Review of Mere Natural Law

Book Author: Hadley Arkes

tags: philosophy, Christian 

A critique of modern conservative jurisprudence from a legal scholar and natural law expert. Hadley Arkes makes the argument that conservatives have been failing not because they don't have good arguments to make, but because they aren't making them. We have borrowed turf from our enemies, using their legal positivism as a defense of life and constitutional liberty instead of rejecting it as wholesale nihilism in the realm of jurisprudence. It isn't working, Arkes makes clear. The solution, he argues, is not to return to the moral ambiguity of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, but to go back still further, to the Founders of our nation, who recognized that even without a Constitution, without a Bill of Rights, without a Declaration of Independence, our rights would still exist, and would still be necessarily defensible, because, ultimately, they are founded on the unchanging law of righteousness, as President Calvin Coolidge wrote.

We must stop our treatment of moral rights as if it were a question of judicial propriety. Courts cannot avoid making moral judgements; the question is not to judge or to judge not, but rather to judge rightly, or to judge wrongly; and what we base our judgements on. What the court bases its judgements on cannot be only the law of a certain state or the letter of the Constitution; rather, Arkes understands the spirit of the laws. It was the reason for which the Constitution was drafted; the reason why the colonists of our nation broke with the British Empire. It was the reason that the founders of our nation could understand the same principles as we today can and do, yet they, of course, did not have the Constitution to guide them; they had only their souls, their inner conscience, the realization that all laws come from The Law.

Arkes makes several further points, arguing strongly against a “States' rights” understanding of abortion, and rather as a fundamentally moral issue. He also spends several chapters of this book contrasting the segregation of the twentieth century with the abortion of the twenty-first, and the Supreme Court’s correct decision but with flawed reasoning on both issues. Some of the points which he makes may seem controversial to the more libertarian-minded reader; he does not hesitate to argue that the state should punish some forms of what he terms “hate speech”—including, interestingly, the use of profanity in a public setting. While this may seem polemic, Arkes defends his thesis well, and the facts and data he uses are substantive. 

Ultimately, this book is one that those interested in jurisprudence and law should read with open eyes, open ears, and open hearts; we may reject some of the conclusions he arrives at, but as an intellectually rigorous work, with flawless logic, the ultimate conclusion, the end destination at which all the strings tie together, is a conclusion that is impossible to dismiss.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

March 7th, 2026

Review of National Treasure

Book Author: Michael Auslin

tags: history, philosophy, politics 

The history of the Declaration is not simply the history of a revolution, but rather, the revolution of history. Tracing the ideological antecedents and consequents of the Jeffersonian ideals of constitutional republicanism is by no means an easy task, yet, in an admirable way, the author succeeds in doing so.

Moving quickly through the founding era, the author does stop long enough to give a proper evaluation of just where the ideas embodied in this radical document proceeded from. Looking briefly at the history of Enlightenment thought, as well as the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman principles which would have been known and shared by the founders, Auslin moves forward, uncovering little-known details, such as the location of this document during the War of 1812, when the British sacked Washington. Feared lost, this founding document was moved, removed, and then moved again throughout our nation’s history, and the parallels between the unmooring of the physical location of the document and the unmooring of the ideas which it embodies form a striking theme of this book. While bureaucrats and politicians in Washington fought over the location of the document, ideologues from both North and South fought over the meaning of this document. Was freedom real? And if so, did it apply to all, or only to an elite few, or those pertaining to a certain racial group? Indeed, when analyzed literally, Auslin decides, the Declaration itself gives us the answer. Perhaps Jefferson and other founders failed to live up to the high ideals proclaimed in 1776, yet that fact alone does not negate the principles themselves. If anyone wants to deny that all men are created equal, Auslin concludes, it is far easier to deny that the Declaration is valid than it is to deny that the Declaration’s writers meant what they said. The answer, then, could not be more obvious: the question is not over differing interpretations of the Declaration, but over the Declaration or no declaration at all.

