What do you think?
Rate this book
Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy
A lively and bold blueprint for moving beyond the “era of institutional failure" by transforming our outmoded political and economic systems to be resilient to twenty-first-century problems, from the popular entrepreneur, bestselling author, and political truth-teller
“A vitally important book.”—Mark Cuban
Despite being written off by the media, Andrew Yang’s shoestring 2020 presidential campaign—powered by his proposal for a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for all Americans—jolted the political establishment, growing into a massive, diverse movement.
Now, in Forward, Yang reveals that UBI and the threat of job automation are only the beginning, diagnosing how a series of cascading problems within our antiquated systems keeps us stuck in the past—imperiling our democracy at every level. With America’s stagnant institutions failing to keep pace with technological change, we grow more polarized as tech platforms supplant our will while feasting on our data. Yang introduces us to the various “priests of the decline” of America, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve.
The machinery of American democracy is failing, Yang argues, and we need bold new ideas to rewire it for twenty-first-century problems. Inspired by his experience running for office and as an entrepreneur, and by ideas drawn from leading thinkers, Yang offers a series of solutions, including data rights, ranked-choice voting, and fact-based governance empowered by modern technology, writing that “there is no cavalry”—it’s up to us. This is a powerful and urgent warning that we must step back from the brink and plot a new way forward for our democracy.
“A vitally important book.”—Mark Cuban
Despite being written off by the media, Andrew Yang’s shoestring 2020 presidential campaign—powered by his proposal for a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for all Americans—jolted the political establishment, growing into a massive, diverse movement.
Now, in Forward, Yang reveals that UBI and the threat of job automation are only the beginning, diagnosing how a series of cascading problems within our antiquated systems keeps us stuck in the past—imperiling our democracy at every level. With America’s stagnant institutions failing to keep pace with technological change, we grow more polarized as tech platforms supplant our will while feasting on our data. Yang introduces us to the various “priests of the decline” of America, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve.
The machinery of American democracy is failing, Yang argues, and we need bold new ideas to rewire it for twenty-first-century problems. Inspired by his experience running for office and as an entrepreneur, and by ideas drawn from leading thinkers, Yang offers a series of solutions, including data rights, ranked-choice voting, and fact-based governance empowered by modern technology, writing that “there is no cavalry”—it’s up to us. This is a powerful and urgent warning that we must step back from the brink and plot a new way forward for our democracy.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published October 5, 2021
About the author
Andrew Yang
4 books654 followersAndrew Yang is an entrepreneur, author, philanthropist, non-profit leader, and former 2020 presidential candidate.
After working as a lawyer and executive at several early-stage technology companies, Andrew eventually became CEO of an education company that became #1 in the country. He then started a national entrepreneurship non-profit, Venture for America, which worked to empower thousands of young entrepreneurs to bring their dynamism to communities across the country, from New Orleans and Baltimore to Denver and Detroit.
Andrew was named a Presidential Ambassador of Entrepreneurship by the White House under the Obama administration and a Champion of Change for his work with Venture for America. Initially dubbed a "longer than long shot" candidate by the New York Times in 2018, Andrew became a top-tier contender for the presidency, raising nearly $40 million in grassroots funding.
With a vision to rewrite the rules of the United States economy through a “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for every American adult, Andrew became one of the most exciting stories in the 2020 race. Andrew's nationwide support, known as the “Yang Gang,” propelled him to seven Democratic primary debates, outlasting six senators, four governors, three members of congress, two mayors, and one secretary.
Following this unexpected run for president, Andrew formed the non-profit Humanity Forward, successfully lobbying Congress for direct cash relief for struggling American families during the pandemic while simultaneously distributing over $8 million directly to struggling families.
From his presidential and New York mayoral runs, Andrew has seen first-hand what’s preventing our country from getting things done, and he is now directing his energies towards fixing the machinery of our stagnant democracy. With FORWARD: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, Andrew lays out the case for a variety of democracy reform measures that can unclog the pipes of our system and realign the incentives of legislators with the wellbeing of the American people.
--
After working as a lawyer and executive at several early-stage technology companies, Andrew eventually became CEO of an education company that became #1 in the country. He then started a national entrepreneurship non-profit, Venture for America, which worked to empower thousands of young entrepreneurs to bring their dynamism to communities across the country, from New Orleans and Baltimore to Denver and Detroit.
Andrew was named a Presidential Ambassador of Entrepreneurship by the White House under the Obama administration and a Champion of Change for his work with Venture for America. Initially dubbed a "longer than long shot" candidate by the New York Times in 2018, Andrew became a top-tier contender for the presidency, raising nearly $40 million in grassroots funding.
With a vision to rewrite the rules of the United States economy through a “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for every American adult, Andrew became one of the most exciting stories in the 2020 race. Andrew's nationwide support, known as the “Yang Gang,” propelled him to seven Democratic primary debates, outlasting six senators, four governors, three members of congress, two mayors, and one secretary.
Following this unexpected run for president, Andrew formed the non-profit Humanity Forward, successfully lobbying Congress for direct cash relief for struggling American families during the pandemic while simultaneously distributing over $8 million directly to struggling families.
From his presidential and New York mayoral runs, Andrew has seen first-hand what’s preventing our country from getting things done, and he is now directing his energies towards fixing the machinery of our stagnant democracy. With FORWARD: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, Andrew lays out the case for a variety of democracy reform measures that can unclog the pipes of our system and realign the incentives of legislators with the wellbeing of the American people.
--
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews
October 17, 2021
I came in to this book expecting a totally new approach to politics. I came out of it with a vague sense of what Andrew Yang is trying to do, and with quite a bit of confusion about a few contradictory positions.
This book is well organized and somewhat well written, though Yang's tone is surprisingly informal for a presidential candidate. Yang divides his book up into three sections: the history of his presidential campaign, the problems he sees in modern America, and his proposed solutions.
