American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good by Colin Woodard

American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good Reviews

• 
  Randal White

  What is more important? An individual's right's or the common good of the community? This is the subject Woodard has taken on. He discusses the struggle between the two over the length of our countrie's history. I was surprised that the question first came up long ago, way back during the original conventions to draft our Constitution. Woodard does an admirable job of describing the problem throughout our history, finding that sometimes the pendulum swings towards the individual, sometimes towards the overall good of society. It is evident that the struggle will continue in the future, and that it is important that the balance does not tilt to far either way. Along the way, the author presents a good job of presenting facts, seemingly not having an agenda towards either side of the argument. I feel that this is an important book for the current times, as our government seems to be frozen in place, with neither side willing to work towards an acceptable, balanced solution. If we don't fix it soon, woe onto us!The book was well written, flowed nicely, and was extensively documented with footnotes. A good read!
• 
  David

  Having previously read and enjoyed Colin Woodard's "American Nations", I knew that his latest book would likely be a worthwhile read but I enjoyed even more than I thought. I'm really glad however I read "American Nations" first as it really is the premise behind much of the ideological differences that the different parts of our country have. But, if you haven't read this, he breaks these areas down again before moving into how it's affected our nation's destination from before the Revolutionary War to modern day. It really gives you a perspective on how the divisions in our nation's political mindsets are not only quite drastic, but extremely deep rooted historically. I would consider this must reading for anyone interested in both the history and political structure of the United States. I'd like to thank Viking Books for reaching out to me and providing me a free copy of this book. I highly recommend both this and "American Nations."
• 
  Alan Johnson

  This is a fascinating panorama of American history, pointing out many of the facts, often unknown to most people today, about both the libertarian and communitarian strains of that history. It builds on Woodard's earlier book about the regional subcultures of American history and their roots in English, continental European, Hispanic, and Native American cultures. Although I may disagree with a few details, here and there, American Character is, overall, an excellent factual and interpretive account. The book concludes with recommendations on how to repair the fractured politics of American history and attract most, but not all, American political subcultures into a consensus that recognizes both individual liberty and the common good.
• 
  Mike Harry

  This was a disappointment. 'American Nations' was a less biased more readable critique of the regional differences of the country. This often devolves into propagandistic sarcasm.
• 
  Joe Stack

  The subtitle about this being a history of struggle between individual liberty and the common good in the U.S. is an accurate description of this book. The author makes a strong case that the U.S. does not have a singular national character. He breaks the country into 11 parts, each having its own characteristics. The degree to which our government supports individual rights and/or the common good is based on the coalitions that are made and remade between these sections. The author covers four centuries of American history through the lens of this struggle.
  
  Mr. Woodard’s writing is clear, easily readable, engrossing, and convincing. He provides examples of failures and successes in maintaining individual liberty and the common good; why the U.S. swings back and forth. His fascinating uncomplicated examination of our history from the perspective of the impact of the alliances of the different sections of our country is revealing, providing an understanding of our current political situation (and to future ones).
  
  Many American history books focus on the individuals making decisions. By focusing on the influences of the alliances, this history book presents the connection between the political groups and the supporting coalition; the why behind the policies. It fills in much.
• 
  Wesley Roth

  After initially enjoying the sweeping history of our country from the founding to present, I was shockingly appealed by the author's deep-seated hatred and disgust with conservatives/"individualists" which showed up in Chapters 7 and 8.
  
  Initially this was a good read, about the 11 "American Nations" that exist within the United States, such as Yankeedom, Tidewater, The Midlands, El Norte, the Far West (see map pages 61-62). Provided a summary of his earlier book on this idea. Woodard made a compelling case about how difficult it is for political leaders to balance all the varied interests in these "nations" and in the end try to find the "sweet spot" between Individual Liberty and the Common Good (premise of the book). Book was especially good in parts; where I highlighted key passages. I would consider myself from The Far West with a bit of The Midlands experience.
  
  Then I got to Chapters 7 and 8 ("Dixie Takes Over" and "Rise of the Radicals")---what happened??? Woodard's disgust and venom for conservatives/"individualists" strikes the reader. A layperson reading along would think that Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, etc were some of the biggest and nastiest criminals to walk the earth. Christian leaders were mocked within the pages along with other movement leaders. The most jaw-dropping opinion from the author was on page 221 where he compared our country under the Bush Administration in 2008 to the "dark days of 1932". Wait, What?
  