He then moves on to the next two hundred and fifty years of the document’s existence, documenting both the history and conservation efforts of the actual document—a portion of the book which I honestly found to be dry and overly repetitive—and, simultaneously, how the Lockean ideals of the Declaration were either kept or abandoned by the figures of main importance in our nation’s long, bloody, but ultimately redeeming history.

The chronological order is, at times, confusing, with the author jumping back and forth in time, and it is easy for the reader to become lost with regard to the place of a certain narrative in the overall thesis of the book. Yet the message presented herein is a unified one overall, with a clear, defensible thesis. Something to admire is the fact that Auslin does not seek to hide the explicitly Christian origins of the Declaration, while also giving a fair, balanced look at the other side. This is the part of the book which the reader will most appreciate; indeed, for the reader’s sake, it is easy to wish that Auslin had focused more on the ideological side and less on the physical proportions of the symbolic parchment. Yet, for literary purposes, this is not so, and I can understand that the author intended to weave together both the tangible and the transcendent.

An idea as revolutionary as the declaration that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending on whether you ask Jefferson or Locke), does not stay in one time period. The idea continues to evolve, never losing its original force or moral clarity. Instead, it becomes a living standard by which successive generations have measured themselves, sometimes faithfully, sometimes selectively, and often uncomfortably. Auslin traces how this idea was invoked by abolitionists, expanded by Lincoln, appealed to by suffragists, and later reinterpreted by civil rights leaders, judges, and politicians, all of whom claimed the Declaration as their own inheritance. In doing so, he demonstrates that the Declaration has functioned less as a relic encased in glass and more as a moral compass, one that has repeatedly drawn Americans back to first principles even when the nation strayed far from them. For all of those who have not yet encountered Michael Auslin, this is my exhortation: your ignorance of such a principled and thought-provoking historian should come to an end. When you conclude the reading of this book, you will emerge substantially wiser, substantially stronger in your principles, and substantially more prepared to render persuasive arguments for just why our nation is so abnormal and exceptional.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

April 11th, 2026

Review of Mark Twain

Book Author: Ron Chernow

tags: biography 

First off, I’ll say this: if I were going to read a 1,200-page biography on Mark Twain, Ron Chernow would absolutely be my pick to write it. After reading Hamilton, I was impressed by Chernow’s ability to combine exhaustive research with compelling narrative. So when Edelweiss gave me an advance copy of Mark Twain, I was genuinely excited.

Unfortunately, the final result left me more frustrated than fulfilled.

The biography certainly has strengths. Chernow’s research is, as always, meticulous. He doesn’t just know Twain—he practically moves into his psyche. He explores Twain’s evolution from a sharp-witted riverboat pilot to a global celebrity, his financial struggles, his literary innovation, and the private grief that haunted him. There are powerful sections that remind you why Twain still matters today.

But there’s a point where depth becomes overload. The book is enormous—nearly 1,200 pages—and it feels it. At times, I found myself slogging through page after page of minute details that didn’t add much to the overall arc. There’s a fine line between comprehensive and overstuffed, and for me, this book crossed it often.

Secondly, and more importantly: as a Christian, I found Twain’s views on faith—not just troubling, but downright offensive. Chernow doesn’t shy away from Twain’s open hostility toward Christianity, and I commend his honesty in that. But Twain’s consistent mockery of Scripture, heaven, and God is hard to stomach. He wrote entire books satirizing Christianity—one about a man who dies of boredom in heaven, another involving a “young Satan” figure on earth. Is it satanic? I honestly don’t know, and I won’t be reading them to find out. What’s clear is that Twain’s bitterness toward God only grew over time, and Chernow portrays him as a rabid anti-Christian, not merely a skeptic. As a believer, I found this deeply disturbing and disheartening.

Third, unlike Chernow’s earlier biographies, this one feels opinionated in ways that detract from the historical work. Take Twain’s “angelfish”—his oddly intense relationships with young girls in his later life. Rather than presenting the facts and letting the reader decide, Chernow heavily editorializes, even suggesting Twain may have been guilty of pedophilia. That’s an outrageous claim, unsupported by any serious historical evidence. It feels speculative at best—and slanderous at worst.

