Review by ab2020 -- The Right to Nominate

[ab2020]

[Following is a volunteer review of "The Right to Nominate" by Thomas E Peterson.]

---

2 out of 4 stars

---

Share This Review

---

Name a democracy that functions without political parties. You probably can't. Every major democracy in the world has some form of the party system. Many European countries have come to rely on multi-party coalition governments, but in the United States, a two-party system has become a distinct part of the political culture. However, during the two hundred years that have elapsed since the formation of the first political parties, the party system has become bloated and domineering. In his book, The Right to Nominate, Thomas Peterson sets forth a bold and impassioned argument against political parties while asserting that the right to nominate political candidates should be explicitly returned to the people.

Peterson’s book begins as an analysis of the Constitution and The Federalist. The latter, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, was a series of essays intended to defend and explain the Constitution. Several of the essays in The Federalist argued strongly against political parties, and Peterson carefully picks out these passages for in-depth analysis. Using this method, he gathers up a trove of evidence to support his first claim—namely, that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend for political parties to ever become dominant in the United States.

Peterson proceeds with a sensationalist recounting of the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton that took place throughout the 1790s. He argues—as many other historians have—that this feud birthed the American party system. He blames the opposing ideologies espoused by Jefferson and Hamilton for instigating the centuries-old disagreement between liberals and conservatives in America. While he acknowledges that the formation of political parties was inevitable under the circumstances of early American politics, Peterson now urges that parties should be abolished.

Specifically, Peterson argues for the passage of a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, which he writes out word-for-word in his book, would explicitly return the right to nominate political candidates to the American people. This is where the problems with Peterson’s book begin. He may seem like a visionary, but in many respects, he is simply being ridiculous. While his book presents a passionate analysis of constitutional history, his analysis does not come across as particularly intellectual or innovative in nature. He does not uncover any new historical details, and his idea of a constitutional amendment seems outlandish and perhaps childish.

The Right to Nominate is more a manifesto than anything, and an extremely energetic manifesto at that. Peterson paints himself as the savior of the American people—an enlightener whose duty is to restore to the American people a right that was stolen from them before they even knew it existed. At times, Peterson seems far too enamored of his own ideas to come across as convincing. His book is a rabble-rousing one, not a philosophical one. Thankfully, Peterson does not advocate a political agenda; he only advocates a massive change in the political system. However, the fact that he advocates this change with such fervor may make him come across as clown-like rather than serious.

Peterson is not a bad writer, but he is also not a good one. He divides the book into short chapters, which he further subdivides into sections. This makes his style seem direct and clear. His argument is easy to understand, and his train of thought is easy to follow. However, he is an effusive abuser of the semicolon, and the book’s many minor typographical errors add up to become somewhat annoying.

I had not expected The Right to Nominate to be an extremely accomplished work of political philosophy, but I did expect a bit more than I actually received. The book does not come across as particularly professional, and even though the author has clearly done good research, his research has not made his prose particularly erudite. I found the book to be neither worthless nor good, and thus, I rate it 2 out of 4 stars.

******
The Right to Nominate
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon

[Erin Painter Baker]

I liked the idea behind the book (though disagree with the way the history of The Federalist Papers is presented), but in the end, I also found his argument more passion than practical. More than anything, I found his argument so repetitive as to be done with it long before I was done with the book.

[ab2020]

I liked the idea behind the book (though disagree with the way the history of The Federalist Papers is presented), but in the end, I also found his argument more passion than practical. More than anything, I found his argument so repetitive as to be done with it long before I was done with the book.

Thanks for your comment! I agree; the book started off well, but it disintegrated a bit and got into the political sensation and scandal of the early United States as opposed to talking about the political philosophy (as it promised to do). This made it come across as decidedly not "practical".