How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps

How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps Plot Summary

Introduction

America faces unprecedented internal division that threatens the very foundations of national unity. What once held the nation together now seems fragile and contested. Political polarization has reached levels not seen since the Vietnam War era, with Americans increasingly viewing their compatriots across the political divide not merely as misguided but as actively dangerous to the country's future. The core principles that historically united Americans—natural rights, equality before law, limited government, shared cultural values, and a common historical understanding—are now battlegrounds where competing visions of America clash. This fundamental conflict stems from two contrasting perspectives on American identity. Unionism envisions America as founded on universal principles that, while imperfectly realized throughout history, provide an enduring framework for national cohesion and progress. Disintegrationism, conversely, rejects these founding principles as fraudulent masks for systems of oppression, arguing that America must be fundamentally transformed or even dismantled. By examining these competing philosophies through rigorous analysis of American history, cultural development, and political thought, we gain crucial insight into why America seems increasingly unable to maintain the bonds of affection that once transcended partisan divides, and what might be done to restore them before irreparable damage occurs to the national fabric.

Chapter 1: The Unionist Philosophy: Natural Rights, Equality, and Limited Government

The philosophy underlying American Unionism rests on three fundamental principles derived from the Declaration of Independence. First, it holds that natural rights exist independently of government and are inherent to human nature itself. These rights are not privileges granted by authorities but immutable attributes of personhood that governments are established to protect. The Unionist view traces this conception to the synthesis of Judeo-Christian morality and Greek reason, which together recognized both human dignity and the distinctive human capacity for rational thought. Second, Unionism maintains that all individuals possess equal rights before the law. This equality principle never claimed that humans are identical in abilities, circumstances, or outcomes, but rather that each person deserves identical legal protection of their fundamental rights. This represented a profound departure from most of human history, where rights were typically allocated based on birth, wealth, or other status indicators. The founders explicitly rejected such hierarchical thinking, despite their own imperfect application of these principles. Third, Unionism asserts that legitimate government exists primarily to secure these natural rights and ensure equality before law. This view directly challenges both ancient and modern alternatives that see government as an instrument for imposing virtue, achieving collective goals, or restructuring society according to elite visions. It establishes that government derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed, with strict limitations on governmental authority being essential to preserving liberty. The constitutional system designed to implement these principles featured three key mechanisms: enumerated powers that strictly defined governmental authority; checks and balances that prevented any branch from dominating the others; and federalism that balanced national cohesion with local self-governance. This arrangement was deliberately constructed to enable sufficient governmental action while preventing tyranny, particularly the tyranny of majority factions against minority rights. Together, these principles established a philosophical framework that could unite diverse Americans around shared values while allowing for considerable pluralism in personal, religious, and local matters. This Unionist vision sees America not primarily as a collection of competing identity groups or economic interests, but as a nation built on universal principles that transcend such divisions while acknowledging human imperfection in their implementation.

Chapter 2: The Disintegrationist Challenge: Malleable Humanity and Government Control

The Disintegrationist philosophy presents a fundamentally different vision of human nature and governance that directly challenges Unionist premises. Where Unionism sees human nature as fixed and endowed with inherent rights, Disintegrationism portrays humanity as essentially malleable, with no fixed characteristics beyond those imposed by social conditioning. This view, expressed by progressive thinkers from Rousseau to modern critical theorists, suggests that human beings can be fundamentally transformed by altering social structures and power relationships. This malleable-humanity perspective leads Disintegrationists to reject the concept of natural rights. If human nature is entirely socially constructed, then rights cannot be "natural" or pre-political. Instead, rights become whatever society or government decides to provide. This shift fundamentally alters the relationship between citizen and state. Progressive figures like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt explicitly attacked the founders' conception of negative rights (protections against government intrusion), replacing them with "positive rights" - entitlements to goods and services that government must provide, necessarily through redistribution or compulsion. Equality receives a similar redefinition. Disintegrationists dismiss equality before the law as insufficient or even deceptive, arguing that true equality requires equal outcomes, not merely equal treatment. This view posits that persistent disparities between groups inherently indicate discrimination, requiring aggressive government intervention to achieve equity. Intersectionality theory extends this framework by analyzing how multiple identity categories create overlapping systems of disadvantage that require hierarchical compensation through preferential treatment. The Disintegrationist view of government directly contradicts the Unionist model of limited powers derived from consent. Instead, Disintegrationists envision government as the primary engine of social transformation, needing expansive authority to reshape society and human relations according to expert visions. Administrative experts, rather than democratically elected representatives constrained by constitutional limitations, should guide policy. Wilson articulated this vision clearly: "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand," with no principled constraints on its authority. This philosophy transforms American institutions. The doctrine of enumerated powers becomes obsolete when government's proper role is unlimited transformation of society. Checks and balances appear as obstacles to efficient action rather than protections against tyranny. Federalism becomes merely a tactical question of which level of government can most effectively implement desired policies. The judiciary's role shifts from interpreting law to advancing progressive social objectives beyond democratic processes. The Disintegrationist challenge is profoundly seductive because it promises solutions to real inequalities and injustices. However, by rejecting the philosophical foundations that make American unity possible, it accelerates division by encouraging citizens to view themselves primarily through the lens of competing identity groups rather than as equals united by common principles and mutual respect for rights.

