The Thirteen American Arguments

Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country

By: Howard Fineman

Narrated by: Scott Sowers

Howard Fineman, one of our most trusted political journalists, shows that every debate, from our nation’s founding to the present day, is rooted in one of thirteen arguments that–thankfully–defy resolution. It is the very process of never-ending argument, Fineman explains, that defines us, inspires us, and keeps us free. At a time when most public disagreement seems shrill and meaningless, Fineman makes a cogent case for nurturing the real American dialogue. The Thirteen American Arguments runs the gamut, including

• Who Is a Person? The Declaration of Independence says “everyone,” but it took a Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, and other movements to make that a reality. Now, what about human embryos and prisoners in Guantanamo?
• The Role of Faith No country is more legally secular yet more avowedly prayerful. From Thomas Jefferson to James Dobson, the issue persists: Where does God fit in government?
• America in the World In Iraq and everywhere else, we ask ourselves whether we must change the world in order to survive and honor our values–or whether the best way to do both is to deal with the world as it is.

Whether it’s the nomination of judges or the limits of free speech, presidential power or public debt, the issues that galvanized the Founding Fathers should still inspire our leaders, thinkers, and fellow citizens. If we cease to argue about these things, we cease to be. “Argument is strength, not weakness,” says Fineman. “As long as we argue, there is hope, and as long as there is hope, we will argue.”

Informative, if not exactly gripping

This one took me a long, long time to get through. I had to restart it a few times, and it was a bit of a chore getting through it. There's a lot of great information here, but it's not a page turner. The biggest disappointment for me, was that the title was not fulfilled. I kept wondering "wait, are we on a new argument here?" and "Hang on, what was the last argument?" It wasn't clear. Mixed in with the historical perspective was the author's sort of "on the road" campaign stories. Characters were introduced and discarded willy nilly. It was not the most enjoyable history book I've read. Obviously, this isn't the author's fault, but ending just as Obama won the 08 election didn't help. That feels like a long time ago for a book such as this. The date of the book shouldn't have mattered, as this really should have been more of a historical book, but it didn't turn out that way.

The narration was clear, but totally devoid of inflection. This definitely hurt, as the subject matter and writing was already dry.

Lost Potential

What a great concept, but the author ruins the idea by his blatant bias and misstatements of history. His inaccuracy about the War Powers Act and the story of Richard Nixon leaving office are but two (of many) examples. His continual railing against the Bush administration and sympathetic treatment of limousine liberals ruin any enjoyment of what could be a good argument. Not worth your time.

Not my cup of tea!

My father used to say "This is exactly what a person who likes this kind of thing would like."
Finnegans boys shines through in every "argument." I guess if you Are off similar frame of mind, you'll find his thinking "the kind of thing you like. "

Argumentatively biased

The introduction was wonderful and I felt that the book would discuss the need for continued discussion and "argument" of the key topics of America. However, with the first chapter I found that I knew exactly which side of the arguments the author was on and that he was interested in converting readers to his side, and not to promote the idea that our country should continue to argue these points. I was hoping for a less-biased push for more communication and discussion by all of America, what I feel that I got was an argument for the author's beliefs. It is too bad because if one is looking for arguments for both sides and why we should continue to arguments, then this is not the book. I find that it is good to hear arguments from the "other side" even if I do not agree. It helps me develop my arguments, understand others arguments and opens my mind to new ideas and points of view. This book did none of that, nor did it make me feel that "argumentation" is good.