America seems distant yet near. The local news is presented according to the American political course. The disruptions on American soil are portrayed as the beginning of the end of the whole civilized world. Notwithstanding the apparent contradictions in the modern political atmosphere, America still positions itself as a beacon of hope.

America, America, America… Started as a kind of social experiment, ruled by the people and for the people, its growing ambiguity puts into question the success of republicanism. Freedom of speech degenerates into quarrels on minor matters while significant problems are intentionally ignored. Cries to unite against exterior enemies silence the voices of inner peace’s advocates. To resolve the contemporary issues, one has to go back in time and find the deep, in-rooted reasons for the polarization of opinions so that America would not collapse under its pride. That’s precisely what does Seth David Radwell in his captivating book.

‘American Schism: How Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing of Our Nation’ is, indeed, thorough research that ties together the French Revolution, Founders, and Trump, not to mention other prominent figures. The author explores American history as a fighting arena of three sets of ideas: Radical Enlightenment (egalitarianism, secular education, and voting); Moderate Enlightenment (rule of the elite, exclusion of specific categories of people from decision-making); and the Counter-Enlightenment (superiority of church over the state). These contradicting forces have been present during the four centuries of American history. Ardent adherents of the three currents are the reason for the modern division in public life.

The book contains three chapters. Three sets of ideas have incompatible differences; the three chapters of the book have a distinct character.

In my opinion and against the others’ viewpoint, the book’s main flaw is its redundant lengthy sentences. The whole book could be reduced by a quarter if the author removed unnecessary questions and repetitions of the same thought. This fault is especially explicit in the first chapter that focuses on the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The research of professor Jonathan Israel of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, is the chapter's foundation. I was sometimes left with the feeling that it was just a retelling of professor’s books on the topic, and Radwell himself added nothing new. The foreword by the professor and the style of the chapter are almost indistinguishable.

The second chapter is the nadir of the book. After leaving Founders, Radwell applies three Enlightenments to explain the twists and turns of American politics up to the modern era. Elegantly galloping through three centuries, the narrative also manages to touch on such sensitive topics as African American rights and suffrage. However, the positive attitude is spoiled by a subchapter dedicated solely to besmirch Trump and Republican Party. Though it is undoubtedly that Trump’s presidency was extraordinary in the bad sense of the word, Radwell’s antagonistic spirit is too negatively charged to be acceptable in historical research.

The third chapter is dedicated to the conclusions. Basing the politics on Enlightenments’ similarities rather than differences is the way out of the political cul-de-sac that characterizes modern-day America. Fight unreason with reason; the thought goes as the red thread throughout the book.

Highly educating, the book’s two chapters were a challenging read, while the central one was an out-of-outer, authentic viewpoint. Thus, my rating is 3/5 stars. I would recommend the book to a mass reader. Yet, be prepared to sometimes strife through lengthy sentences.

Thank you to the author and NetGalley for the ARC of the book.

Intriguing Premise Marred by Hyperpartisanship and Hypocrisy. This is a very well documented polemic whose bibliography comes in at nearly 30% of the text, so that is definitely a positive. The premise, spinning the common American knowledge that the American Founding was grounded on Enlightenment thought on its head and declaring that the wars between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were actually wars between two competing strains of Enlightenment thought, is genuinely intriguing. In laying out the history of what Radwell considers these two separate strains of Enlightenment thought, Radwell is particularly strong - possibly because that is one area of my own knowledge that is somewhat lacking. While knowing Paine and Locke (among others, all of whom Radwell considers on the same side of this divide), the majority of those Enlightenment thinkers that Radwell claims were more radical are ones I had never heard of, much less read or even considered.

It is when Radwell leaves the Founding generation that his hyperpartisanships and hypocrisies become ever more blatant, particularly in his excessive time attacking Donald Trump for his "Counter Enlightenment" philosophies while never once acknowledging - and even actively glossing over - when Democrats do the same things in the same manners. Radwell claims objective truth exists and reason should guide us, yet disparages the recent election security measures taken by Georgia and Texas despite very clearly not having actually read either bill. (Full disclosure: I've read the Georgia bill, and indeed have a history of having read - for at least one term - *every single bill presented in the Georgia General Assembly*. That particular accomplishment was over a decade ago, but I daresay it gives me the authority to challenge the author on this point. ;) ) Further, his hyper progressive blinders are very firmly in place in his disdain for Citizens United - which *defended Hillary Clinton*, for those unaware -, his frequent (in the latter stages of the book) calls for term limits on a wide range of elected and appointed officials, and his disdain for the US Senate and the Electoral College - crucial elements in ensuring the minority's voice is heard at the national level.

Indeed, Radwell's very clear hyperpartisanships and hypocricies when discussing more modern events - including events of 2021 - brings into doubt his thinking, if not his actual scholarship, regarding events hundreds of years old. (While it is hard to doubt such an extensively cited discussion, it is also very easy to cherry pick those sources who confirm one's preconceived ideas and other prejudices.)

I wanted to like this book, based on its description. I wanted to be able to write a glowing review and scream this book's praises as I did two similar books last year. Unfortunately this book simply fell far from the required objective standards to allow me to do so. And yet it *is* an intriguing premise, and if one can wade through the hyperpartisanships and hypocricies, it does actually have a few interesting and discussion worthy points. Thus I believe I am satisfied with giving it two stars, but cannot justify even a single additional star according to my own reading of this text. Perhaps those whose own preconceptions and prejudices more fully align with the author's will feel differently, but I also know of many readers who would likely throw this book off a cliff by around the 35% mark (which is about halfway through the discussion itself). Recommended, but make sure you read many other sources about the issues and histories in question as well.