  The most glaring omission in the book is about abortion. Maybe the author didn't want to talk about it, but if you are writing a book on "American Character" and the title of the book is "American Character", shouldn't the legalization of abortion be discussed and how that affected America's Character? Strange that Woodard ignored it? Why?
  
  The other big omission of this book are the biggest policy failures by recent Democrats in the White House (Carter, Clinton and Obama). Maybe *that* damaged our character? The current president hasn't healed our racial divisions, his Stimulu$ didn't stimulate, his financial reform didn't reform, his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is in a death spiral, immigration wasn't reformed, he withdrew prematurely from Iraq, underestimated Russia and Putinism, befriended Iran, and he blew the Arab Spring (to borrow from the Federalist's Robert Tracinski). Or how about by the time he leaves office, President Obama will have doubled the national Debt from $10.6 trillion to almost $20 trillion dollars? Or the approximately 9.6 million children killed by abortions during his presidency? Silence from Woodard. I could also list Carter and Clinton's many failures, along with Harry Reid, who forever changed the Senate for the worst.
  
  "American Character" had much promise and was readable through about Chapter 6, then fell off a cliff. Again, what happened? I'm not sure. Pass on this one, America.
• 
  Laura

  The natural successor to Woodard's American Nations, this book posits that for a liberal democracy to work (specifically the American version of a liberal democracy set forward in the US Constitution), it needs the right balance of allowing for personal liberties while also imposing social reforms that champion fairness.
  
  It clearly lays out the times in American history where the pendulum has swung too much towards one ideology or another. When the country slides into libertarianism, we end up with inequality of wealth and political influence winning the day and directly causing the 1929 market collapse. But when government leans a little too hard into social welfare programs, voters have throughout history rejected such political overreach at the ballot box. Woodard is trying to find that happy medium, and worries that the fact that these two factions seem to be unable to compromise might be the downfall of our great American experiment.
  
  At times a little dry (and a little long in the middle), but Woodard is absolutely able to sway me to his worldview.
• 
  Steven Meyers

  It’s understandable that Mr. Woodard would use his previous excellent book ‘American Nations’ as the template for ‘American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good.’ While ‘American Nations’ charted the development of what the author surmises as eleven distinct regional nations within the United States, ‘American Character’ focuses on how those regions have interacted and influenced our nation’s trajectory. There’s a black-and-white map on page 60-61 in this paperback edition which shows the eleven regions. Despite all the rhetoric spewed by countless politicians, pundits, and assorted windbags, our country does not have one distinct definition as to what makes a “true” American.
  
  Mr. Woodard resides in, what he calls, Yankeedom. It should come as no surprise that his outlook is based upon that regional mindset. The author breaks down the political shifting of our country’s approach towards American ideals into five periods: 1607-1876, 1877-1930, 1933-1967, 1968-2008, and 2008-to the publication of his book in 2016. However, Mr. Woodard’s summations leave no doubt where he views progressive platform popular in New England as the most effective approach towards strengthening our country. The Deep South regional attitudes, on the other hand, frequently get kicked in the proverbial teeth by the author. Speaking as someone whom as been a lifelong progressive Mainer, I took no issue with Mr. Woodard’s teeth kicking. Chapter Three is a quick review of the eleven regions he covered in ‘American Nations’ and their distinctive mindsets which the author revisits throughout the remainder of the book to support his position. I strongly recommend his previous ‘American Nations’ for a more detailed analysis. He argues that our country needs to find the “sweet spot” in balancing individual freedom and the freedom of the community. As he aptly states, “Sacrifice one, and you are on the road to oligarchy or anarchy; lose the other, and the shadow of collectivist dictatorship looms. You simply can’t have one without the other.” He spends a good amount of time explaining the destructive nature of social Darwinism during the Gilded Age and how its advocates, who are very much among us today, still have wet dreams about returning to such a hellhole where even rudimentary things such as food safety, environmental concerns, worker rights, equality, and a social safety net have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. He cites the present-day culprits of such a draconian philosophy.
  
