribes with hyperefficiency? The challenge of fostering an ability to (re)engage with fellow Americans in the ways that lead to progress, when that ability is being eroded in radical new ways, feels seriously overwhelming.
WE MUST NOT BE ENEMIES is both balm (“we’ve done it before--we can do it again”) and remedy (“and here’s how”). The book is a powerful invitation to remember the collective values and mores that made our country possible in the first place. Michael Austin commits and recommits his readers to the idea of persuasion—how foundational it is to moving forward. Here’s what he does so brilliantly: he demonstrates that you cannot, CANNOT, persuade an enemy. You can only persuade a friend. (You don’t even have to like the friend. You only have to desire justice and well-being for them.)
To solve our 21st century problems will take enormous quantities of persuasion, and that persuasion needs to be undergirded by kindness and charity. These are more than facile, glib ideas that harken back to a more overtly religious era. The last chapter of WE MUST NOT BE ENEMIES dwells on how kindness and charity might be seen as strategies for reversing the erosion of our civic traditions. The ideas in this chapter could be expanded into another book, and maybe they will be.
Austin's writing overall is graceful, economical, and in many places even lyrical.The appendices are terrific. I have them all in other places in my library, but it’s wonderful to see them all together, buttressing the idea that persuasion based on charity is both our inheritance as Americans, and the worthy pursuit of a lifetime.
Except (!) perhaps there are some contemporary realities that might make a return to certain civic traditions very difficult, like skyrocketing income inequality and campaign finance practices, both of which destabilize our democracy. How should we address these and many other problems that have been accompanied by the seismic advent of the internet that segregates people into tribes with hyperefficiency? The challenge of fostering an ability to (re)engage with fellow Americans in the ways that lead to progress, when that ability is being eroded in radical new ways, feels seriously overwhelming.
WE MUST NOT BE ENEMIES is both balm (“we’ve done it before--we can do it again”) and remedy (“and here’s how”). The book is a powerful invitation to remember the collective values and mores that made our country possible in the first place. Michael Austin commits and recommits his readers to the idea of persuasion—how foundational it is to moving forward. Here’s what he does so brilliantly: he demonstrates that you cannot, CANNOT, persuade an enemy. You can only persuade a friend. (You don’t even have to like the friend. You only have to desire justice and well-being for them.)
To solve our 21st century problems will take enormous quantities of persuasion, and that persuasion needs to be undergirded by kindness and charity. These are more than facile, glib ideas that harken back to a more overtly religious era. The last chapter of WE MUST NOT BE ENEMIES dwells on how kindness and charity might be seen as strategies for reversing the erosion of our civic traditions. The ideas in this chapter could be expanded into another book, and maybe they will be.
Austin's writing overall is graceful, economical, and in many places even lyrical.The appendices are terrific. I have them all in other places in my library, but it’s wonderful to see them all together, buttressing the idea that persuasion based on charity is both our inheritance as Americans, and the worthy pursuit of a lifetime.
May 27, 2019
Michael Austin's book about "civic friendship" in the United States--what it is, why it's necessary, and why it's possible, even at this moment of intense partisan polarization and disagreement--is quite wonderful. For him, civic friendship--meaning, mostly fundamentally, the willingness to wish one's fellow citizens well, and not wish them ill, and to rely upon institutions of law and constitutional procedure in the promotion for the former and the avoidance of the latter--is not some impossible, elite ideal; he uses a huge range of historical examples, psychological studies, and literary discussions to make his case. In so doing, he engages productively with the fundamental principles of republicanism, liberalism, and democracy. Am I persuaded by his argument? Yes, entirely. I do not, in fact, believe that "not being enemies" will do what he says it will do--that is, "restore America's civic tradition"--because I think there are obstacles, both structural and theoretical, to the effectiveness of his argument. His proposals, in other words, fall short, both on the level of political practice and political ideology. But as an ethical call to behave better as citizens? On that level, Michael's book is thoughtful and superb. Get it, read it, and share it with everyone you know. (More here, if you're interested.)
November 10, 2020
I enjoyed this book about our need to engage in thoughtful, civil discourse.