Chernow also makes no attempt to hide his anti-imperialist stance. That’s his right, of course—but it colors the narrative. Time and again, instead of letting Twain’s words speak for themselves, Chernow filters them through his own worldview. As a reader, I felt like I was being told what to think rather than being allowed to draw my own conclusions.

In the end, I respect Chernow’s scholarship. He’s a gifted biographer. But this book crosses several lines: it’s too long, too biased, and—frankly—too indulgent. I walked away more disappointed than enlightened. If you’re a committed Twain scholar or a fan of Chernow’s voice, you might still get something out of it. But for the average reader—especially for Christians—this one may be more frustrating than rewarding.

Nonetheless, I recognize Chernow’s genius. He has thoroughly investigated the facts and has gone to tremendous lengths to report lesser-known details accurately. As an educational biography, this book receives my wholehearted endorsement. As a political manifesto, it does not. It should be read by those seeking serious moral discussion and by those seeking to learn more about one of the most colorful figures in our history—always bearing in mind that the spiritual never should, and never can, be totally abandoned.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

February 27th, 2026

Review of Live Not By Lies

Book Author: Rod Dreher

tags: culture, Russian 

It can’t happen here; it can’t happen now — or can it? In Live Not by Lies, cultural commentator Rod Dreher answers the age-old question of how we should act in the face of falsehoods, and how we should respond to the increase of totalitarianism in our culture. Elucidating, firstly, how totalitarianism in any of its forms can take root in society, Dreher argues that while Eastern culture was threatened and devastated by an Orwellian totalitarianism that controlled everything, including the thoughts and words of its citizens, we, living in the modern Western hemisphere, are in danger not of an Orwellian system, but a Huxleyan one.

Drawing heavily on the writings of dissidents Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Benda, as well as information received through extensive interviews with survivors, or children of survivors, of the Communist regimes, Dreher recounts the stories of courageous individuals who “lived not by lies.”

Arguing that “the ideal subject of a totalitarian state is someone who has learned to love Big Brother,” Dreher shows how the loss of belief in a transcendent moral order left the culture of Eastern Europe susceptible to a communist takeover, and how, more terrifyingly, the loss of this transcendent order in the West, where the very ideal of moral transcendence was founded, is leaving us open and vulnerable to the soft totalitarianism of Huxley’s Brave New World. Indeed, communism answered, and still answers, “an essentially religious longing,” which is why Dreher argues that we must understand that we are fighting not against a rival economic system, or even a political one, but rather against a completely different and uncompromising religion. This soft totalitarianism demands loyalty in every aspect of life; it demands conformity to all its dogmatic teachings; and it demands, above all, the surrender of Truth. For it, “there is no such thing as objective truth — there is only power.”

The author devotes several chapters to examples of how soft totalitarianism has become the norm in our own culture. At times, this can become overly speculative; his warnings about the PATRIOT Act — though he doesn’t mention it by name, he clearly implies it — as conducive to a totalitarian society, and his dismissal of the state as a vehicle of security maintenance, feel overly influenced by libertarian extravagance. Cultural pressures, social media outrage, and corporate conformity are real phenomena, but Dreher occasionally presents them as more unified and monolithic than they actually are. His examples are persuasive in principle but, at times, exaggerated in scope.

Dreher also proposes a solution to the hard times that we are sure to face. If the thesis were only about the fact that we, as Westerners, are in trouble, and that the totalitarianism of the previous century is rising — indeed, that it has even risen in our midst in a new and deadly form — it would be a book ending in despair. Yet through the examples of brave dissidents and Christians from the past, we too can learn how to live the truth in a culture of lies. Using quotes from Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand, and the stories of incarceration from multiple Christians, the author shows that suffering is not necessarily a bad thing; indeed, it can bring the community together like never before. As a reader, it was highly appreciated that Dreher did not simply make these points as statements to be accepted at face value, but rather interviewed dozens of men and women who possessed firsthand experience. This lends a level of credibility to this book that is simply not present in other political manifestos.