Chapter 3: America's Cultural Fabric: Rights, Virtue, and Social Institutions

America's distinct culture flows directly from its philosophical foundations, creating a societal framework that balances individual liberty with social cohesion. This culture of rights requires four key elements working in harmony: tolerance for others' rights even when we disapprove of how they exercise them; robust social institutions that promote virtue; willingness to defend rights against encroachment; and an entrepreneurial spirit that embraces freedom over security. The American tradition of rights requires genuine tolerance—not mere indifference, but active respect for others' freedom even when we disagree with their choices. This tolerance extends furthest in the realm of free expression, where Americans historically defended speech rights even for deeply offensive viewpoints. As Justice Holmes famously wrote, the "marketplace of ideas" requires that even unpopular opinions receive protection, based on the understanding that truth emerges from open debate rather than censorship. This tolerance creates the space for diverse citizens to coexist peacefully despite profound differences. Yet the founders understood that rights alone cannot sustain a flourishing society. Rights must be balanced by moral virtue cultivated through social institutions, particularly family and religious communities. John Adams captured this understanding when he wrote that the Constitution was "made only for a moral and religious People" and would be inadequate for any other. The robust religious liberty enshrined in American law was never intended to marginalize faith but rather to protect it from governmental interference, recognizing religion's essential role in fostering the civic virtues necessary for self-government. American culture also embraces an innate willingness to defend rights against encroachment. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that citizens should possess the means to protect themselves and their communities from tyranny. Throughout American history, the defense of rights has required not just constitutional protections but active vigilance by citizens willing to stand against overreach. This cultural trait appears in contexts from civil rights activism to local resistance against governmental excesses. Finally, American culture celebrates entrepreneurial risk-taking and economic freedom. Unlike societies that prioritize security and stability, America has traditionally valued the creative destruction that accompanies free enterprise. Tocqueville observed this distinctive quality when he described Americans' "boldness of enterprise" as "the foremost cause of [America's] rapid progress, its strength, and its greatness." This cultural emphasis on freedom over security has consistently generated unprecedented prosperity while fostering innovation and social mobility. Together, these cultural elements created a society capable of accommodating tremendous diversity while maintaining essential unity. They established a framework where rights and responsibilities balanced each other, where virtue was cultivated without governmental compulsion, and where freedom could flourish within a coherent social order. This cultural ecosystem proved remarkably resilient because it aligned with fundamental human aspirations while providing guardrails against both atomistic individualism and collectivist tyranny.

