American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation ―and Could Again
American politics is in turmoil. It is divisive and contentious. Even more concerning, according to political pundits, it is gridlocked, with the country’s political parties unable to agree on solutions to the most urgent issues of our time. They say America is too divided and its political system too inflexible to make the necessary changes for a just and flourishing society. However, Yuval Levin presents a different view in his book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again. Levin argues that America’s constitutional order is designed to accommodate multiplicity and craft an essential—yet often overlooked—aspect of the common good: unity.
The book starts with a general overview of the history and purpose of the Constitution. It then discusses America’s primary political institutions: federalism, Congress, the presidency, the courts, and political parties. Each chapter provides important historical background before Levin identifies problems and offers solutions, which remain consistent throughout the book: American unity is threatened by progressive efforts, exemplified by the arguments of President Woodrow Wilson, to bypass the Constitution and give slim majorities the power to advance their policy goals. Levin argues that what is needed is a return to the republicanism expressed by the Founders, especially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. This approach encourages the accommodation and negotiation required by the Constitution, which is designed to accommodate differences and foster unity.
The Constitution and Republicanism
Levin conceptualizes the Constitution as a five-part framework. It is a legal framework that constrains government power; a policymaking framework that empowers the government to act; an institutional framework that establishes Congress, the presidency, and the courts; a political framework that conveys fundamental norms and principles; and a unity framework. Levin’s focus is on the final component: the Constitution, he argues, “was designed with an exceptionally sophisticated grasp of the nature of political division and diversity, and it aims to create—and not just occupy—common ground in our society” (2). Levin carries this focus through the entire book.
The Constitution accommodates differences, Levin explains, through “competition, negotiation, and productive tension” (45). The American constitutional system, Levin reminds us, was the product of compromises and designed to allow a multiplicity of people to live together by requiring consensus-building. Regarding competition, for example, the Constitution incentivizes the two main political parties to form broad coalitions to win elections. American political institutions are designed to generate tension both horizontally among the branches of government and vertically between the federal government and the states. This system of competition requires institutions, coalitions, and interests to negotiate to advance political goals. Although this process of negotiation may produce what some see as watered-down policies, Levin argues that the resulting compromises are more legitimate and durable because they have the support of a broader segment of the population.
Levin also explains how the Constitution shapes the public, preparing it for self-government. Central to this is understanding the difference between American republicanism and liberalism. While liberalism emphasizes personal autonomy, American republicanism focuses on individual and communal self-rule. Republicanism is rooted in the Western tradition and recognizes the following:
that we are each fallen and imperfect yet made in a divine image and possessed of equal dignity, that individuals are social creatures meant to live together; that living together requires a commitment to pursue the common good; and that this pursuit in a free and, therefore, diverse society requires of the citizen selflessness, accommodation, restraint, deliberation, and service. (82)
Defending the Constitution, Levin argues, is synonymous with a commitment to republicanism. He explains that the Constitution, when correctly understood, also shapes the public to hold republican values, at least when American politics functions properly. Levin points out that modern American politics does not influence the public in this way.
American Political Institutions
In the bulk of the book, Levin marches through American political institutions, first describing their constitutional organization and the logic behind it as intended by the Founders, and then explaining how they have evolved over the years, usually the result of progressive efforts to make them more efficient by allowing smaller majorities to accumulate more power.
For example, progressives led efforts to centralize power at the national level to regulate the economy in the early 20th century, blurring the constitutional boundaries between state and federal responsibilities. The progressive critique of Congress is that special interests prevent narrow majorities—the true representatives of the people—from passing laws, and the solution is to implement reforms that allow even smaller majorities to dominate the political process. Levin also argues that as the executive branch has developed into the so-called “administrative state” (189), it has taken on many legislative roles and responsibilities that are constitutionally assigned to Congress. The presidency has become the center of American politics because a change in presidential administrations can dramatically shift United States policy. Additionally, the Supreme Court has become the key venue for addressing controversial social issues in American politics. Levin contends that, across these institutions, expanding their scope and power has created a winner-takes-all system that has increased political tensions and social divisions.
A Return to Republicanism and Unity
Social divisions are unavoidable in any society, especially in free societies characterized by multiplicity, Levin explains. However, unity is possible in diverse societies that “share in common some mutual acceptance of some fundamental principles” (271). In the United States, Levin argues, these shared principles are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, including the ideas that humans are created equal and endowed with fundamental rights. Building politics on these principles, as the Founders intended, is crucial for fostering unity. In particular, Levin emphasizes the protection of minority rights, an idea that stems from the notion that all people are created equal and are entitled to participate in shared governance.
Of course, having a broad agreement on these general principles does not ensure unanimity on contentious issues. However, such agreement can support constitutional processes that create common ground for diverse groups to come together, share perspectives, and negotiate broadly acceptable policy solutions. By safeguarding the rights of minorities from slim majorities, this process of negotiation and accommodation can foster a shared sense of unity in American politics, Levin argues. If people feel their rights are protected and that, even as a minority, their political preferences are acknowledged, a sense of unity across differences becomes possible.
To unify the country, Levin advocates returning to the constitutionally rooted republican principles that safeguard minority rights across the range of American political institutions. For example, in terms of federalism, this involves restoring the layered federalism that was established in the Constitution, where states and the federal government have largely separate responsibilities, allowing local majorities—who might be minorities at the national level—to pursue policies based on the consensus in their communities. It means bringing Congress back to the heart of American national politics because Congress is the arena where diverse interests are represented and broadly acceptable solutions are negotiated. Additionally, it involves curbing the power of the administrative state and returning the courts to primarily “policing our constitutional structure” rather than being the main body to solve contentious social issues (230). Lastly, Levin proposes implementing ranked choice voting in party primaries to lessen the influence of fringe elements within each party.
Analysis and Conclusion
Among the many thoughts and questions that come to mind while reading Levin’s insightful book, two stand out. First, isn’t our culture much more divided than the society that existed at the founding? One could argue that the divisions and multiplicity that characterized the Founders pale in comparison to the differences in worldviews shaping today’s political divisions. The Founders came from similar European backgrounds and, for the most part, shared the Protestant Christian faith. Their shared faith created a particular set of mores, as Alexis de Tocqueville called them, that influenced the “moral, intellectual, and cultural life” of early Americans.[1] The Constitution and the American political project, in turn, were understood through these mores by the founding generation. As Americans increasingly disagree on metaphysical foundations, the “inalienable rights” referenced in the Declaration are now more debated than they were at the time of the founding.
Of course, the Founders strongly disagreed on the institution of slavery, which contradicted principles of equality and rights. It required a civil war, court rulings, and national legislation to secure racial equality in American politics. Considering this part of American history, Levin’s argument might be correct. All free societies contain division, even those with broad consensus on religious beliefs. The best way forward is to accommodate differences, which will always exist. Because Americans are often divided on fundamental issues, the ability to accommodate differences is more critical than ever.
This prompts the second question: Does Levin’s argument allow for an adequate vision of justice? Christians with an expansive vision of the demands of social justice, like that articulated in Timothy Keller’s Generous Justice, might find Levin’s vision for American politics underwhelming.[2] The tedious process of consensus-building required by America’s constitutional tradition impedes the country’s ability to give what some people would argue they are due in areas such as healthcare, a clean environment, and adequate housing. For these Christians, an aspect of procedural justice like following the contours of the Constitution may feel like a secondary concern compared to, for instance, the poor’s immediate material needs and a fairer distribution of society’s resources.
However, Christians should consider following Levin’s example and view unity as an essential part of the common good. In any society, a functioning political system and economy rely on order. Likewise, some level of unity is necessary for a healthy democracy. Even as Americans continue to lack a strong sense of shared loves upon which to base political action, revisiting their founding principles might help foster an attitude of accommodation among citizens, uniting the country and laying the groundwork for their shared life together.
[1]. Mark T. Mitchell. “Diagnosing the disease: what’s behind classical liberalism’s slow disintegration?” World Magazine, June 12, 2025, https://wng.org/articles/diagnosing-the-disease-1748907643.
[2]. Timothy Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just (Dutton, 2010).
One Comment