Central to Dreher’s argument is the concept articulated by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his famous essay Live Not by Lies: the refusal to participate in falsehood. Totalitarian systems survive not merely because of the power of the state, but because millions of ordinary people repeat, affirm, and publicly comply with things they know to be untrue. The lie becomes truth, and the truth becomes unknowable. “Let the lie come into the world,” is the rallying cry. “Let it even triumph…,” but, Solzhenitsyn concludes, “not through me.”

A must read.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

March 12th, 2026

Review of Masculine Christianity

Book Author: Zachary M. Garris

tags: culture, Christian 

There is a crisis in the Western church, and Zachary M. Garris is not interested in beating around the bush. In Masculine Christianity, Garris makes the case that the church's slow accommodation to feminist ideology has not been a neutral cultural adjustment; it has been a theological surrender, one with consequences that ripple outward from the pulpit into the home and society at large. It is a bold argument, and one that deserves to be taken seriously.

Garris’s central contention is straightforward: God has not left men and women without direction. Scripture speaks clearly about the distinct roles, responsibilities, and authorities given to each sex, and the church’s drift away from these teachings has not made it more loving or more relevant; it has made it weaker. Masculine Christianity is, at its core, a call to recover what was never supposed to be lost.

What makes this book worth reading is that Garris does not treat masculinity as a cultural preference or a personality type. He roots it in theology. The authority a husband exercises in his home, the leadership a man provides in his church, and the responsibility he bears in society—these are not artifacts of a bygone era to be quietly retired. They are divinely ordained structures, and abandoning them has costs. Garris is right to press this point, and he does so with clarity and conviction rather than apology.

The book is also refreshingly honest about the scope of the problem. This is not merely a matter of a few liberal congregations going astray. Garris identifies the embrace of feminist assumptions as widespread across evangelical and even ostensibly conservative church culture. The softening of male headship, the sidelining of male leadership, and the reframing of biblical gender roles as culturally conditioned rather than scripturally grounded—these trends have touched nearly every corner of the Western church. The diagnosis feels accurate, and that accuracy is itself valuable. You cannot address a problem you are unwilling to name.

On the positive side of the ledger, Garris is equally clear. The alternative to a feminized church is not a caricature of domineering men barking orders; it is men who take their God-given responsibilities seriously—men who lead their families with love and intentionality, men who step into their churches not as passive attendees but as engaged shepherds and servants, and men who understand that authority and sacrifice are not opposites but are bound together in the biblical vision of manhood.

The principles he articulates—the complementarity of the sexes, the headship of the husband, the importance of male leadership in the church, and the social consequences of getting gender wrong—are not novelties. They are historic Christian beliefs, confessed and practiced across centuries and traditions, before the present moment of confusion set in. Garris’s project is essentially restorative, and there is something deeply sensible about that. The answer to theological drift is not innovation; it is return.

Readers looking for a thorough academic treatment of every relevant passage or a deep engagement with opposing scholarship will want to supplement this volume with additional resources. But that is not entirely what Garris is after. Masculine Christianity functions more as a clarion call than an exhaustive systematic treatment, and on those terms it succeeds. It is direct, blunt, and readable, and it arrives at a moment when directness is badly needed.

The church does not need another round of accommodation. It does not need to find more comfortable language for timeless truths or more palatable framings for unpopular doctrines. What it needs is what Garris is calling for: the willingness to take Scripture at its word, to trust that God’s design for men and women is not a liability but a gift, and to build accordingly. Masculine Christianity makes that case with urgency and conviction.

For readers who sense that something has gone wrong in how the modern church talks about men, women, and gender—and who suspect the answer lies not in further revision but in faithful recovery—this book is well worth your time.