  Frustration with the direction our government moves has been there since the get-go. No citizen is permanently happy where our country is on the ever-shifting individualist-communitarium spectrum. The Founding Fathers were not just concerned with concentrations of power by the federal government but also unchecked capitalism which inevitably leads to an oligarchy. Most Americans wish for equal opportunity, not equal results. They want capitalism to be a field of fair play. Currently, tax cuts for the wealthy and pandering to large corporations at the expense of everyday citizens has been the political landscape since the Reagan years. I’ve been frustrated with the near forty-year demonization of the poor or people in need as well as the polarization of wealth towards rich people who need it about as much as egomaniacal Trump needs another bootlicker. ‘American Character’ is a levelheaded highly-readable investigation of our nation’s finest and worst attitudes. I also found the book to be quite therapeutic by putting things into historical perspective.
• 
  Peter Geyer

  American Character is a companion volume to Woodard's American Nations, in which he identified separate cultures or nations in North America, with different origins and perspectives. Here he uses his model to interpret US social and political events, notably the latter. The nations are reintrodudes and briefly explained.
  
  His theme is individualism and collectivism, or what he calls the "struggle between individual liberty and the common good, a variant of the distinctions between individualism and collectivism. Harry Triandis' seminal text on these categories is worth a read in this context, in that he identifies individualist and collective cultures, whilst stating that there are collectivist people within individualist cultures and vice versa, although not perhaps the amount of tension described by Woodard.
  
  These different perspectives suggest different attitudes to fellow human beings, whether it be regarding ethnicity, education, social support, wealth, size of government and so on. In essence the book is a kind of sutvey in which the influence and approaches of various historical personages in Presidents, presidential candidates, governors etc are compared and associated with one or other of his nations.
  
  This is an interesting approach, which for the most part is carried off as it's simply not the various fortunes of Democrats and Republicans as opposing forces or with the same perspective: Woodard suggests that as President, Barack Obama had much in common with Dwight Eisenhower, which is worth considering.
  
  Eisenhower was the first president I personaly remembered, even as an Australian child, and some of the detail the author provides supplements my life-long interest in American politics, at least as for as both extra information and things to think about or consider.
  
  Like its predecessor, American Character is well-written and fairly clear. You'll find a discussion about the distinction between a republic and a democracy to be informative, particularly in the current context, as well as how the meaning and actuality of democracy has varied over time.
• 
  Kieran

  I loved American Nations. I find that I continually go back the framework presented in that book as I make sense of both historical and current events. In this sequel, Colin Woodard takes a look at the classic American tension between prioritizing individual freedoms and collectivist systems that aim for the common good. Not surprisingly, he explores this tension in the context of the 11 nations framework that he previously set out in his prior book.
  
  The most interesting aspect of this book is Woodard's analysis of past presidents- their values, action, and American nation of origin, which may or may not correspond to popular perception of their political affiliation. This book tells the story of Nixon and Bush I as centrist progressives pursuing a national liberal agenda, while Bill Clinton follows his presidential (libertarian) forebears from Greater Appalachia in prioritizing individual freedoms and corporate rights over government regulation.
  
  It's too bad the book was complete before the 2016 election, but it does provide some context for understanding the election outcomes and the path forward.
  
  Great, thoughtful read.
• 
  Linda Anderson

  This book contained a brief review of the points made in American Nations. The author added more details and summarized American history through 2015. More details were added on recent events. The last chapter was hopeful for 2016 and forward. I wished there had been more summary of individual liberty and common good in each chapter and what had prevailed in history. It was well written with loads of details and easy for me to read.
• 
  John Kaufmann

  Excellent. This far-surpassed my expectations (which were meager, since I hadn't heard of the book or the author - I just happened upon it one day in the bookstore).
• 
  Benjamin Taddesse

  ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Very good follow up to the author’s American Nations, this time addressing the perpetual struggle between Individualism and Collectivism through our nation’s history
• 
  Gavin

  A fascinating work, one that outlines the political history of the United States. Those looking to understand the 2016 election could do worse than read this (rather than label non-Hillary voters as homophobic, racist, sexist and stupid). It was also interesting to read just facts on what each President had done and the impact those actions had. One does wonder how people like Paul Ryan can say with a straight face that Reagan was the master. One also wonders how G.W.Bush managed to avoid prison, save for the cronyism of the Houses. Enlightening!
• 
  Harris

  As we lumber into the inexorable maelstrom of another divisive US presidential election, one preceded already by a messy primary that has all but torn the traditional political parties apart, I read Colin Woodard’s latest thought provoking, if sweeping, work. His account of the political history of the United States made a very interesting background to the competing strains of populism, xenophobia, and posturing that is making this cycle feel so polarizing. Through this historical lens, “American Character” attempts to explain how these fundamental disagreements in American society came to be.
  
