Buying Options
Kindle Price: | $12.99 |
includes tax, if applicable | |
Sold by: |
Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc (AU)
This price was set by the publisher. |


![Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism by [Mark R. Levin]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51fLRlERsoL._SY346_.jpg)
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism Kindle Edition
by
Mark R. Levin
(Author)
Format: Kindle Edition
Mark R. Levin
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
See all formats and editions
Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
|
New from | Used from |
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$0.00
|
Free with your Audible trial |
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$54.59 | — |
Save up to 50% off RRP on select top books
PLUS, free expedited delivery. T&C's apply. See more
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
- Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative ManifestoKindle Edition
- Unfreedom of the PressKindle Edition
- Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the FutureKindle Edition
- Ameritopia: The Unmaking of AmericaKindle Edition
- The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American RepublicKindle Edition
- Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying AmericaKindle Edition
Product description
About the Author
Mark R. Levin, nationally syndicated talk-radio host, host of LevinTV, chairman of Landmark Legal Foundation, and the host of the FOX News show Life, Liberty, & Levin, is the author of six consecutive #1 New York Times bestsellers: Liberty and Tyranny, Plunder and Deceit, Rediscovering Americanism, Ameritopia, The Liberty Amendments, and Unfreedom of the Press. Liberty and Tyranny spent three months at #1 and sold more than 1.5 million copies. His books Men in Black and Rescuing Sprite were also New York Times bestsellers. Levin is an inductee of the National Radio Hall of Fame and was a top adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet. He holds a BA from Temple University and a JD from Temple University Law School.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product details
- ASIN : B01M2BRJMW
- Publisher : Threshold Editions; Reprint edition (27 June 2017)
- Language : English
- File size : 3334 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Print length : 274 pages
-
Best Sellers Rank:
433,128 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- 200 in United States Politics
- 273 in Conservatism & Liberalism
- 751 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- Customer Reviews:
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Customer reviews
4.8 out of 5 stars
4.8 out of 5
2,208 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews from other countries

Michael Regan
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best author and talkshow host
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 December 2018Verified Purchase
Very good
Report abuse