Review Written by Gabriel Herrmann

March 30th, 2026

Review of The Bully Pulpit

Book Author: Doris Kearns Goodwin

tags: biography, history 

The Gilded Age has long been fraught with controversy, from the actions of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil to the trust-busting of Theodore Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Both sides of the political spectrum have a special interest in this period of American history. It was, depending on perspective, an age of greed or an age of enormous technological progress; a period during which the robber barons reigned supreme, or an age when the captains of industry generated thousands of jobs and fueled the economic boom that would send America to the forefront of world geopolitics and economics within a matter of decades.

Now, Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of the Pulitzer Prize–winning Team of Rivals, dedicates her talent and her pen to this age, and to two figures who were dominant not only in politics, but also in economics. In an intriguing and fascinatingly told tale involving the friendship and rivalry of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Goodwin weaves into the narrative the questions of the day: is, as the social Darwinists and conservatives believed, the role of government limited by time and space, or is it to play an active, and, in the hands of Roosevelt, incredibly active role in asserting the rights of labor and protecting the interests of the worker? From McClure’s periodical, where Ida Tarbell and her team of “muckrakers,” as Roosevelt, in a fit of anger, would describe them, labored tirelessly to expose what they perceived as injustice on the part of capitalist businessmen and financiers, to the halls of Congress, where Goodwin portrays the group she labels as the “conservatives” as both enemies of the people and, in her view, defenders of the status quo; in short, as corrupt career politicians dedicated to preserving their own livelihoods.

In terms of style, Goodwin has delivered another masterpiece. The characters, personalities, and foibles of both Theodore Roosevelt — the passionate, temperamental, and extremely dedicated former colonel and outdoorsman — and William Taft, in personality his opposite, though in mental fortitude, if not in dedication, his equal, come alive in this narrative. From Roosevelt’s appointment as Vice President and Taft’s tenure as Governor-General of the Philippines, to Roosevelt’s presidency and his nomination of Taft as his successor, Goodwin captures the excitement of the moment, as a team of talented, if biased, journalists set to work to expose the rich and wealthy in what some may call a personal vendetta — in the case of Tarbell — or an ideological obsession — in the case of Lincoln Steffens.

Leading up to the break between the former president and the sitting president, as tensions increased, the issues of the day came to the forefront. With Taft’s catastrophic, though arguably necessary, firing of Roosevelt’s top ally, Gifford Pinchot, the two men came head to head, and both used the power of the bully pulpit to its fullest, ultimately leading to the election of 1912, in which Theodore Roosevelt, wounded after a bullet struck him in the chest during an assassination attempt, for the first and only time in history defeated one of the two main party contenders while running as a third-party candidate, coming in second to the Princeton professor Woodrow Wilson. The Progressive Era is very much an era to be remembered and studied, from the populism of Bryan to the labor strikes throughout the nation and the political backrooms of Washington, D.C.

That said, no book should be spared necessary criticism, and this book is no exception. Goodwin, who worked for Lyndon B. Johnson and is a notable critic of conservatism not only in its manifestations of the nineteenth century but also in its current forms, makes no attempt to conceal her disdain for “laissez-faire economics” and clearly takes a view of government as the cure for all ills. Her view of Roosevelt as primarily a progressive candidate opposed to business freedom is not held by all historians; and neither she nor any other historian has the right to monopolize Roosevelt for her own side. Numerous comments made by Roosevelt, Taft, or other close advisors opposing the muckrakers and labor strikers go ignored or underexplained, and while she defends her thesis well and writes it clearly, she does so at the risk of overlooking evidence that does not suit her view. Of course, this is something that many historians, including those on the right, do regularly, and it is a criticism that should apply not only to this author but to all authors when necessary. Her representation of laborers as primarily peaceful or motivated by righteous intentions is an interesting take, one that should be engaged by those on the right as a claim that overlooks the anarchism and socialism of the day, anarchism that would lead to the assassination of William McKinley. The religious aspect is ignored completely. In fact, the only mention the author makes of religion in the entire 900-page book is to state that Taft’s father defended a court ruling declaring that Christianity should have no special place in America. Further, though she does not demonize Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, or other big business executives, her sympathies are clearly not on their side. In short, this is a book you could and should expect from a progressive, pro-government intervention journalist like Goodwin.