  Following up his book
  “American Nations,” which sparked a little bit of an obsession in me, Woodard analyzes the history of American politics through the competing cultural influences that constitute the United States. Drawing from his previous theories, he describes two main impulses in the social makeup of the country, promoted, debated, and fought over by the various regional factions that form the union: individualism and the common good. The debate to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community was, according to Woodard, present from the very beginning of the nation. Both impulses, as seen by the individualistic despotism of the Antebellum South and Woodard’s description of his time visiting the degradation of Communist Romania can lead to authoritarian and oppressive societies. While these various cultures set their own value systems, in a pluralistic society made up of disparate, contrasting historical cultural backgrounds and peoples, the competition between these two impulses needs to be balanced, each negotiating and compromising with the other in order to maintain a stable society.
  
  Woodard argues for this balance by exploring how the political and cultural tides of power shifted over the course of American history and how this tension altered the course of the nation’s development, the back and forth between the two ideals affecting the direction of events such as the rise of the Antebellum South on the backs of slaves and its end in Civil War, the Gilded Age of laissez faire economic chaos, to the New Deal and the Great Society. In Woodard’s description, individualistic impulses have come on much stronger, and done much more damage than the role of communitarianism in the United States, whether removing barriers for extreme wealth to concentrate into the control of the “winners” on the argument that the government should not interfere with any individual's “success,” including (in the antebellum South) their right to own their labor force outright. Of course, as a citizen of Woodard’s “Yankeedom,” I find these ideas abhorrent and the desire of the government to correct inequalities and aid communities commendable.
  
  These arguments are not perfect, of course. Some of Woodard’s conclusions must rely a bit on generalization; not every denizen of Yankeedom is a self-denying supporter of strong public works, and not every citizen of the Deep Southern states supports cutting all social programs. People are complicated, but societies can be seen to act in more uniform way as a whole. Still, his treatment of ethnic minorities in this American mosaic is lacking. The division between individualism and communitarianism also seems, while an accurate way to conceive of cultural differences, a bit too broad for such a brief treatise on American history and occasionally comes across as a somewhat simplistic way to view cultural divisions in the United States and its fraught political landscape.
  
  Still, it is heady material to think about during this electoral cycle; as the regional alliances and belief systems continue to evolve and shift, people across the political divide are feeling disillusioned with the “system.” As someone quite taken with the communitarian policies of Bernie Sanders, is it too much to imagine what a more “common good” focused candidate could do in society? Woodard argues the American character, even in Yankeedom, hews much closer to the individualist axis and the most effective presidential terms have been ones that have negotiated differing concerns most effectively. While I feel (and hope) that the election will be locked into a victory for the forces of balance and compromise, it does not always seem so hopeful.
• 
  Don

  Colin Woodard expands his so-so observations from his previous "American Nations" to paint a relevant and pointed history of American life and politics. This turned into a more-important premise than I first realized, and I found it to be fascinating.
  
  These days, it seems as though ANY government involvement is decried as interference or "vast government overreach."
  
  Yet, the balance of individual rights and common interests is at the heart of all politics. And, as Woodard writes, much of the underlying basis for those distinctions are rooted in geographic and the social norms that emerged from regional and national history.
  
  It is certainly reflected in the blue-red electoral map, as well as traditional considerations dating back to how and why the South embraced slavery and later accepted other modern anti-labor constructs while rejecting anything resembling civil equality. He offers terrific insights about the rise of laissez-faire capitalism between the Civil War and Great Depression, which created a measure of social Darwinism that has never gone away, and seems to be reaching an apex with the emergence of Donald Trump. Woodard points out that "survival of the fittest," is a term originated not by Charles Darwin, but by British laissez-faire writer Herbert Spencer, who was describing why he opposed public education, sanitation inspections, and most other government interference with "the natural order" of things.
  