George Garrett
1.0 out of 5 stars
Levin has a very poor understanding of the philosophers he criticizes
Reviewed in Canada on 12 May 2018Verified Purchase
Levin has a very poor understanding of the philosophers he criticizes. Levin explains the forefathers relied on Natural Law (pp. 9) as defined by Locke. However Locke never had any examples of what natural law was. At the time, anthropology hadn’t begun and the English never really appreciated any other society’s ideas that well. It’s safe to say that the English believed they had the one right way. That’s why it was their interests to colonize and civilize the world. “More than that, Locke at times seems to appeal to innate ideas in the Second Treatise (2.11), and in The Reasonableness of Christianity (Works 7:139) he admits that no one has ever worked out all of natural law from reason alone.” Locke would say that all people are naturally endowed with reason. Locke adds Natural Law can be known by reason (pp. 11). Toward the end of his career he doubted that he could come up with any examples of Natural Law. Ergo Locke lacked reason.
To summarize Levin’s review of Hegel: Levin summarizes Hegel; quotes Hegel; shows one critique by Popper to refute Hegel’s acceptance of contradictions (loosely related to his political argument; pp. 102); and then quotes Popper as saying that there is danger in accepting Hegel (pp. 106). Was Levin hoping to show Hegel was wrong? Not sure. What was Levin trying to do here?
In response to Marx, Levin suggests that man’s struggle is well beyond economics and materialism (pp. 108). Levin does a good job to explain that it could be anything and he is right to do so. However, I believe it’s very common sense to view it as a class struggle in society where the lower classes are trying to achieve higher classes or higher statuses from the family or background which they originated. This is especially true in industrial and post-industrial countries. Why else would people go to university? Move to other cities to get better jobs? Any economist will tell you and for as much as I have read in economics: people in general are more motivated by money than psychological factors, values, race, religion, tribalism, geography or any other recorded factor. There might be other factors that we haven’t thought of yet, but none to date can match the power of economic thinking in men generally. Most people want to get ahead in the world. Levin should really address the whole field of economics here before he suggests these things, not just Marx.
Levin writes, “In fact, most proletariats don’t feel terrorized by the bourgeoisie and therefore do not spontaneously rise to the revolutionary cause; also, most bourgeoisies are not terrorizing their employees or tenants.” (pp. 112-3). Nowhere does the Communist Manifesto does it use the word terror to describe the relationship between the B. and the P. To me, there is a huge difference between terrorizing and exploiting. The difference apparently doesn’t exist for Levin.
Levin writes that "progressive" philosophers offer “a whirlwind of ideological concepts and impossibilities.” (pp. 120). He’s made no attempt to show us how these are impossibilities. Levin made no comment on post-WWII progressive philosophers other than Dewey and what they see as possible. Dewey didn’t publish any books after the war concerning politics. If progressivism’s views are changing, then how about include a more contemporary author?
Levin writes “[Progressives] also understandably will want to align themselves with administrative science and reason, with the extraordinary progress made by physical sciences during the past several centuries and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason is all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason” (pp. 126). There’s a lot in this quote. First off, why not use science and reason? Locke surely felt he was using reason. The founding fathers did. Why is it that reason stopped after the signing of the declaration and reason stops after every amendment was signed? After that, we should accept someone’s reason from 250 years ago? Why not accept reason from 300 years ago and call it tradition? What is known as reason changes all the time. What makes the reason at the time of 1776 more special than any other time in history?
To summarize Levin’s review of Hegel: Levin summarizes Hegel; quotes Hegel; shows one critique by Popper to refute Hegel’s acceptance of contradictions (loosely related to his political argument; pp. 102); and then quotes Popper as saying that there is danger in accepting Hegel (pp. 106). Was Levin hoping to show Hegel was wrong? Not sure. What was Levin trying to do here?
In response to Marx, Levin suggests that man’s struggle is well beyond economics and materialism (pp. 108). Levin does a good job to explain that it could be anything and he is right to do so. However, I believe it’s very common sense to view it as a class struggle in society where the lower classes are trying to achieve higher classes or higher statuses from the family or background which they originated. This is especially true in industrial and post-industrial countries. Why else would people go to university? Move to other cities to get better jobs? Any economist will tell you and for as much as I have read in economics: people in general are more motivated by money than psychological factors, values, race, religion, tribalism, geography or any other recorded factor. There might be other factors that we haven’t thought of yet, but none to date can match the power of economic thinking in men generally. Most people want to get ahead in the world. Levin should really address the whole field of economics here before he suggests these things, not just Marx.
Levin writes, “In fact, most proletariats don’t feel terrorized by the bourgeoisie and therefore do not spontaneously rise to the revolutionary cause; also, most bourgeoisies are not terrorizing their employees or tenants.” (pp. 112-3). Nowhere does the Communist Manifesto does it use the word terror to describe the relationship between the B. and the P. To me, there is a huge difference between terrorizing and exploiting. The difference apparently doesn’t exist for Levin.
Levin writes that "progressive" philosophers offer “a whirlwind of ideological concepts and impossibilities.” (pp. 120). He’s made no attempt to show us how these are impossibilities. Levin made no comment on post-WWII progressive philosophers other than Dewey and what they see as possible. Dewey didn’t publish any books after the war concerning politics. If progressivism’s views are changing, then how about include a more contemporary author?
Levin writes “[Progressives] also understandably will want to align themselves with administrative science and reason, with the extraordinary progress made by physical sciences during the past several centuries and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason is all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason” (pp. 126). There’s a lot in this quote. First off, why not use science and reason? Locke surely felt he was using reason. The founding fathers did. Why is it that reason stopped after the signing of the declaration and reason stops after every amendment was signed? After that, we should accept someone’s reason from 250 years ago? Why not accept reason from 300 years ago and call it tradition? What is known as reason changes all the time. What makes the reason at the time of 1776 more special than any other time in history?
One person found this helpful
Report abuse

Tim B.
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Must Read
Reviewed in Canada on 3 September 2017Verified Purchase
An imperative read for every free citizen trying to figure out what liberty is all about and how to save ourselves from tyranny that's always knocking at the door.
It's not a casual journey but worth every ounce of the effort that afterwards leaves one certain as to why we must safeguard what we were handed for future generations.
It's not a casual journey but worth every ounce of the effort that afterwards leaves one certain as to why we must safeguard what we were handed for future generations.

Christine M.
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Book, fabulous reading!
Reviewed in Canada on 9 September 2020Verified Purchase
I love Mark and his book is top notch. Well written and very interesting. I have learned so much.

Lorraine Furlong
3.0 out of 5 stars
Very hard to understand which means reading the same passage ...
Reviewed in Canada on 6 August 2017Verified Purchase
Very hard to understand which means reading the same passage over and over again. Very intellectual language used which tended to completely go over my head.