The defect, Sandel maintains, lies in the impoverished vision of citizenship and community shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. American politics has lost its civic voice, leaving both liberals and conservatives unable to inspire the sense of community and civic engagement that self-government requires.

In search of a public philosophy adequate to our time, Sandel ranges across the American political experience, recalling the arguments of Jefferson and Hamilton, Lincoln and Douglas, Holmes and Brandeis, FDR and Reagan. He relates epic debates over slavery and industrial capitalism to contemporary controversies over the welfare state, religion, abortion, gay rights, and hate speech. Democracy's Discontent provides a new interpretation of the American political and constitutional tradition that offers hope of rejuvenating our civic life.

Paul Seaton’s Public Philosophy and Patriotism:  The Declaration and Us is a very countercultural book.  It advances the provocative thesis that not only is the Declaration worthy of our study today, but its principles and way of thinking about politics can and should be used to judge us and our politics today.   That’s countercultural.   While conservatives still have a warm place for the document in their hearts, one rarely hears them apply it to today’s debates.   Progressives tend to take two contradictory tacks toward the founding document:  on one hand, it’s the negligible product of hypocritical white males, on another, it limns the “ideals” and “values” of the American project that History is charged with fulfilling.  Neither of these views takes the document intellectually seriously.   Jefferson, however, articulated a different view when he called the Declaration “an expression of the American mind” at the time of the Revolution.  Here was a self-conscious, self-confident American mind, ready to take on the world.  Taking his cue from Jefferson, Seaton takes the Declaration seriously.  He takes it seriously as the expression of a mind that confidently judged despotic designs, but also grasped the principles of free government and free and reasonable politics and looked forward to a country embodying them.   Seaton argues that both these dimensions of Declaration political thought are applicable today.  
 
He does so in an interesting way.  For a number of years, he penned a Fourth of July essay on “the Declaration and Us” for the Law & Liberty website.   On that occasion, he provided an exposition of some theme of the Declaration and applied it to a contemporary debate or issue.  Over the years, they added up to a rather full exposition of the document, as well as an ongoing commentary on American political life.  With this collection, the essentials of the Declaration’s view of politics are laid bare, and significant threats to freedom-loving Americans are identified. This is the bold claim and aim of this unique book.  
 
At the beginning and end of the collection, Seaton makes a point of dating the completion of the manuscript on April 18th.  When the curious reader looks up the date, he finds that it is the date when Paul Revere undertook his famous ride.  In this way, the author indicates his judgment of the dire circumstances in which we live today and the patriotic models to which he hearkens.   In the form of an explication de texte, this collection is a call to arms against today’s enemies of ordered liberty.
 

In this book, Michael Sandel takes up some of the hotly contested moral and political issues of our time, including affirmative action, assisted suicide, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, the meaning of toleration and civility, the gap between rich and poor, the role of markets, and the place of religion in public life. He argues that the most prominent ideals in our political life--individual rights and freedom of choice--do not by themselves provide an adequate ethic for a democratic society. Sandel calls for a politics that gives greater emphasis to citizenship, community, and civic virtue, and that grapples more directly with questions of the good life. Liberals often worry that inviting moral and religious argument into the public sphere runs the risk of intolerance and coercion. These essays respond to that concern by showing that substantive moral discourse is not at odds with progressive public purposes, and that a pluralist society need not shrink from engaging the moral and religious convictions that its citizens bring to public life.