Scan barcode
leaton01's review against another edition
5.0
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.
fallona's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fascinating book that looks at the interplay between regional and political identity. It is almost certainly best read after Woodard's American Nations, as it builds on the ideas he develops there. Woodard is far from the only writer to approach the question of American regionalism, but his work is more accessible than most. He's an engaging writer, and his work seems to be well-researched. He raises interesting points about the ways regional identities have played into American political history.
As with American Nations, Woodard's sympathies and his own regional affiliation are visible. Some readers may find this grating. Woodard is a Mainer--a product of what he defines as Yankeedom (though I do highly recommend Woodard's Lobster Coast for a more nuanced portrait of the cultural history and landscape of at least the coastal portion of Maine, and perhaps a slightly clearer image of where Woodard himself comes from). Whether you agree with him or not, it is interesting to consider how his own definition of his native region plays into his ideas and how he writes about them.
As with American Nations, Woodard's sympathies and his own regional affiliation are visible. Some readers may find this grating. Woodard is a Mainer--a product of what he defines as Yankeedom (though I do highly recommend Woodard's Lobster Coast for a more nuanced portrait of the cultural history and landscape of at least the coastal portion of Maine, and perhaps a slightly clearer image of where Woodard himself comes from). Whether you agree with him or not, it is interesting to consider how his own definition of his native region plays into his ideas and how he writes about them.
tanyarobinson's review
4.0
I was drawn to this title because I've seen a vehement battle right in my own neighborhood between individual liberty and the common good when it comes to wearing masks to prevent the spread of Covid. Woodard does a nice job of putting this tension in a historical perspective, showing how from the earliest colonial period various regions of the country differed in where they found the "sweet spot" on the spectrum between complete freedom and communitarianism. Regional traditions stem largely from the philosophies of each settling population. For example, New England's Puritans always valued group righteousness over individual liberty, and today's Yankees are inheritors of that tendency. Those from the Deep South have always placed primary value on the freedom of each (white) man to reach his maximum potential, unfettered by government regulation. Woodard identifies 11 distinct regions, each with its own traditional stance. Granted, these are conglomerate pictures and don't account for the many people living in each geographic region who don't fit the mold, but the stereotypes have value in helping one understand the lack of a shared "American" view on the individual liberty/common good debate.
The second half of the book follows America through its political history, showing how the balance teetered closer to one side of the equation or the other over time. It was in this section that the writer's own political views became obvious, and I would have preferred he remain more objective in his analysis of presidents over the past 50 years.
I learned a lot, and enjoyed the book. 3.75 stars rounded up to 4.
The second half of the book follows America through its political history, showing how the balance teetered closer to one side of the equation or the other over time. It was in this section that the writer's own political views became obvious, and I would have preferred he remain more objective in his analysis of presidents over the past 50 years.
I learned a lot, and enjoyed the book. 3.75 stars rounded up to 4.
adkwriter15's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
I have the most fascinating experience with Colin Woodard's books every single time. This is the third one I've read after "Union" and "American Nations." American Character could be seen as an extra part of American Nations, really, because the argument he makes in that book undergirds the entire argument here. However, he does a really good job summarizing his American Nations argument, so I don't think you have to read it before this one. A good chunk of this book goes through American history from the founding to the Obama presidency showing the pendulum swings between the parties, policies, and their relationships to individual liberty and collectivism, which for me was pretty whatever since nothing there was new to me. It had a very similar structure to Union, for me, which meant that the beginning felt slow but once he ramped up his larger argument I was much more engaged. His macro view of the swings in party policy and opinion was also interesting; for example, calling Obama a liberal Republican in his policies as he aligns with larger history. Woodard comes out not a proponent of either libertarianism or socialism but rather shows how the middle way is uniquely American and how either political party (though he suggests the Democrats have an easier path) could align their party with his vision of a fairer, more economically minded middle way. However, I took issue with his coalition-building arguments because I didn't notice him factoring voter suppression, for example, into his discussion about the Deep South. Also, since this was published in 2016 before that fractious election, his optimistic view of ideas of how either/both parties could run that election ring funny, but I suppose his ideas could still be made true in the future. I would *really* love to see a second edition of this that includes the last five years.
derekdavis31's review against another edition
3.0
Mostly, I thought that the author did a good job in communicating what he was attempting to communicate in his book. His writing style was easy to understand, and I appreciated the fact he wrote this book well aware of who would be reading it.
I honestly do not have a lot to say concerning this book. It feels weird to say that I enjoyed my time reading a nonfiction book that does not technically fit my personal political beliefs and worldview, but I did enjoy my time. This was a very interesting book and I am glad I read it.
I honestly do not have a lot to say concerning this book. It feels weird to say that I enjoyed my time reading a nonfiction book that does not technically fit my personal political beliefs and worldview, but I did enjoy my time. This was a very interesting book and I am glad I read it.
aloyokon's review against another edition
4.0
A look at the history of the perennial struggle between communitarianism and individualism in the US through Woodard's American nations.
eastoflaura's review against another edition
4.0
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.
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.
miguelf's review
4.0
Nice overview of the development of the uniquely American brand of political thought. It seems that one would get more out of this if one had read Woodard’s earlier book “American Nations”, but as a stand-alone one still gets a good idea of the themes that Woodard discusses here. It does play to priors as the strain of rugged individualism that is so popular in the US in most cases doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny living in a complex & modern society.
otterno11's review
4.0
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 were, 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 the communitarianism also seems, while definitely 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.
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 were, 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 the communitarianism also seems, while definitely 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.
More...