Chapter 4: Eroding the Cultural Foundation: Identity Politics and Victimhood

The Disintegrationist assault on American culture has systematically targeted each element of the traditional cultural framework, substituting new values that accelerate national fragmentation. This transformation operates through several mechanisms: replacing tolerance with enforced conformity, weakening traditional institutions, discouraging self-defense, and undermining entrepreneurial values. Free speech, once considered sacrosanct across the political spectrum, now faces unprecedented challenges. The principle that "the remedy for bad speech is more speech" has given way to demands for suppression of "harmful" viewpoints. On college campuses, speech codes and "safe spaces" increasingly shield students from challenging ideas. Social media facilitates mob enforcement of ideological conformity, where transgressions against evolving norms can result in professional destruction and social ostracism. This shift from tolerating disagreement to punishing it creates a climate of fear incompatible with genuine cultural exchange or mutual understanding. Traditional social institutions face similar erosion. The family, once considered the fundamental unit of society, has been reframed as an inherently oppressive structure requiring governmental oversight and intervention. Religious communities that maintain traditional moral teachings find themselves increasingly marginalized and legally threatened. What began as legitimate efforts to address genuine discrimination has evolved into systemic hostility toward institutions that transmit traditional values. As these institutions weaken, government inexorably expands to fill the vacuum, creating dependent citizens rather than self-governing communities. The cultural willingness to defend rights against encroachment has been deliberately undermined through campaigns against gun ownership and self-defense. Beyond specific policy debates about firearms regulations, Disintegrationists promote a fundamental shift in mindset—from self-reliance to dependence on government protection. Those who insist on maintaining the capacity for self-defense are portrayed not merely as misguided but as morally culpable for violence committed by others. This represents a profound inversion of traditional American values regarding personal responsibility and the relationship between citizens and authority. Perhaps most consequentially, Disintegrationism attacks America's entrepreneurial spirit by fostering resentment toward economic success and risk-taking. Wealth creation is reframed as exploitation, with successful entrepreneurs cast as villains rather than contributors to prosperity. This perspective deliberately blurs the distinction between legitimate market success and cronyism, treating all economic inequality as evidence of injustice requiring governmental remedy. The resulting culture of grievance discourages initiative while promoting dependency. This cultural transformation occurs not only through governmental action but through capture of key cultural institutions—education, entertainment, media, and corporate America. Disintegrationist values spread through these channels until they appear as consensus rather than contested ideology. The resulting environment leaves traditionalists feeling increasingly alienated in their own country, with nowhere to escape the advancing cultural revolution. This alienation itself becomes evidence for Disintegrationists that traditional Americans represent a regressive force requiring further marginalization, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of division.

Chapter 5: American History: From Founding Ideals to Expanding Freedom

American history properly understood follows a trajectory of expanding freedom through the continued application of founding principles. This narrative acknowledges both America's profound moral failures and its remarkable capacity for self-correction through recommitment to its original ideals. Rather than viewing American history as either unblemished triumph or irredeemable sin, this balanced perspective recognizes how the Declaration's principles repeatedly served as catalyst for moral progress. The founding generation established revolutionary principles even while failing to fully implement them. Many founders recognized slavery as a moral abomination contradicting their own highest ideals. Thomas Jefferson described slavery as a "moral blot" and "hideous depravity," while Benjamin Franklin became president of an abolition society. The Constitution itself avoided explicitly enshrining slavery, which James Madison refused to acknowledge as legitimate property right. While the founders compromised with existing injustices to establish the union, they created a philosophical framework that would ultimately undermine those very injustices. Lincoln understood this when he described the Declaration as establishing "a standard maxim for free society" that would continually inspire efforts toward greater justice. During the Civil War, he articulated the conflict as fundamentally about whether America would fulfill its founding promise that all men are created equal. The 600,000 lives sacrificed in that conflict testify to the power of founding principles to inspire moral courage and national redemption. The Reconstruction amendments—abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection, and securing voting rights—represented constitutional fulfillment of the Declaration's original vision. The long struggle for civil rights exemplifies how founding principles repeatedly served as moral compass guiding reform. Frederick Douglass explicitly invoked the "great principles of political freedom and natural justice" in the Declaration while demanding their application to black Americans. A century later, Martin Luther King Jr. described the Declaration as a "promissory note" guaranteeing unalienable rights to all Americans regardless of color. The civil rights movement succeeded precisely because it appealed to America's highest principles rather than rejecting them. Similar patterns appear in other freedom struggles. Women's suffrage advocates at Seneca Falls deliberately modeled their declaration after Jefferson's original. Immigrants throughout American history embraced founding principles as their pathway to full inclusion. Economic opportunity expanded dramatically as free-market principles unleashed unprecedented prosperity. America's global influence promoted democracy and human rights worldwide, liberating millions from totalitarian oppression. This historical narrative acknowledges genuine injustices while recognizing that America's distinctive capacity for self-correction springs directly from its founding principles. Unlike nations founded primarily on ethnic identity or religious tradition, America established universal principles that could expand to embrace increasingly diverse populations. The moral failures in American history represent betrayals of founding principles rather than their fulfillment, while reform movements consistently draw inspiration and moral authority from those same principles.