October 23, 2020
Here's the thing: I agree with the central premise of this book, which is that we must talk to people we disagree with and not simply wall ourselves off from them as a form of ideological purity or sense of "rightness". This is something I have struggled with, am struggling with, and will continue to struggle with. So I read this book hoping for some strategies, some techniques, something to help me "get there" with people. And there were some general things in the book that might prove useful tactics to help me be a better listener and better able to engage more fully with my friends, neighbors, and colleagues that I disagree with politically.
But here's the other thing: this book does not engage AT ALL with real practicalities. I was waiting and waiting for the author to address a very basic premise; that is, when you're experiencing heightened emotion and are upset because the arguments you're hearing are upsetting you, how do you engage with those emotions, let them go, and then turn around and have a fruitful conversation? I didn't need to have an entire section on the post hoc fallacy, I needed something that helped me figure out my frustration and anger and sense of overwhelm.
And the reason we didn't get into the concept of emotions is, I think, a symptom of the biggest issue of this author's book. At no point does he acknowledge the concept of identity. There is an assumption that we are flawed arguers, which is good! But he never seems to engage with the idea that sometimes people have arguments that are fundamentally designed to harm who you are as a human being. How do you talk to someone whose beliefs and opinions actively hurt you? We aren't just neutral vessels ready to have a logical and rational discussion and debate with someone - we're people whose identities are inscribed upon us, and thus we're not just bringing opinions and beliefs to the table, but also our very bodies and lives. I WANT to know how to talk to people like this. I want to learn how to find a way to communicate. But he doesn't talk about that at all. Just a lot of stuff about Lincoln. And some stuff about MLK at the end.
(Which - he holds these two men up as excellent debators, arguers, persuaders... without ever acknowledging that they were assassinated. So. That seems... flawed.)
Another problem was that, when one of the central arguments is that we shouldn't just be able to talk to people we disagree with, but be friends with them - how to actually do that wasn't ever addressed. There was an acknowledgement that we are increasingly moving into echo chambers, so I felt like he really needed to address how to break out from your echo chamber, seek out people you disagree with, and become actual friends with folks. And again, harkening back to the issue with the presumption of a neutral identity - how do you be friends with someone who views people like you as a political problem, as someone who needs to be eliminated, whose life is worth less? And if the author feels like that isn't a place to try to find friendship - why not say that? Why not put that right up front: "I'm not here to say you need to seek out people whose beliefs are such that they think you shouldn't exist." Boom, one of my central issues with this book, gone.
This book was also published post-2016, which made some arguments just bizarre. Rightfully referencing that people shouldn't default to saying anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi, he then goes on to say that it's highly unlikely that anyone we talk to, or anyone we know, is a Nazi. At at time when there are literally Nazis marching in the streets. (Also another place where identity comes in: I'm Jewish, and oh dear god, yes, I know there are Nazis in my city.) I agree that we shouldn't default to calling people Nazis just because they disagree with us; that is an appropriate and important point. But the second part could, and should, have been left out.
I really wanted to like this book. And there are definitely some things in there that are useful, and I'll be taking them away from my read. But this book assumes far too neutral a starting place to be something I can recommend for a common book at my university, and was disappointing in its lack of modern day, useful tactics for developing relationships with people with whom we disagree. This is probably a great book for people for whom politics are a matter of general discussion, but of no serious relevance to their everyday lives. For those of us who live in a space where politics impacts our ability to exist as a human being - maybe find a different book.
But here's the other thing: this book does not engage AT ALL with real practicalities. I was waiting and waiting for the author to address a very basic premise; that is, when you're experiencing heightened emotion and are upset because the arguments you're hearing are upsetting you, how do you engage with those emotions, let them go, and then turn around and have a fruitful conversation? I didn't need to have an entire section on the post hoc fallacy, I needed something that helped me figure out my frustration and anger and sense of overwhelm.