So, what then is the verdict? It is, as nearly all matters are, a complex yet simple answer: it should be read; it should be engaged with. The thesis should be understood but not taken at face value. The facts should not be entirely discounted nor entirely accepted, but should be read critically. Above all, a conclusion must be formed. Agree or disagree, this book will make you choose, and that, ultimately, is the one piece of the puzzle remaining, for which I am proud to recommend this book as a necessary piece of American history.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

March 6th, 2026

Review of Battle for the American Mind

Book Author: Pete Hegseth & David Goodwin

tags: culture, Christian 

What has happened to our kids? To receive an answer to this question is the same as to receive an answer to the question: what has happened to our education system, for while their formative years are in swing, it is the teachers who exert the most influence, change the most lives, and determine, in a way, the future beliefs of the children of America.

In taking another look at exactly how education turned into indoctrination, and virtue turned into values, former FOX News Host—and now Secretary of War—Pete Hegseth, a publicly educated yet concerned parent, and David Goodwin, an experienced classical educator, explore the beginnings of progressive ideology in America, and they go back further than the normal thesis, which places the blame entirely on the shoulders of John Dewey and the pragmatists. Rather, argue the authors, the true culprits are those who, as far back as the Enlightenment, but especially later, with the origin of the social gospel, began to shift the focus of education away from the cultivation of virtue and the transmission of truth—the Western paideia—to the reshaping of society. However noble the goal, the result was catastrophic, argues Hegseth, for it inoculated students against the idea that truth and wisdom could be learned, instead positing that truth and wisdom must be effected—that is, that the measure of a society’s goodness was not its ability or lack thereof to conform to a certain standard, but rather its capacity to mold the standard to a progressive secular ideal.

Challenging even the perception of modern-day conservatives that patriotism is a measure of an education’s virtue, Hegseth argues that patriotism for a nation, though not an inherent vice, has replaced the patriotism of the Old World: that is, the patriotism holding to the idea that man’s final kingdom, final destination, and final allegiance is not earthly, but heavenly.

Moving through history, from the conflict of the Enlightenment and the Revolution to the emergence of the Social Gospel, Darwinism and its fruits, and lastly the pragmatist educational system of John Dewey, Hegseth and Goodwin show rather than tell the erosion of the classical ideal. The paideia upon which our nation was founded regarded virtue and philosophy—or the love of wisdom—as fundamental. Virtue and wisdom were not proper to the individual, but to the citizen. They were not synonymous with the word used today—“values”—for values can be proper to each man, different and at times contradictory—justice and mercy, truth and love—depending on how they are applied. For the authors, virtue, the shaping of the mind toward the truth, and the molding of the heart toward the telos, is the goal of education, a goal at which our culture has simply failed to arrive.

The authors’ argument is persuasive, but uncomfortable, for it makes the reader realize that even that which he or she considered to be “conservative” was borrowed from that which is the opposite. They do not mix terms and avoid many of the strawmen used by modern classicists. Unfortunately, in their representation of the Founding Fathers as deists molded more by the Enlightenment than by Christian doctrine, they seem to be falling into the error they diagnose. This, of course, does not nullify the thesis, but it leaves room for them to grow, and makes the reader think critically about thinking critically. Furthermore, though the critique is powerful, they seem to focus more on the problems than the solutions. They do address the why behind this: it’s obvious that solutions will vary from situation to situation, and what applies in one case will not apply in another. Easy to understand, the book’s strength lies in its ability to bring the history of education into perspective, incorporating Christian truths into the final analysis.

When virtue is abandoned, when reason is thrown to the dogs and is no longer able to determine the legitimacy or accuracy of a statement, then the failure is not simply pedagogical, but spiritual. It leaves students untethered—able to recite facts but unable to explain the deeper meaning behind them; willing to change culture but without knowing what culture should be changed to. Social engineering no longer produces citizens, but rather, it produces sycophants.

Review Written by C. A. Gerber

March 15th, 2026