Chapter 6: Reframing the Past: How Historical Revisionism Undermines Unity

Historical revisionism has become a primary weapon in the Disintegrationist arsenal, systematically reframing America's past to undermine its philosophical foundations and cultural coherence. Rather than providing balanced historical understanding, this revisionism selectively emphasizes America's failures while minimizing its achievements, portraying the nation as fundamentally corrupt rather than aspirationally noble despite human imperfections. The revisionist approach begins by portraying America's founding as irredeemably tainted. Where traditional history recognized the contradiction between slavery and founding principles while emphasizing how those principles ultimately undermined slavery, revisionists argue that America was essentially founded on white supremacy, with universal principles serving merely as rhetorical cover for oppression. The New York Times' "1619 Project" exemplifies this approach, claiming that America's "true founding" occurred with the arrival of the first slaves rather than with the Declaration of Independence, and that "nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional" grew from slavery and racism. This reframing extends to economic history, where America's unprecedented prosperity becomes merely the fruit of exploitation. Traditional accounts recognized both genuine abuses and the tremendous wealth-creation that lifted millions from poverty. Revisionists, by contrast, portray capitalism itself as inherently exploitative, drawing direct connections between plantation slavery and modern corporate practices. This perspective deliberately obscures the distinction between market economies that create prosperity and cronyist systems that redistribute wealth to the politically connected. Even America's most noble achievements face revisionist diminishment. The Civil War becomes not a moral struggle against slavery but merely an economic conflict between regions. The Allied victory in World War II, which liberated millions from fascism, becomes morally compromised by America's own alleged militarism and racism. The Cold War triumph of democracy over communism is recast as American imperialism rather than liberation from totalitarianism. These interpretations systematically strip America's history of moral meaning while implying moral equivalence between American imperfections and genuinely evil systems. The revisionist methodology relies on several techniques that distort historical understanding. Presentism judges historical figures exclusively by contemporary moral standards without contextual understanding. Selective emphasis highlights American failures while ignoring comparable or worse failings of other societies. Deterministic frameworks attribute all disparities to deliberate oppression rather than complex historical factors. Together, these approaches create a narrative where America appears uniquely culpable for universal human failings. The ultimate purpose of this revisionism is not historical accuracy but political transformation. By portraying America's past as fundamentally corrupt, revisionists argue that its institutions and principles require complete reconstruction rather than continued development. This approach deliberately undermines national cohesion by suggesting that Americans share no common heritage worth preserving, only a history of oppression that must be repudiated. Traditional patriotism becomes suspect, national symbols become divisive, and American identity itself fractures along lines of perceived historical victimization. This divisive historiography has gained institutional dominance in education, media, and cultural institutions, shaping how younger generations understand their national heritage. The resulting historical alienation leaves citizens without shared narratives or values to unite them across political differences, accelerating national disintegration as competing groups reinterpret the past to serve present political objectives.

Chapter 7: The Stakes of Disunion: Political Polarization and National Future

The conflict between Unionist and Disintegrationist visions represents far more than academic disagreement—it determines whether America can maintain sufficient cohesion to function as a unified nation. The stakes involve not merely policy disputes that can be resolved through normal democratic processes, but fundamental questions about what America is and whether its continued existence in recognizable form is desirable. This existential nature of the conflict explains the intensity of contemporary polarization. Political division has reached levels unprecedented in modern American history. Polls show majorities of both Republicans and Democrats viewing the opposing party not merely as misguided but as dangerous to the nation's future. Significant percentages consider the other side "evil" or believe they do not want what's best for the country. This mutual suspicion undermines the basic trust necessary for democratic governance, where opposing sides must accept temporary political defeat while maintaining faith in shared institutions and future electoral opportunities. This polarization manifests in increasing geographical sorting, with Americans self-segregating into politically homogeneous communities. Urban centers become progressively more progressive while rural areas grow more conservative. As Americans live increasingly among the politically like-minded, their perception of ideological opponents becomes increasingly caricatured and threatening. The result resembles two nations occupying the same territory but experiencing fundamentally different realities, with separate media ecosystems, cultural touchstones, and basic values. Political institutions designed for compromise struggle to function in this environment. Congress increasingly resembles a parliamentary system without parliamentary discipline, where party-line voting predominates but without sufficient majorities to implement coherent agendas. Presidents resort to executive actions of questionable constitutionality to circumvent legislative gridlock. Courts become political battlegrounds as both sides recognize their power to impose victories unattainable through democratic processes. Each institutional dysfunction further erodes public trust in the system itself. The stakes extend beyond governance to fundamental questions of social cohesion. Historically, Americans maintained unity despite differences through shared cultural institutions—from civic organizations and religious communities to patriotic observances and popular entertainment. As these common spaces fracture along political lines, opportunities for cross-partisan human connection diminish. Even commercial brands and sports, once relatively apolitical, become battlegrounds in the culture war, leaving few neutral spaces for Americans to interact as fellow citizens rather than political opponents. If current trends continue, several scenarios emerge—none promising for American unity. Increasing federal dominance could impose progressive values on conservative regions, provoking intensifying resistance and potentially violence. Alternatively, a federalist devolution might allow regions to pursue dramatically different social models, potentially preserving peace at the cost of national coherence. More alarming possibilities include "soft secession" through nullification of federal authority or even formal disunion along geographical lines. The path to renewed unity requires recommitment to founding principles that can transcend identity politics while acknowledging historical injustices. This means recognizing both America's moral failures and its capacity for self-correction through application of its highest ideals. It requires cultural renewal emphasizing shared citizenship above group identity, and institutional reforms that restore appropriate limits on all government branches. Most fundamentally, it demands that Americans decide whether what unites them remains stronger than what divides them—whether the American experiment still represents a vision worth preserving despite its imperfections.

Summary

The fundamental divide in American society stems from competing visions of national identity that cannot be reconciled through normal political compromise. The Unionist vision sees America as founded on universal principles of natural rights, equality before law, and limited government that, despite imperfect implementation, provide an enduring framework for national cohesion across diverse populations. The Disintegrationist alternative portrays these principles as fraudulent masks for systems of oppression, arguing that America requires fundamental transformation or dissolution. This philosophical conflict manifests through cultural battles over free expression, social institutions, and historical understanding, creating increasingly separate Americas occupying the same geographic space. What makes this conflict particularly dangerous is its totalizing nature—it leaves no neutral ground where Americans can engage as fellow citizens rather than ideological opponents. When national symbols become contested, historical understanding fractures along political lines, and even commercial spaces become politicized battlegrounds, the foundations for peaceful coexistence deteriorate. The American experiment has survived previous divisions through recommitment to founding principles that transcend particular identities or interests. Whether it can navigate the current crisis depends on whether sufficient numbers of Americans still believe those principles represent truths worth defending—not because America has perfectly embodied them, but because they provide the only viable framework for maintaining unity amid diversity in a continental republic of over 330 million people.

About Author

Loading...

Ben Shapiro

Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 and entered UCLA at the age of 16, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in June 2004 with a BA in Political Science. He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in June 2007. Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S.His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall, ABCNews, WorldNet Daily, Human Events, FrontPage Mag, Family Security Matters, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBS News, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004), Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005), and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House (Thomas Nelson, 2008), Shapiro has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows around the nation, including "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "Fox and Friends" (Fox News), "In the Money" (CNN Financial), "DaySide with Linda Vester" (Fox News), "Scarborough Country" (MSNBC), "The Dennis Miller Show" (CNBC), "Fox News Live" (Fox News Channel), "Glenn Beck Show" (CNN), "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News) and "700 Club" (Christian Broadcasting Network), "The Laura Ingraham Show," "The Michael Medved Show," "The G. Gordon Liddy Show," "The Rusty Humphries Show," "The Lars Larson Show" (nationally syndicated), "The Larry Elder Show," The Hugh Hewitt Show," "The Dennis Prager Show," among others.

Read more

Related Books by Ben Shapiro

Loading...

The Right Side of History

Ben Shapiro

How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

★★★½☆3.9

Loading...

The Authoritarian Moment

Ben Shapiro

How the Left Weaponized America's Institutions Against Dissent

★★★★☆4.2