And the reason we didn't get into the concept of emotions is, I think, a symptom of the biggest issue of this author's book. At no point does he acknowledge the concept of identity. There is an assumption that we are flawed arguers, which is good! But he never seems to engage with the idea that sometimes people have arguments that are fundamentally designed to harm who you are as a human being. How do you talk to someone whose beliefs and opinions actively hurt you? We aren't just neutral vessels ready to have a logical and rational discussion and debate with someone - we're people whose identities are inscribed upon us, and thus we're not just bringing opinions and beliefs to the table, but also our very bodies and lives. I WANT to know how to talk to people like this. I want to learn how to find a way to communicate. But he doesn't talk about that at all. Just a lot of stuff about Lincoln. And some stuff about MLK at the end.
(Which - he holds these two men up as excellent debators, arguers, persuaders... without ever acknowledging that they were assassinated. So. That seems... flawed.)
Another problem was that, when one of the central arguments is that we shouldn't just be able to talk to people we disagree with, but be friends with them - how to actually do that wasn't ever addressed. There was an acknowledgement that we are increasingly moving into echo chambers, so I felt like he really needed to address how to break out from your echo chamber, seek out people you disagree with, and become actual friends with folks. And again, harkening back to the issue with the presumption of a neutral identity - how do you be friends with someone who views people like you as a political problem, as someone who needs to be eliminated, whose life is worth less? And if the author feels like that isn't a place to try to find friendship - why not say that? Why not put that right up front: "I'm not here to say you need to seek out people whose beliefs are such that they think you shouldn't exist." Boom, one of my central issues with this book, gone.
This book was also published post-2016, which made some arguments just bizarre. Rightfully referencing that people shouldn't default to saying anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi, he then goes on to say that it's highly unlikely that anyone we talk to, or anyone we know, is a Nazi. At at time when there are literally Nazis marching in the streets. (Also another place where identity comes in: I'm Jewish, and oh dear god, yes, I know there are Nazis in my city.) I agree that we shouldn't default to calling people Nazis just because they disagree with us; that is an appropriate and important point. But the second part could, and should, have been left out.
I really wanted to like this book. And there are definitely some things in there that are useful, and I'll be taking them away from my read. But this book assumes far too neutral a starting place to be something I can recommend for a common book at my university, and was disappointing in its lack of modern day, useful tactics for developing relationships with people with whom we disagree. This is probably a great book for people for whom politics are a matter of general discussion, but of no serious relevance to their everyday lives. For those of us who live in a space where politics impacts our ability to exist as a human being - maybe find a different book.
July 23, 2019
This is one of the best books I've read in a really long time. This is something that I want to read over and over again, give to friends, and talk about with strangers. We Must Not Be Enemies discusses a massive amount of important subjects and presents them in a fantastic way. Austin is highly logical and talks about complicated, controversial topics in a smooth and understand way. Almost every page of this book was enlightening and thought-provoking -- to the point where I was upset no one I knew had read it to discuss it with them. Austin fills the book with apt quotes, the first chapter opening with: "If American democracy fails, the ultimate cause will not be a foreign invasion or the power of big money or the greed and dishonesty of some elected officials or military coup...It will happen because we -- you and I --become fearful of each other, of our differences and of the future, that we unraveled the civic community on which democracy depends."
If you're looking for something that's intense in its realism and something that challenges you to do better -- this is what you want.
If you're looking for something that's intense in its realism and something that challenges you to do better -- this is what you want.
January 1, 2019
I had a chance to read an advanced copy of the book. Well, truth be told, I've had many dinner conversations with the author about the topics in this book. Nevertheless, I do think people who are not related to the author will find value in its contents.
Austin has spent decades studying and writing about the relationship between politics and public discourse. He brings his expertise to the subject of how people talk to each other about politics. The book takes the current situation of polarized debates on politics and applies rhetorical analysis and historical models to the problem of people failing to build common ground enough to even debate.
It turns out the the US and other democracies experience this as a persistent problem, so there is a lot of historical examples (Jefferson/Adams foes to friends, Lincoln-Douglas debates, Eisenhower on public vs private policy views on school desegregation, etc.).