  As a whole, the book turns out to be pretty much a history lesson of how a large percentage of Americans see life as a zero-sum game: The only way to win is to minimize others. He connects the dots effectively to help show how and why so many people actually vote against their own self-interest. The blind notions of "states rights" and "free markets regulate themselves," and "trickle down economics" have been much of the same for two centuries. And when Congress and the Supreme Court have been manned by ultra-conservatives, they have done much to ensure that the monied would retain as much power and influence for as long as possible, at the expense of the greater good.
  
  This has been especially true in the Deep South and (interior) Far West, which have deep, deep roots in "you can't tell me what to do" individualism.
  
  Woodard creates a thoughtful (albeit somewhat liberal) narrative of Reconstruction, the Industrial Age, the Progressive Era, and Great Depression, right through the New Deal, Great Society, and emergence of the way civil rights issues have influenced the ebb and flow of economic expansion geographically and over time -- all the way to the rise of the "I got mine" Tea Party.
  
  There's lots to learn from and to think about in this book.
• 
  Andy Madajski

  I started off unsure if I would agree with Woodard’s ideas or even like the book at all. It’s argument seemed a bit vague and fuzzy at first. His analysis of the geopolitical divisions of the United States helped to pull some of these ideas into focus for me. His basic premise is that to have a vibrant, successful culture and society, we need to strike a balance between collective support of the community and unhindered individual and economic freedom.
  
  I found myself understanding Woodard's premise and agreeing with him as he summarized American political history through these two lenses. I found this to be both informative and entertaining. While I’m quite familiar with American history, his presentation of the back and forth ebb and flow of these two major political ideas gave me some major food for thought. I was able to gain some new perspectives on several major historical figures that I had simplistically thought I understood completely. Fortunately this historical summary was a major part of the book, so I found it highly readable and interesting.
  
  I was worried that Woodard would dither around and leave us with the “this is too complicated an issue to have an easy solution” perspective. However, while recognizing that the issues are too complex to offer timely and specific advice, he does leave us with some perspective on what needs to be done to help bring balance to a nation that has been swinging closer and closer to the laissez-faire individualism that has been disastrous for a majority of Americans several times in our history.
  
  I enjoyed this book because it was a pleasant blend of politics that weren’t too complex to be understood and history that wasn’t so simplistic as to be trite.
  
  I would like to thank Viking Press for the advance copy of the book which was provided to me in exchange for my honest review.
• 
  Lance Eaton

  Woodard provides a fascinating framework for understanding the differences in the United States between those who lean towards more collectivist approaches to society and those that believe in more individualistic approaches. Building off his previous work, rather than provide a simple divide of socialist vs. libertarians, he articulates the presence of eleven "nations" within the United States that represent different historical-cultural origins and occupy different geographical spaces in the country. From there, he delves into the history of the country and illustrates how different alignments of the nations resulted in the swaying of the country between its more collectivist and individualistic modes of governmental involvement. It's a fascinating book that highlights the often-complex ways in which different people align and dissent from the different political groups in the country (and why so many people identify as "independent"). It will be interesting to see how much this work is used to better understand and address current politics.
• 
  Christian

  I wanted to like this book more than I did. The book started off fairly well and had an interesting premise. Building on a previous book exploring the same idea, the author identifies 11 distinct regions in the United States, each one having developed its own place on a political spectrum running from libertarian to communitarian. I thought this would be an interesting way to explore how history shapes current political currents and cultures. The author made some interesting points and observations about the early years of the republic, but soon became a dull and relatively superficial survey of the changing role of national government power vis a vis the states and big business. If you want a general and quick read about politics, this would be a good one to skim. To its credit it is a short and mostly painless read. If you are not a politics junkie, you might want to give this one a miss.
• 
  Kevin Shoop

  Grade: A
  
  Woodard follows up his excellent American Nations with this essential companion work. American Character provides a sweeping historical narrative (from the pilgrims on the Mayflower to the Obama administration and rise of the Tea Party) through the lens of competing values of protecting individual liberty and promoting the common good. Woodard provides a fascinating picture of the grand American experiment, but in doing so does not back away from the shadows of racism in our country's history, especially in regards to slavery and the Jim Crow era. Regardless if you agree with his conclusions--all books of history are interpretive and must be read critically--Woodard's book is well-written, exhaustively researched, and in my opinion should be read by any American who cares about the history and the future of the United States.
  
  
• 
  Christine B.

  Really interesting. I suspect I'm going to read this (or parts of it) with Junior Core this Fall.