Jeff Sexton
Unoriginal Hyper-Leftist Wet Dream. In all honesty, had I known that Chemerinsky was the Dean of the Berkely School of Law, I probably would never have picked up this book to begin with. I would have already known most of what he was going to say... and now having actually read it, I can positively say that 95% of my assumptions would have been correct.
Basically, however you feel about the Citizens United ruling, recent SCOTUS decisions, packing the Court, the Electoral College, and the well-debunked "Russian Collusion" conspiracy theory from the 2016 Presidential Election is largely how you're going to feel about this book. It honestly reads as little more than hyper-leftist dreams about everything that has gone "wrong" with America for the last decade or two. Thus, some of you are going to sing this book's praises from the highest places you can as loudly as you can. And some of you are going to want to take a window to those places just so you can be assured that you will be able to defenestrate this book from those places.
Chemerinsky *does* get *close* to some genuinely good ideas, ideas that could *actually* solve a lot of the problems he names... and then quickly backs away from them, for the most part. His one consistent good idea is that the process of "Winner Take All" as it relates to Electoral College votes does in fact need to end - a stance I've had for much of my adult life, particularly my politically engaged adult life. The more interesting things that he addresses but then thinks *secession* is more viable are as they relate to the number of Congressmen. Chemerinsky correctly points out that the only thing limiting the size of the US House to 435 members is a US law passed less than a century ago - and laws can be overturned in a number of ways. Here again, one weakness of Chemerinsky is that in proclaiming the Constitution a threat - and even spending quite a bit of the text here decrying the SCOTUS as a threat - he openly advocates for SCOTUS to take action against this law. But even this idea is hardly original, as people across the political spectrum have been proposing it for many years already.
Another point Chemerinsky gets truly close to a near-original idea (it has been proposed by at least one writer) is when he proposes - briefly, before quickly retracting it and dismissing it as unworkable - that States be broken into "smaller States". But if "Democracy" is truly the end goal, and Chemerinsky wants everyone across the US to be as truly even as possible, why isn't he going full-bore here? As others have written, first, build the House up to its Constitutionally mandated maximum size - every Congressman represents exactly 35,000 people, the Constitutionally mandated minimum number of people per Representative. That gives us something like 11K US Representatives. Now, take Chemerinsky's own note here that "smaller States" would each get 2 US Senators... and make every single one of those US Rep Districts its own State. That would mean that every US Rep represents 35K people... and every Senator represents 35,000 / 2 == 17,500 people each. Meaning that for every 35,000 people, on average 1 Congressman of some level represents just under 12,000 people. Which in some urban areas is considerably less than an entire block, and in some rural areas could be several hundred square miles of territory. But Chemerinsky doesn't go here, instead he just continually reiterates hyper leftist talking points rather than seeking actual solutions to the problems he decries.
Ultimately, I deducted two stars from this book - the first is for the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 12% of the text I read weeks before publication. Even being generous and lowering my 20-30% standard, as I've been trying to do of late, I just can't justify allowing such a small bibliography against such grand claims. Even here, the bibliography itself is quite cherry picked and doesn't show the full scope of what is going on through many of Chemerinsky's claims, but I've never really addressed that issue in other reviews and won't really address it here either.
The other star really was for the lack of objectivity and just how unoriginal very nearly everything about this book was. If you've seen nearly any left-leaning politician or activist speak in the last 20 years, they're all saying much of the same things Chemerinsky is saying here - including more and more of them openly talking of secession, which would be ruinous on us all.
Again, at the end of the day your feelings about this book are largely going to hinge on just how ideologically aligned with extreme leftist US politics you are, so know that when making your decision to read this book. Some of you are going to LOVE this book, and others are going to HATE it, and it will largely be for exactly the same reasons.
Recommended.
Originally posted at bookanon.com.
Unoriginal Hyper-Leftist Wet Dream. In all honesty, had I known that Chemerinsky was the Dean of the Berkely School of Law, I probably would never have picked up this book to begin with. I would have already known most of what he was going to say... and now having actually read it, I can positively say that 95% of my assumptions would have been correct.
Basically, however you feel about the Citizens United ruling, recent SCOTUS decisions, packing the Court, the Electoral College, and the well-debunked "Russian Collusion" conspiracy theory from the 2016 Presidential Election is largely how you're going to feel about this book. It honestly reads as little more than hyper-leftist dreams about everything that has gone "wrong" with America for the last decade or two. Thus, some of you are going to sing this book's praises from the highest places you can as loudly as you can. And some of you are going to want to take a window to those places just so you can be assured that you will be able to defenestrate this book from those places.
Chemerinsky *does* get *close* to some genuinely good ideas, ideas that could *actually* solve a lot of the problems he names... and then quickly backs away from them, for the most part. His one consistent good idea is that the process of "Winner Take All" as it relates to Electoral College votes does in fact need to end - a stance I've had for much of my adult life, particularly my politically engaged adult life. The more interesting things that he addresses but then thinks *secession* is more viable are as they relate to the number of Congressmen. Chemerinsky correctly points out that the only thing limiting the size of the US House to 435 members is a US law passed less than a century ago - and laws can be overturned in a number of ways. Here again, one weakness of Chemerinsky is that in proclaiming the Constitution a threat - and even spending quite a bit of the text here decrying the SCOTUS as a threat - he openly advocates for SCOTUS to take action against this law. But even this idea is hardly original, as people across the political spectrum have been proposing it for many years already.
Another point Chemerinsky gets truly close to a near-original idea (it has been proposed by at least one writer) is when he proposes - briefly, before quickly retracting it and dismissing it as unworkable - that States be broken into "smaller States". But if "Democracy" is truly the end goal, and Chemerinsky wants everyone across the US to be as truly even as possible, why isn't he going full-bore here? As others have written, first, build the House up to its Constitutionally mandated maximum size - every Congressman represents exactly 35,000 people, the Constitutionally mandated minimum number of people per Representative. That gives us something like 11K US Representatives. Now, take Chemerinsky's own note here that "smaller States" would each get 2 US Senators... and make every single one of those US Rep Districts its own State. That would mean that every US Rep represents 35K people... and every Senator represents 35,000 / 2 == 17,500 people each. Meaning that for every 35,000 people, on average 1 Congressman of some level represents just under 12,000 people. Which in some urban areas is considerably less than an entire block, and in some rural areas could be several hundred square miles of territory. But Chemerinsky doesn't go here, instead he just continually reiterates hyper leftist talking points rather than seeking actual solutions to the problems he decries.
Ultimately, I deducted two stars from this book - the first is for the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 12% of the text I read weeks before publication. Even being generous and lowering my 20-30% standard, as I've been trying to do of late, I just can't justify allowing such a small bibliography against such grand claims. Even here, the bibliography itself is quite cherry picked and doesn't show the full scope of what is going on through many of Chemerinsky's claims, but I've never really addressed that issue in other reviews and won't really address it here either.
The other star really was for the lack of objectivity and just how unoriginal very nearly everything about this book was. If you've seen nearly any left-leaning politician or activist speak in the last 20 years, they're all saying much of the same things Chemerinsky is saying here - including more and more of them openly talking of secession, which would be ruinous on us all.
Again, at the end of the day your feelings about this book are largely going to hinge on just how ideologically aligned with extreme leftist US politics you are, so know that when making your decision to read this book. Some of you are going to LOVE this book, and others are going to HATE it, and it will largely be for exactly the same reasons.
Recommended.
Originally posted at bookanon.com.