Original Scholarly Monograph

AMERICA AT THE POINT OF NO RETURN The next election is the most important one America has faced in more than a century. That’s not campaign hype. America is divided as almost never before—with contesting political factions regarding themselves not as rivals but as enemies. And the frightening thing is that, in large part, they’re right. The Democratic Party has become the party of “identity politics”—and every one of those identities is defined against a unifying national heritage of patriotism, pride in America’s past, and hope for a shared future. Offering only antagonism based on group identity—whether race, sex, or something else—the Democrats look forward to imposing nationally what they have achieved in California: one-party rule in a lockdown nation, where the ruling class makes every decision and doles out benefits to favored groups. Against them is a divided Republican Party. Gravely misunderstanding the opposition, old-style Republicans still seek bipartisanship and accommodation, wrongly assuming that Democrats care about playing by the tiresome old rules laid down in the Constitution and other fundamental charters of American liberty. The new core of the Republican Party is the populists and nationalists, who are tired of losing. The party’s only hope of victory, they are all that stand between the United States as we have traditionally understood it and a revolution—less dramatic in appearance but just as consequential as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Michael Anton, the author of the most scathing, memorable, and quoted essay of the 2016 campaign season, “The Flight 93 Election”—which Rush Limbaugh called “one of the greatest columns ever written”—now explains in depth why the stakes have risen even higher. Ranging across every hot-button political topic of our time—from immigration to nationalism to war—and informed by a profound understanding of classical and American political philosophy, The Stakes will transform the way you view politics and America’s future.

From the Author’s Foreword, 1987 During the course of the past nearly twenty years, I have become perhaps the most controversial among the influential international figures of this decade. Unlike all of the other leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945, I am an influential original thinker. This is not to suggest that such prospective candidates as Vice President George Bush and Senator Robert Dole are lacking in intelligence or executive abilities. For the past forty years, the successful candidates for the presidency have been persons who, in the customary manner of speaking, advanced their political career up to that point, by doing “the right thing at the right time,” saying and doing nothing which will make enemies among important factions of the “establishment.” Bush and Dole, for example have adapted to those rules for success under ordinary conditions. However, this is a crisis; in such crises, what is customarily successful becomes a failure. Our nation has once again entered into a time when only the unusual succeeds, and the usual fails. We have entered into a period of crisis in which only original thinkers are qualified to lead. On paper, our nation is a constitutional democratic republic. In reality, it has not been such a republic for approximately one hundred years, certainly not since the sweeping changes in our form of government introduced during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Most of the time, the policies of government, the selection of most leading candidates for federal office, and the majority of popular opinion, have been regulated by behind-the-scenes committees representing what is called “the establishment.” Under this arrangement, candidates for leading office present themselves, like job applicants for corporate executive appointments, to this “establishment.” The “establishment” either gives such candidates permission to campaign, or “not at this time.” If given such permission, the candidate so “authorized” seeks backing for his or her election by the “establishment,” by proving to the “establishment” that he or she can “sell” the policy which the establishment has decided to push at that time. ... I began to understand this in 1947. ... I wished General Dwight Eisenhower to campaign for the 1948 Democratic nomination. The general replied to me, stating agreement with my policy arguments in support of his candidacy, but informing me his candidacy was not appropriate at that time. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have won the 1948 nomination and election by a landslide, had the “establishment” permitted him to campaign. …

In September 2016, the provocative essay “The Flight 93 Election” galvanized many voters by spotlighting the stakes ahead in November and reproaching complacent elements of the Right. It also drew disparagement from many who judged it too apocalyptic in its assessment of the options facing the electorate. Its author, Michael Anton—writing as “Publius Decius Mus”—addressed the main criticisms of his argument soon afterward in a “Restatement on Flight 93.” A new criticism emerged later on: that he had painted a dire scenario to be averted, but no positive vision. Here, Anton presents the positive ideal that inspired him—a distillation of his thinking on Americanism and the West, refined over decades. He lays out the foundational principles of the American and Western traditions, examines the biggest threats to their survival, and underscores the necessity of continuing to defend them.

Presents a glimpse into four centuries of Cubans in America, from the sixteenth century to the present day, and profiles such noted Cubans as Oscar Hijuelos, Gloria Estefan, and Jeff Bezos.

The surprising story of how George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson came to despair for the future of the nation they had created Americans seldom deify their Founding Fathers any longer, but they do still tend to venerate the Constitution and the republican government that the founders created. Strikingly, the founders themselves were far less confident in what they had wrought, particularly by the end of their lives. In fact, most of them—including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson—came to deem America’s constitutional experiment an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation. Fears of a Setting Sun is the first book to tell the fascinating and too-little-known story of the founders’ disillusionment. As Dennis Rasmussen shows, the founders’ pessimism had a variety of sources: Washington lost his faith in America’s political system above all because of the rise of partisanship, Hamilton because he felt that the federal government was too weak, Adams because he believed that the people lacked civic virtue, and Jefferson because of sectional divisions laid bare by the spread of slavery. The one major founder who retained his faith in America’s constitutional order to the end was James Madison, and the book also explores why he remained relatively optimistic when so many of his compatriots did not. As much as Americans today may worry about their country’s future, Rasmussen reveals, the founders faced even graver problems and harbored even deeper misgivings. A vividly written account of a chapter of American history that has received too little attention, Fears of a Setting Sun will change the way that you look at the American founding, the Constitution, and indeed the United States itself.

Texas and California are the leaders of Red and Blue America. As the nation has polarized, its most populous and economically powerful states have taken charge of the opposing camps. These states now advance sharply contrasting political and policy agendas and view themselves as competitors for control of the nation's future. Kenneth P. Miller provides a detailed account of the rivalry's emergence, present state, and possible future. First, he explores why, despite their many similarities, the two states have become so deeply divided. As he shows, they experienced critical differences in their origins and in their later demographic, economic, cultural, and political development. Second, he describes how Texas and California have constructed opposing, comprehensive policy models--one conservative, the other progressive. Miller highlights the states' contrasting policies in five areas--tax, labor, energy and environment, poverty, and social issues--and also shows how Texas and California have led the red and blue state blocs in seeking to influence federal policy in these areas. The book concludes by assessing two models' strengths, vulnerabilities, and future prospects. The rivalry between the two states will likely continue for the foreseeable future, because California will surely stay blue and Texas will likely remain red. The challenge for the two states, and for the nation as a whole, is to view the competition in a positive light and turn it to productive ends. Exploring one of the primary rifts in American politics, Texas vs. California sheds light on virtually every aspect of the country's political system.