Here is the Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1: "The Height to Be Superb Humanity"
Chapter 2: "The Apprenticeship of Liberty"
Chapter 3: "We Are Not Enemies, but Friends"
Chapter 4: Parties and Political Tribes
Chapter 5: The Great American Outrage Machine
Chapter 6: The Opposite of Friendship
Chapter 7: The Majesty of Persuasion
Chapter 8: Agreeing to Disagree
Chapter 9: "Think It Possible You May Be Mistaken"
Chapter 10: The Vision and the Dream
Appendix A: James Madison "Federalist No. 10"
Appendix B: John Quincy Adams, _Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory_
Appendix C: Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_
Reading the book not only taught me ways that I can change how I talk with others about politics (and a host of other tension-filled topics). I learned a lot about US history, ancient Athens, European philosophy, and contemporary science on evolutionary psychology, cognition, game theory, and rhetoric.
Here is a passage that explains a bit about the aim of the book behind all the historical examples and scientific theories:
"Arguing with people we _do_ want to preserve a relationship with also teaches us how to argue with people we _should_ want to preserve a relationship with. When we disagree with our friends, we show respect and deference. We constantly signal that our disagreement is not a reflection of the way we feel about them. We take steps to ensure that arguments about things that reasonable people of goodwill can view in different ways. We do, in other words, all the things that we should always do when talking to other human beings about things that they consider important" (This quote is on page 79, but it could shift by one page between the early version I have and the final version for sale).
In the 21st Century, we've developed a lot of technology for communicating with each other. Austin's book gives us some guidance on how to increase the quality of our communication.
Austin has spent decades studying and writing about the relationship between politics and public discourse. He brings his expertise to the subject of how people talk to each other about politics. The book takes the current situation of polarized debates on politics and applies rhetorical analysis and historical models to the problem of people failing to build common ground enough to even debate.
It turns out the the US and other democracies experience this as a persistent problem, so there is a lot of historical examples (Jefferson/Adams foes to friends, Lincoln-Douglas debates, Eisenhower on public vs private policy views on school desegregation, etc.).
Here is the Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1: "The Height to Be Superb Humanity"
Chapter 2: "The Apprenticeship of Liberty"
Chapter 3: "We Are Not Enemies, but Friends"
Chapter 4: Parties and Political Tribes
Chapter 5: The Great American Outrage Machine
Chapter 6: The Opposite of Friendship
Chapter 7: The Majesty of Persuasion
Chapter 8: Agreeing to Disagree
Chapter 9: "Think It Possible You May Be Mistaken"
Chapter 10: The Vision and the Dream
Appendix A: James Madison "Federalist No. 10"
Appendix B: John Quincy Adams, _Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory_
Appendix C: Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_
Reading the book not only taught me ways that I can change how I talk with others about politics (and a host of other tension-filled topics). I learned a lot about US history, ancient Athens, European philosophy, and contemporary science on evolutionary psychology, cognition, game theory, and rhetoric.
Here is a passage that explains a bit about the aim of the book behind all the historical examples and scientific theories:
"Arguing with people we _do_ want to preserve a relationship with also teaches us how to argue with people we _should_ want to preserve a relationship with. When we disagree with our friends, we show respect and deference. We constantly signal that our disagreement is not a reflection of the way we feel about them. We take steps to ensure that arguments about things that reasonable people of goodwill can view in different ways. We do, in other words, all the things that we should always do when talking to other human beings about things that they consider important" (This quote is on page 79, but it could shift by one page between the early version I have and the final version for sale).
In the 21st Century, we've developed a lot of technology for communicating with each other. Austin's book gives us some guidance on how to increase the quality of our communication.
January 13, 2020
Drawing on a number of literary and social science traditions, Austin challenges us not to push for politeness or even civility in our political debates. Rather, a strong democracy requires its citizens to have hard conversations, rather than avoiding political disagreements for the sake of comfortableness. As he notes: “Discomfort produces tension, and tension is essential to growth, compromise, and forward movement” (p. 8).
May 31, 2021
This is an absolute must read in our divisive and even nasty times. Michael Austin argues through clear prose, sound reasoning, and excellent research that a democracy depends upon our ability to talk to each other in a civil manner.
August 16, 2020
All united to support Big Brother. And if enough are united, than there will be no problem to shoot the rest who think they can be different.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews