.jpeg){kind=small}
For as intelligent, perceptive, and articulate as Shapiro is, I have to confess, I was a little disappointed. I'm still glad I read it, and it may very well be worth reading for you, too. But overall it felt more like red meat for the base rather than something more elevated and thoughtful. It was not written to be persuasive. For instance, though Shapiro rightly puts others through the ringer for making assertions without annotations, there are more than a few of those found here as well. The tone and text is also assertive or descriptive rather than persuasive. Those already in the choir will be nodding their heads and following along happily, but those in the "opposed" camp or even in the undecided one will not find much here other than the reasonably well-spoken opinion of Mr. Ben Shapiro.
His Better Humans TM term is clever, though not entirely original, being in the strain of Deirdre McCloskey's "clerisy," Thomas Sowell's "self-annointed elite," or Plato's "Philosopher King" and "Guardians." However, his main terminology, Unionists versus Disintegrationists, really could have used a bit more developing (or perhaps different terms). Those he calls "Disintegrationists" generally are in favor of more unity, coherence, and centralization, which hardly seems in favor of disintegration to the intuitive interpretation. That such policies will lead to conflict and disintegration Shapiro explores to some degree, but he fails to make that direct connection really ram home. Conversely, the "Unionists" are those who favor living and letting live; while this may permit union to function over the long haul, again, it hardly sells itself intuitively, and Shapiro could have done more to make that connection. In general, parts of the work feel abrupt or unfinished, as if Shapiro (or his publisher) were in a hurry to get this on the shelves by the election. It could have been more polished.
There's nothing really ground-breaking or original, though Shapiro updates classic Liberal (no, not anti-Liberal "liberal" Progressive, but actual Liberty Liberal) thought and does a generally good job of contrasting that with its only practical alternative (call it Statism, Tyranny, or what you will). He updates many of these classic arguments with recent illustrations, though he often expects the reader to be somewhat familiar with them already.
To be honest, I found Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About America far more impactful on similar lines. D'Souza's work explores issues in more depth and makes a play to persuade more effectively than this one by Shapiro. When grappling with very current events from a similar point of view, I would recommend an interested reader not only tackle What's So Great About America first, but also Jonah Goldberg's Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy, which adds much more value and brings more depth to the discussion. For an alternative point of view, check out Rutger Bregman's Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, which, ironically, makes a better case in favor of free markets than Shapiro does. Considering that the point of Bregman's book was to torpedo Liberalism, that is saying something.
If you've exhausted your "must-read" list, then you won't be sorry for reading How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps. It's a fairly breezy, easy read, and Shapiro does manage to provoke thought here and there. I haven't read his entire corpus, but I must imagine someone as sharp and articulate as he is has written better than this. Read it, but don't push it in front of other more pressing items on your reading list.