Had Yang stuck only to the history of his campaign, I would have given this book 5 stars. Yang's insight into the nature of presidential campaigning in the 21st century is absolutely priceless. Most interesting were his comments about being turned into almost a completely different candidate by his well-meaning campaign manager. We apparently live in the age of style above substance, the age where political strategists think that a new hairstyle is more important than coming up with a strategy to appeal to women or African American voters.
Surprisingly, not every problem that Yang brings up receives a potential solution. Yang writes about a number of issues that we know all too well, including political extremism, racial profiling, the militarization of the police, and a few other common left-leaning talking points. However, Yang doesn't even make a pretense of finding an answer to these problems in his predictably UBI-focused rhetoric.
Instead, the reader is made to believe that congressional inaction is one of the biggest problems facing the United States. We're told about the 90%+ incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives, which supposedly serves as some sort of proof of how the modern era has warped our political sensibilities. Only the most astute readers will discover, through a little bit of research, that House incumbents have been historically reelected at a clip of over 80%. Perhaps the problem is not as dire as we once thought.
The contradictions start to abound. Yang has a soft spot in his heart for failing industries - particularly the dying manufacturing jobs that politicians tend to remember so fondly. Yang's love for traditional journalism, though, is a bit odd. Yang's solution to the utter failure of the journalism industry is nationalization. But what are we going to nationalize? The newspapers alone - despite the fact that two post-newspaper generations have already come of age? Do we expand the financial benefits to the slowly crumbling world of cable news television? What about the internet news portals and blogs that are being so rapidly replaced by podcasts and YouTube videos?
Yang even goes as far as to call for financial support for long-form podcasts, such as the Joe Rogan show. I was left scratching my head, wondering why in the world Yang would think that Rogan and his ilk would need further support from the government. Did Yang forget that his podcast appearances did more to advance his image than any of his other media bits (including those 30-second commercials that apparently took 8 hours each to film)?
I started to wonder why in the world we would even need party primaries if we moved to a rank order voting system that allows multiple representatives from each party to run for a seat. I puzzled over why the statistics that should replace GDP as measures of our national economic health, as well as the "dashboard" statistics Yang wants to display in both houses of Congress, just so happen to coincide with left-leaning talking points. And I became very confused over the concept that "facts" need to drive policy, constantly asking myself which "facts" are actually trustworthy (don't we all remember what Twain said about lies, damned lies, and statistics?). You get the picture.
In the future, only masters of political trivia will remember that Yang was completely embarrassed in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary. Yang artfully mentioning any details of that race, including his embarrassing lack of knowledge of the key issues. But Yang does mention his unfortunate presidential debate experience, during which a basic question about foreign policy left him looking like a one-issue candidate. You'd think that Yang would have included at least a blurb about foreign policy in these 300 pages. Nope - not even a brief mention.
Look - I like Andrew Yang. I don't think his Forward Party idea is going to get out of the mud, but I do like him as a policy maker. I like the idea of making government a pleasure to work with, of changing where our political focus lies, and of combating the dehumanizing nature of our bureaucracy. I really wish he would have taken the Secretary of Labor offer rather than shooting for that pie-in-the-sky mayoral position.
However, I don't see much to like in this book. I worry that Yang has surrounded himself with like-minded people, and that he is not thinking critically about his own ideas. At this rate, he will be doomed to political obscurity.
This book is well organized and somewhat well written, though Yang's tone is surprisingly informal for a presidential candidate. Yang divides his book up into three sections: the history of his presidential campaign, the problems he sees in modern America, and his proposed solutions.
Had Yang stuck only to the history of his campaign, I would have given this book 5 stars. Yang's insight into the nature of presidential campaigning in the 21st century is absolutely priceless. Most interesting were his comments about being turned into almost a completely different candidate by his well-meaning campaign manager. We apparently live in the age of style above substance, the age where political strategists think that a new hairstyle is more important than coming up with a strategy to appeal to women or African American voters.
Surprisingly, not every problem that Yang brings up receives a potential solution. Yang writes about a number of issues that we know all too well, including political extremism, racial profiling, the militarization of the police, and a few other common left-leaning talking points. However, Yang doesn't even make a pretense of finding an answer to these problems in his predictably UBI-focused rhetoric.
Instead, the reader is made to believe that congressional inaction is one of the biggest problems facing the United States. We're told about the 90%+ incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives, which supposedly serves as some sort of proof of how the modern era has warped our political sensibilities. Only the most astute readers will discover, through a little bit of research, that House incumbents have been historically reelected at a clip of over 80%. Perhaps the problem is not as dire as we once thought.
The contradictions start to abound. Yang has a soft spot in his heart for failing industries - particularly the dying manufacturing jobs that politicians tend to remember so fondly. Yang's love for traditional journalism, though, is a bit odd. Yang's solution to the utter failure of the journalism industry is nationalization. But what are we going to nationalize? The newspapers alone - despite the fact that two post-newspaper generations have already come of age? Do we expand the financial benefits to the slowly crumbling world of cable news television? What about the internet news portals and blogs that are being so rapidly replaced by podcasts and YouTube videos?
Yang even goes as far as to call for financial support for long-form podcasts, such as the Joe Rogan show. I was left scratching my head, wondering why in the world Yang would think that Rogan and his ilk would need further support from the government. Did Yang forget that his podcast appearances did more to advance his image than any of his other media bits (including those 30-second commercials that apparently took 8 hours each to film)?
I started to wonder why in the world we would even need party primaries if we moved to a rank order voting system that allows multiple representatives from each party to run for a seat. I puzzled over why the statistics that should replace GDP as measures of our national economic health, as well as the "dashboard" statistics Yang wants to display in both houses of Congress, just so happen to coincide with left-leaning talking points. And I became very confused over the concept that "facts" need to drive policy, constantly asking myself which "facts" are actually trustworthy (don't we all remember what Twain said about lies, damned lies, and statistics?). You get the picture.
In the future, only masters of political trivia will remember that Yang was completely embarrassed in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary. Yang artfully mentioning any details of that race, including his embarrassing lack of knowledge of the key issues. But Yang does mention his unfortunate presidential debate experience, during which a basic question about foreign policy left him looking like a one-issue candidate. You'd think that Yang would have included at least a blurb about foreign policy in these 300 pages. Nope - not even a brief mention.
Look - I like Andrew Yang. I don't think his Forward Party idea is going to get out of the mud, but I do like him as a policy maker. I like the idea of making government a pleasure to work with, of changing where our political focus lies, and of combating the dehumanizing nature of our bureaucracy. I really wish he would have taken the Secretary of Labor offer rather than shooting for that pie-in-the-sky mayoral position.
However, I don't see much to like in this book. I worry that Yang has surrounded himself with like-minded people, and that he is not thinking critically about his own ideas. At this rate, he will be doomed to political obscurity.
October 4, 2021
Didn't have much more new information than his last book, but it was interesting to hear about his experiences on the trail.
January 4, 2022
A populist like any politician: how he is going to vanquish the dragons with your money, only to find out how hard it is to change anything. And all you have to do is push him into the good life, where everything is paid by the tax money.
November 13, 2021
I want to first start out by revealing my own biases which I think is necessary when reviewing a political book, particularly when it is one by someone from a different political persuasion than you.
I generally consider myself a slightly right of center person (I tend to like people such as Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Jon Huntsman Jr, John Kasich, etc.). I find myself to be generally right of center on issues of economics, moderate on issues of national defense and international affairs, left of center on environmental and energy issues, and fairly libertarian on social issues.
When Andrew first announced that he was leaving the Democrat Party and starting his own party, I was genuinely intrigued -- over the years, I've felt that I have been a man without a party; the constant use of wedge issues to tear us apart, the use of false dichotomies and the constant need of approval from the political extremes on each side of the aisle.
After I heard about it, I wanted to hear what Yang had to say since he believed that the two-party system has been tearing us apart leading to an incredible amount of division fueled largely by social media and opinion masquerading as the "news" -- a view that I wholeheartedly agree with.
On top of that Yang, seems like a great guy and I actually appreciated that he focused on his 2020 campaign on possible solutions (whether I agreed with them or not) rather than just blatantly going around bashing the other side looking for sound clips of the approval of the vacuous parasites on Twitter (or, conversely if he had been on the right, 4Chan).
I don't tend to agree with him on many policy issues, but I still wanted to hear him out since maybe something shifted; after all, I always felt like Yang was genuine in his desire to want to help the country and doesn't seem to be a person who is solely looking to chase power. I also was thrilled when he talked about issues like automation -- a critical issue which nobody talks about.
Naturally, I decided to pick up his book.
First and foremost, I want to point out that I am not reviewing his book about the political points that he makes, be it UBI, SPHC, etc. -- I am making my comments in the lens of the books' thesis: that it is possible to end the two party system through a meaningful coalition of people on the left and right with his proposal.
The first part of the book I thought was fantastic -- Yang talks about his upbringing, career, and most importantly, about what it is like to run for President, particularly as someone who was viewed as a "long shot" candidate and ultimately, the surprising following that built around his campaign.
If you are a long-time politico, none of this information may be surprising and might have even been to have been expected -- particularly as it relates to the power of the media in terms of royalty-making. With that being said, I would love to read an even longer version of the stories from his 2020 campaign and mayoral campaign.
The second part of the book focuses on what Yang believes are institutional failures that cause people to become disillusioned or to feel out of place in the political system.
The third part of the book focuses on what Yang considers to be solutions to the problems as well as the work of his group "Humanity Forward" as well as the endorsements and campaigning he has done on behalf of these candidates.
I'm largely not going to focus on the second part of the book since I feel that it is largely opinion-based -- I'm also not going to base my review whether I agree with the proposed solutions, but instead, I'm going to review this solely on how he intends to bring people together and implement these solutions.
The third part of this book is likely going to be contentious -- it outlines the various proposals that Yang believes will help rid us of the two-party system that plagues America.
I believe that there are a few fundamental flaws with Yangs' approach as he has outlined it in his book (again, this is solely based on the content of his book and doesn't account for any statements elsewhere).
Obviously, if there is the right consensus, this could actually form into a meaningful party or group, however, it is important that the group is built around structural issues of our democracy rather than political issues.
Generally speaking, I do think its' 100% possible to build a coalition on some of the issues that Yang has identified -- ranked choice voting, term limits, better controls on media (in terms of news vs. opinion) and open primaries. There are Republicans and Democrats that have been talking about the importance of these for years.
However, I think cracks begin to form when you start to include political positions in a platform that is meant to be unifying -- UBI, Universal Health Care and implementing a VAT tax system aren't exactly ideas that are largely embraced by both parties, in fact, it seems more like a Progressive Democrats' wishlist.
If the intention is to build a coalition that reaches across the aisle, it's going to be largely impossible to find Republicans' who are going to be willing to embrace ideas that they feel are detrimental to the economy. There was no argument or case built that explained how he could reasonably expect this to happen.
The cracks really deepen when he starts talking about endorsements -- if you're trying to build a party that is supposedly independent, your track record absolutely matters when you're trying to convince people to join your movement -- the people you surround yourself with and the people who you endorse says a whole lot about your actual intentions.
Part of the third part of the book was spent talking about his efforts to get people like Joel Ossoff and Rev. Warnock elected in their respective GA Senate elections; additionally, he talked about the various Democrats that he endorsed -- all of which seemed to be running on the standard Democrat platform, although they might have embraced UBI.
Again, I'm not saying this in a political manner -- there was nothing to back up how you counteract calls about independence and moderation when the track record shows that you are consistently backing Progressive Democrats only.
Now, if you think that I'm saying this because I'm biased or trying to thwart this party, think again. I want the two party system broken up. I'm tired of know-nothings being elected to represent us. I want people who will listen to experts, admit when they are wrong and stop trying to divide us to gain more power.
With that being said, I did still enjoy the perspective that Andrew brings to the table and wish that we could have more people in politics with the temperament, passion and unique way of thinking that someone like Andrew Yang provides.
I generally consider myself a slightly right of center person (I tend to like people such as Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Jon Huntsman Jr, John Kasich, etc.). I find myself to be generally right of center on issues of economics, moderate on issues of national defense and international affairs, left of center on environmental and energy issues, and fairly libertarian on social issues.
When Andrew first announced that he was leaving the Democrat Party and starting his own party, I was genuinely intrigued -- over the years, I've felt that I have been a man without a party; the constant use of wedge issues to tear us apart, the use of false dichotomies and the constant need of approval from the political extremes on each side of the aisle.
After I heard about it, I wanted to hear what Yang had to say since he believed that the two-party system has been tearing us apart leading to an incredible amount of division fueled largely by social media and opinion masquerading as the "news" -- a view that I wholeheartedly agree with.
On top of that Yang, seems like a great guy and I actually appreciated that he focused on his 2020 campaign on possible solutions (whether I agreed with them or not) rather than just blatantly going around bashing the other side looking for sound clips of the approval of the vacuous parasites on Twitter (or, conversely if he had been on the right, 4Chan).
I don't tend to agree with him on many policy issues, but I still wanted to hear him out since maybe something shifted; after all, I always felt like Yang was genuine in his desire to want to help the country and doesn't seem to be a person who is solely looking to chase power. I also was thrilled when he talked about issues like automation -- a critical issue which nobody talks about.
Naturally, I decided to pick up his book.
First and foremost, I want to point out that I am not reviewing his book about the political points that he makes, be it UBI, SPHC, etc. -- I am making my comments in the lens of the books' thesis: that it is possible to end the two party system through a meaningful coalition of people on the left and right with his proposal.
The first part of the book I thought was fantastic -- Yang talks about his upbringing, career, and most importantly, about what it is like to run for President, particularly as someone who was viewed as a "long shot" candidate and ultimately, the surprising following that built around his campaign.
If you are a long-time politico, none of this information may be surprising and might have even been to have been expected -- particularly as it relates to the power of the media in terms of royalty-making. With that being said, I would love to read an even longer version of the stories from his 2020 campaign and mayoral campaign.
The second part of the book focuses on what Yang believes are institutional failures that cause people to become disillusioned or to feel out of place in the political system.
The third part of the book focuses on what Yang considers to be solutions to the problems as well as the work of his group "Humanity Forward" as well as the endorsements and campaigning he has done on behalf of these candidates.
I'm largely not going to focus on the second part of the book since I feel that it is largely opinion-based -- I'm also not going to base my review whether I agree with the proposed solutions, but instead, I'm going to review this solely on how he intends to bring people together and implement these solutions.
The third part of this book is likely going to be contentious -- it outlines the various proposals that Yang believes will help rid us of the two-party system that plagues America.
I believe that there are a few fundamental flaws with Yangs' approach as he has outlined it in his book (again, this is solely based on the content of his book and doesn't account for any statements elsewhere).
Obviously, if there is the right consensus, this could actually form into a meaningful party or group, however, it is important that the group is built around structural issues of our democracy rather than political issues.
Generally speaking, I do think its' 100% possible to build a coalition on some of the issues that Yang has identified -- ranked choice voting, term limits, better controls on media (in terms of news vs. opinion) and open primaries. There are Republicans and Democrats that have been talking about the importance of these for years.
However, I think cracks begin to form when you start to include political positions in a platform that is meant to be unifying -- UBI, Universal Health Care and implementing a VAT tax system aren't exactly ideas that are largely embraced by both parties, in fact, it seems more like a Progressive Democrats' wishlist.
If the intention is to build a coalition that reaches across the aisle, it's going to be largely impossible to find Republicans' who are going to be willing to embrace ideas that they feel are detrimental to the economy. There was no argument or case built that explained how he could reasonably expect this to happen.
The cracks really deepen when he starts talking about endorsements -- if you're trying to build a party that is supposedly independent, your track record absolutely matters when you're trying to convince people to join your movement -- the people you surround yourself with and the people who you endorse says a whole lot about your actual intentions.
Part of the third part of the book was spent talking about his efforts to get people like Joel Ossoff and Rev. Warnock elected in their respective GA Senate elections; additionally, he talked about the various Democrats that he endorsed -- all of which seemed to be running on the standard Democrat platform, although they might have embraced UBI.
Again, I'm not saying this in a political manner -- there was nothing to back up how you counteract calls about independence and moderation when the track record shows that you are consistently backing Progressive Democrats only.
Now, if you think that I'm saying this because I'm biased or trying to thwart this party, think again. I want the two party system broken up. I'm tired of know-nothings being elected to represent us. I want people who will listen to experts, admit when they are wrong and stop trying to divide us to gain more power.
With that being said, I did still enjoy the perspective that Andrew brings to the table and wish that we could have more people in politics with the temperament, passion and unique way of thinking that someone like Andrew Yang provides.
July 6, 2023
This is a fascinating, audible book read by Andrew Yang himself. He starts off talking about his run for the US presidency. He then talks about how difficult it is to change politics in the US. And he ends by talking about the need to form a third political party.
I am a longtime believer in UBI. And ranked choice Voting is also high on my list.
I am a longtime believer in UBI. And ranked choice Voting is also high on my list.
October 23, 2021
Separate from the politics of Mr. Yang, of which I am a huge proponent, this book still stands on its own as a memoir and critique of the America system of electing a president. From the absurdity of constant self-promotion to the never-ending pursuit of the next viral clip, the process of selecting a president requires skills that are almost antithetical to leadership. Yang details his experience as an obscure underdog who created a passionate following. He is open and personal in this memoir, as he is always. The second half of the book describes in detail the challenges of the current political system and fixes that would benefit the vast majority of Americans. I believe this book should be required reading for anyone who recognizes the absurdity of our governing system and is seeking solutions, not just to complain.
October 6, 2021
Most books written by politicians right after an election are recaps that add only a thin veneer of personality to regurgitation of party platform. This book is not that. That’s not to say it’s free of politics, but it’s free of the feeling that someone is trying to sell you something. Even if you’re not a supporter of Andrew Yang or universal basic income, Yang’s funny and authentic retelling of his experience running for president is fascinating. This book continues the dialogue Yang started with his previous two books. In Forward, his concern about automation and the economy evolves to include barriers established by our political system and media coverage. He uses his experiences as a “longer than longshot” candidate to illustrate how convoluted our politics and media really are.
I listened to the audio version of this book, which is narrated by Yang. He’s a good writer, but his personality comes out best when speaking. He’s easy to listen to, and I audibly laughed at times. He digs into the moments that look like manufactured campaign promotion and highlights the fact that when the cameras turn off, politicians are humans too. He’s emotionally invested in the people he talks about and the ideas he presents. It’s evident that Yang earnestly strives for a better future. His own status within that future is secondary.
Thank you to Penguin Random House for the advance copy. This book was released today, October 5.
I listened to the audio version of this book, which is narrated by Yang. He’s a good writer, but his personality comes out best when speaking. He’s easy to listen to, and I audibly laughed at times. He digs into the moments that look like manufactured campaign promotion and highlights the fact that when the cameras turn off, politicians are humans too. He’s emotionally invested in the people he talks about and the ideas he presents. It’s evident that Yang earnestly strives for a better future. His own status within that future is secondary.
Thank you to Penguin Random House for the advance copy. This book was released today, October 5.
October 13, 2021
Andrew Yang's "Forward" is an ambitious book, told in three parts. The first part is an entertaining, credibility-building, and humanizing story of who Yang is, why he ran for President, and his experience in the circus / reality TV show of the campaign trail. The second part is a thorough analysis of America's perceived ills, particularly those with our previously trusted institutions (government, media/journalism, industry). The third part are Yang's proposed solutions to these problems, which are largely practical and, again, wildly ambitious. The book as a whole shares the story of Yang moving from thinking that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the most important step in solving our problems, to realizing that when the majority of people want UBI and the government won't pass it, we have a problem in government that needs to be fixed first.
The first section of the book largely serves to showcase that Andrew Yang is not like other politicians, at least not the ones who get elected. He points out a run for President is more ego-destroying than egomaniacal, and that he didn't personally want the spotlight. He would have preferred to have a battle for ideas in the public arena, advance the policies he perceived as superior, and get to work solving problems. However, this approach doesn't give well with human nature, and is wholly impossible given our current media landscape. Yang consistently found that the moments that got him publicity and notoriety were those that were authentic and human (crying, dancing, joking), not those that appealed to rationality. Yang has been put through a lot from the media, both being ignored (reasonably, at the start), suppressed (left out of infographics and segments without explanation; blacklisted by certain networks), and mocked (including intentional misportrayal of his positions and background)—he's even been called opportunistic for writing this book. I do think this section of the book is successful and helping the reader get to know Yang and see that he's a smart, rational, caring person who is approaching public service with an intention to help others.
The juxtaposition between Yang's ability to tell stories and convey ideas compared to most elected officials is staggering. I can't imagine this level of candor and explanation from many other candidates. A point he makes in this section is that he thrives in long-form conversations, which many politicians shy away from, instead sticking to tribal rallying-call soundbites.
The second section is perceptive and insightful. Yang points out some of the biggest problems in America right now. Our government bureaucracy is faceless, nameless, and not accountable. We don't know what's true. Americans have no shared understanding of reality, due to how we now get our information. Cable "news" doesn't attempt to report facts, and instead is a sporting event of Republicans vs. Democrats. Social media gives us an information diet tailored specifically to us to maximize our engagement with their platforms. Unfortunately, that engagement comes from content designed to get a reaction or further engagement, such as conspiracy theories. Our government has no incentive to represent the people, as a few individuals in Congress hold all the power. This means when a majority of Americans want something to happen, it does not.
The third section puts forward solutions. I don't agree with all of Yang's proposals, but I think Yang gets the big stuff right and is directionally correct.
The central proposal of this book is that we need to move to a system of open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV). Open primaries are necessary because a large majority of elections are determined in the primary, and closed primaries disenfranchise voters from any real choice. In a district with a 60/40 Republic/Democratic breakdown, the Democratic voters have no real choice in the general election. An open primary would allow democrats to have a say, possibly a more moderate Republican candidate. Ranked choice voting would give folks even more choice, with an ability to preference candidates. This could mean the Democratic voter could vote for their favorite Democrat (if one made it through the open primary), and then only vote for that more moderate Republican if the Democrat had no chance to win. This really feels like a no-brainer.
The normal rebuttals to RCV are (1) it's complicated for voters and (2) it's not perfect. (1) may or may not be true, but I'm optimistic in the electorate's ability to preference up to 5 voters in a list. After the previous outrage over vote-tallying practices in Nov 2020, this is certainly more of an issue, and we'd need to find a way to transparently count an admittedly more complicated tally of votes. I don't see this as insurmountable. (2) is true, it's possible for the overall #2 candidate to be eliminated in round one of vote tallying. This is unfortunate, but it's miles ahead of the status quo and should not be a blocker today.
Open primaries and ranked choice voting give some amount of choice back to the people.
With dynamic leadership in place, Yang would prioritize is creating a scorecard for America. If you turn on the news today, people are talking about GDP and the stock market as measures of how America is doing. This doesn't make any sense, as these numbers don't affect most Americans. The book has the statistics (or in Yang parlance, the MATH), but the main idea is only a small minority of Americans own stocks. Yang suggests we should determine what measures we want to use to represent the health of our nation, being reporting on them, and then find ways to improve them. Examples could be average income, percentage of the country who are food or clean water insecure, crime rates, etc. This is a basic idea of leadership—"Measure what matters" (though admittedly this can prioritize the proxy measurement over the harder-to-measure goal).
The next section of the book is focused on ways to improve these goals. Give people a UBI, give people healthcare, tax automation that is causing the externality of putting workers out of jobs, help people find meaningful work. Trust in government and government effectiveness could be improved by making their primary interaction with the people—taxes—much easier and a more positive experience. He also suggests "democracy dollars" to help campaign finance reform, 18 year term limits per House to prevent ossification, civic juries to share the will of the people, a ban on lobbying to prevent corruption, and bringing back earmarking to encourage compromise, among others. These ideas aren't explored in as much detail, and serve to show there is a lot more we could be doing to improve our democracy.
Yang is also a big believer in the importance of local journalism. He sees public funding for journalism as a potential way to return to a shared sense of reality. I'm less optimistic, and feel this could have been addressed more robustly. Yang also suggests forcing social media companies to offer an ad-free model at a price similar to the current revenue per user per month. I find two issues here: (1) this doesn't seem extremely practical and (2) this doesn't get at the heart of the issue—the echo chambers and networks of folks sharing misinformation may be doing more harm than paid ads. Yang also pushes for stronger data privacy laws, which I think could be a stronger solution with a government who enforces them.
The second largest proposal in this book is to join the Forward party (ForwardParty.com), a new political party with aims to get government working for the people again by breaking up the two-party duopoly. This is a new political party working towards the goals laid out in the final section of the book:
- Ranked-Choice Voting and Open Primaries
- Fact-Based Governance
- Human-Centered Capitalism
- Effective and Modern Government
- Universal Basic Income
- Grace and Tolerance
Overall, I think this is an insightful and human take on where our country is today, why we are here, and how to move Forward.
The first section of the book largely serves to showcase that Andrew Yang is not like other politicians, at least not the ones who get elected. He points out a run for President is more ego-destroying than egomaniacal, and that he didn't personally want the spotlight. He would have preferred to have a battle for ideas in the public arena, advance the policies he perceived as superior, and get to work solving problems. However, this approach doesn't give well with human nature, and is wholly impossible given our current media landscape. Yang consistently found that the moments that got him publicity and notoriety were those that were authentic and human (crying, dancing, joking), not those that appealed to rationality. Yang has been put through a lot from the media, both being ignored (reasonably, at the start), suppressed (left out of infographics and segments without explanation; blacklisted by certain networks), and mocked (including intentional misportrayal of his positions and background)—he's even been called opportunistic for writing this book. I do think this section of the book is successful and helping the reader get to know Yang and see that he's a smart, rational, caring person who is approaching public service with an intention to help others.
The juxtaposition between Yang's ability to tell stories and convey ideas compared to most elected officials is staggering. I can't imagine this level of candor and explanation from many other candidates. A point he makes in this section is that he thrives in long-form conversations, which many politicians shy away from, instead sticking to tribal rallying-call soundbites.
The second section is perceptive and insightful. Yang points out some of the biggest problems in America right now. Our government bureaucracy is faceless, nameless, and not accountable. We don't know what's true. Americans have no shared understanding of reality, due to how we now get our information. Cable "news" doesn't attempt to report facts, and instead is a sporting event of Republicans vs. Democrats. Social media gives us an information diet tailored specifically to us to maximize our engagement with their platforms. Unfortunately, that engagement comes from content designed to get a reaction or further engagement, such as conspiracy theories. Our government has no incentive to represent the people, as a few individuals in Congress hold all the power. This means when a majority of Americans want something to happen, it does not.
The third section puts forward solutions. I don't agree with all of Yang's proposals, but I think Yang gets the big stuff right and is directionally correct.
The central proposal of this book is that we need to move to a system of open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV). Open primaries are necessary because a large majority of elections are determined in the primary, and closed primaries disenfranchise voters from any real choice. In a district with a 60/40 Republic/Democratic breakdown, the Democratic voters have no real choice in the general election. An open primary would allow democrats to have a say, possibly a more moderate Republican candidate. Ranked choice voting would give folks even more choice, with an ability to preference candidates. This could mean the Democratic voter could vote for their favorite Democrat (if one made it through the open primary), and then only vote for that more moderate Republican if the Democrat had no chance to win. This really feels like a no-brainer.
The normal rebuttals to RCV are (1) it's complicated for voters and (2) it's not perfect. (1) may or may not be true, but I'm optimistic in the electorate's ability to preference up to 5 voters in a list. After the previous outrage over vote-tallying practices in Nov 2020, this is certainly more of an issue, and we'd need to find a way to transparently count an admittedly more complicated tally of votes. I don't see this as insurmountable. (2) is true, it's possible for the overall #2 candidate to be eliminated in round one of vote tallying. This is unfortunate, but it's miles ahead of the status quo and should not be a blocker today.
Open primaries and ranked choice voting give some amount of choice back to the people.
With dynamic leadership in place, Yang would prioritize is creating a scorecard for America. If you turn on the news today, people are talking about GDP and the stock market as measures of how America is doing. This doesn't make any sense, as these numbers don't affect most Americans. The book has the statistics (or in Yang parlance, the MATH), but the main idea is only a small minority of Americans own stocks. Yang suggests we should determine what measures we want to use to represent the health of our nation, being reporting on them, and then find ways to improve them. Examples could be average income, percentage of the country who are food or clean water insecure, crime rates, etc. This is a basic idea of leadership—"Measure what matters" (though admittedly this can prioritize the proxy measurement over the harder-to-measure goal).
The next section of the book is focused on ways to improve these goals. Give people a UBI, give people healthcare, tax automation that is causing the externality of putting workers out of jobs, help people find meaningful work. Trust in government and government effectiveness could be improved by making their primary interaction with the people—taxes—much easier and a more positive experience. He also suggests "democracy dollars" to help campaign finance reform, 18 year term limits per House to prevent ossification, civic juries to share the will of the people, a ban on lobbying to prevent corruption, and bringing back earmarking to encourage compromise, among others. These ideas aren't explored in as much detail, and serve to show there is a lot more we could be doing to improve our democracy.
Yang is also a big believer in the importance of local journalism. He sees public funding for journalism as a potential way to return to a shared sense of reality. I'm less optimistic, and feel this could have been addressed more robustly. Yang also suggests forcing social media companies to offer an ad-free model at a price similar to the current revenue per user per month. I find two issues here: (1) this doesn't seem extremely practical and (2) this doesn't get at the heart of the issue—the echo chambers and networks of folks sharing misinformation may be doing more harm than paid ads. Yang also pushes for stronger data privacy laws, which I think could be a stronger solution with a government who enforces them.
The second largest proposal in this book is to join the Forward party (ForwardParty.com), a new political party with aims to get government working for the people again by breaking up the two-party duopoly. This is a new political party working towards the goals laid out in the final section of the book:
- Ranked-Choice Voting and Open Primaries
- Fact-Based Governance
- Human-Centered Capitalism
- Effective and Modern Government
- Universal Basic Income
- Grace and Tolerance
Overall, I think this is an insightful and human take on where our country is today, why we are here, and how to move Forward.
October 30, 2021
3/5 - Liked it, but didn't 'really like' it. The main ideas of the book are covered by Yang's many media appearances, namely to have 'open primaries' and ranked-choice voting.
This book is mostly a recap of the campaign, if you've been following Yang's campaign, there are a few bits of "insider baseball" that haven't been discussed elsewhere. But I feel Yang's previous book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future is a more important read than this one.
The most valuable chapter is on "Constructive Institutionalism" or how politics has become an act of virtue signaling (available here):
But beyond this chapter, the other content is interesting but not required reading.
This book is mostly a recap of the campaign, if you've been following Yang's campaign, there are a few bits of "insider baseball" that haven't been discussed elsewhere. But I feel Yang's previous book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future is a more important read than this one.
The most valuable chapter is on "Constructive Institutionalism" or how politics has become an act of virtue signaling (available here):
Perhaps the biggest example of this magical thinking is the political conversation around retraining workers, often expressed, absurdly, as “teaching people to code.” The actual success of government-funded retraining programs has been found to be near zero in a majority of cases, with many workers simply holding valueless certificates afterward. Has the politician ever tried coding before? Have they tried to retrain a thousand former manufacturing and retail workers? Would they hire those thousand people if they needed a thousand coders? How about a hundred thousand?
We accept ridiculous statements on their face because we have grown to regard them less as real actions or policy statements and more as simply value statements and political representations of the world as you wish it to be. The country has lost more than four million manufacturing jobs since 2000, devastating hundreds of once-thriving communities in the Midwest and the South. That’s fine; if ten politicians stand in a circle holding hands and chant in unison, “You’ll like to code, heed this refrain, despair not, you shall retrain,” those millions of workers shall all move to Seattle and become Amazon Web Services technicians.
But beyond this chapter, the other content is interesting but not required reading.
December 8, 2021
I’ve read all of Yang’s books and enjoyed them. I do think this is the worst of his three, but I don’t say that disparagingly — it’s still pretty solid.
In a nutshell, it’s an overview of his failed 2020 presidential bid and what’s happened since. He gives the reader insights into the entire process and makes it more human. For example, he talks about the grueling schedule, the strangeness of remote interviews, and the difficult positions the news networks often put candidates in to boost ratings.
Politics aside, I just think Yang is a smart, caring, and articulate person. That comes across in almost all of his writings — this one included. The only real flaw I found in the book was his occasional “resting on his laurels.” By that, I mean he does, at times, sound content to sit back and let the rest of the Democratic Party steer the ship. I found that to be slightly disappointing because his new ideas and approaches are precisely why I started following him in the first place.
Having said that, however, Yang does end this one on a high note by countering that notion a bit and announcing the formation of his new political party. I know nothing about that process, but I’ll definitely say that I admire the gumption and ambition. That’s why most of us bought / will buy this title, anyway.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
In a nutshell, it’s an overview of his failed 2020 presidential bid and what’s happened since. He gives the reader insights into the entire process and makes it more human. For example, he talks about the grueling schedule, the strangeness of remote interviews, and the difficult positions the news networks often put candidates in to boost ratings.
Politics aside, I just think Yang is a smart, caring, and articulate person. That comes across in almost all of his writings — this one included. The only real flaw I found in the book was his occasional “resting on his laurels.” By that, I mean he does, at times, sound content to sit back and let the rest of the Democratic Party steer the ship. I found that to be slightly disappointing because his new ideas and approaches are precisely why I started following him in the first place.
Having said that, however, Yang does end this one on a high note by countering that notion a bit and announcing the formation of his new political party. I know nothing about that process, but I’ll definitely say that I admire the gumption and ambition. That’s why most of us bought / will buy this title, anyway.
-Brian Sachetta
Author of “Get Out of Your Head”
March 20, 2022
A great book about the problems facing our nation and why regardless of party, nothing seems to change. Yang offers an exciting and practical way forward - we need to get involved!!! I was inspired - he is s candidate I would get behind and could actually imagine campaigning for. This book gives me hope.
November 12, 2021
I've never followed Andrew Yang's campaigns closely -- I was involved with Texas campaigns in 2020, and I don't care who's mayor of New York. I think this made me open to getting a weird, distorted view of Andrew Yang in passing from various media outlets or friends or people on twitter. I recently listened to him in an interview on a podcast and I was really impressed. He's reached the same conclusion that I have -- nothing is going to improve in American politics until the election system is changed to allow viable third parties via ranked choice voting (preferential voting, for the Aussies reading this). I really liked his explanation of different problems. I thought he was sufficiently cynical and hard on America in a way that elected politicians are usually afraid to admit to.
I really enjoyed this book. Hearing his account of what it's like to run for President as a political outsider was fascinating. Especially the way he describes his media treatment. The way the US media shape the election -- deciding in advance which candidates to cover, which issues are important, which narratives to push -- is discussed with a lot of first-hand experience. I learned a lot from those passages. I definitely prefer listening to him in conversation, he has a lot of nerdy charming mannerisms that I really like, and you don't get nearly as clear a sense of his personality through the book. The writing is fine, but I loved listening to him speak in podcast, whereas his book doesn't capture his character nearly as well.
While I disagree with Yang about many political issues, I think he's one of the few people in American public life who actually get it and see the problems and aren't afraid to talk about them publicly. Anyway, I regret that until this month I only had a cursory awareness of his politics! I wish him the best of luck.
I really enjoyed this book. Hearing his account of what it's like to run for President as a political outsider was fascinating. Especially the way he describes his media treatment. The way the US media shape the election -- deciding in advance which candidates to cover, which issues are important, which narratives to push -- is discussed with a lot of first-hand experience. I learned a lot from those passages. I definitely prefer listening to him in conversation, he has a lot of nerdy charming mannerisms that I really like, and you don't get nearly as clear a sense of his personality through the book. The writing is fine, but I loved listening to him speak in podcast, whereas his book doesn't capture his character nearly as well.
While I disagree with Yang about many political issues, I think he's one of the few people in American public life who actually get it and see the problems and aren't afraid to talk about them publicly. Anyway, I regret that until this month I only had a cursory awareness of his politics! I wish him the best of luck.
October 9, 2021
Forward is a compelling look into the ego-annihilating/-gratifying experience of running for office as a relative nobody to unpredicted success. Yang offers a deep and honest analysis of the absurdity of the process by which we elect leaders into office, and why the system and the incentives involved need drastic, yet practical change. It is a unique and hopeful call to action. It’s for anyone hoping to solve the issues of democracy, and decrease political tension, without the emotion culture war issues invoke that keep us all banging our heads against the walls of each other’s moral tribe.
March 21, 2024
Andrew Yang is in a minority among political candidates in that he genuinely wants to make the world a better place. And he’s a minority even in that group as being rational - he knows and says reasonable things even when it might not be in his political interest to do so.
This book is a great demonstration of his thinking on the most important matters facing society. He spends a bit of time recounting his experience in running for president in 2020, which is interesting, but even better are the well-expressed explanations of his eminently rational positions.
Some examples of his refreshing wisdom:
- “running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader.” (p. 74) This is an obvious problem. It’s rare to find a candidate who’s good at the nonsense required for campaigning and also a great leader. And even if there are some in this group, there’s no guarantee they can win against those who are experts at campaigning but terrible as leaders.
- “loyalty in politics has a way of keeping things from changing.” (p. 152) For historical reasons, loyalty has come to be seen as a positive quality, but this is no longer valid, if it ever was. We are conditioned to be loyal to friends, family, colleagues, team members… but this is flat out wrong in cases where the object of our loyalty is behaving badly.
- “The purpose of an economy should be to improve the way of life of its people—that is, to improve the measurable quality of life of each and every person in a society.” (p. 202). Many leaders would deny that this is even the goal of society, while others, even if they agree, don’t put their efforts toward actually accomplishing it.
Yang’s ideas are reasonable proposals to improve things. In chapter 19, he champions:
- Universal Basic Income. His signature proposal, which has become well-known thanks largely to his efforts. It seems clear that there will soon be more people than jobs, and in any case no one _deserves_ to have to work at all. We’ve been conditioned, again, historically, to think it’s necessary to survive, even when society has the means to eliminate the necessity.
- Health care for all. Blindingly obvious that this should be a human right.
- Taxing automation. A logical and feasible way to pay for the above.
In chapter 20, he calls for:
- Ranked choice voting. A clear improvement that mitigates the problems with our entrenched two party system by allowing people to vote for the candidate they really want to win without fear of “wasting their vote”.
- Term limits: As Yang says, “three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole, while individual members sport reelection rates of 94 percent.” (p. 174). This makes no sense. Incumbents are obviously cruising to reelection based on name recognition and contacts. Even if they are actually good leaders, and surely some of them are, that’s not an argument for allowing them to hold the job indefinitely.
- Banning lobbying. Giving money to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment is the very definition of bribery. Even if it’s not illegal, it’s clearly unethical, and should not be acceptable in modern society. One example in particular is the fact that “[t]he IRS should be able to tell us how much we owe and automatically file our taxes for us.” (p. 260) Of course it should, and this is the way it works in some countries. The main reason it isn’t done this way in the US is due to the lobbying efforts of TurboTax maker Intuit and other unethical tax preparation companies, who are following incentives to make more money as opposed to making life better for people.
And then there is “fact-based governing—that is, … policies based on their ability to deliver an improvement to some attribute or measurement of societal progress or health.” (p. 255)
Yang is also an eminently decent person, encouraging us to “extend a sense of grace and tolerance toward the people who disagree with us or who are different from us in some way—even those who attack us.” (p. 274) This may be the hardest thing for readers to accept, and while I agree that this is an admirable goal, I’m not convinced that it’s always the right thing to do. Yang justifies his position as follows: “If one’s psychological makeup helps determine our political views, then I should not hold your politics against you, because there’s a substantial chance you were born with a disposition toward the candidates and party you support.” (p. 253) Fair enough, but on the other hand, if someone’s political views contribute demonstrably to making society worse rather than better, we can’t be “tolerant” of those views. Ideas are not deserving of respect; only people are, and only then until they do something to lose that respect. Getting back to the fact-based governing mentioned above, we need “evidence, facts, and results and … legislator accountability based on whether they can demonstrate that they’ve helped move us in a better direction.” (p. 256) If a politician doesn’t meet that standard, then those who support him are simply wrong.
All this to say that this book is absolutely recommended for anyone interested in improving our society, which ought to be all of us. We need more people like Yang to move us in the right direction: forward.
This book is a great demonstration of his thinking on the most important matters facing society. He spends a bit of time recounting his experience in running for president in 2020, which is interesting, but even better are the well-expressed explanations of his eminently rational positions.
Some examples of his refreshing wisdom:
- “running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader.” (p. 74) This is an obvious problem. It’s rare to find a candidate who’s good at the nonsense required for campaigning and also a great leader. And even if there are some in this group, there’s no guarantee they can win against those who are experts at campaigning but terrible as leaders.
- “loyalty in politics has a way of keeping things from changing.” (p. 152) For historical reasons, loyalty has come to be seen as a positive quality, but this is no longer valid, if it ever was. We are conditioned to be loyal to friends, family, colleagues, team members… but this is flat out wrong in cases where the object of our loyalty is behaving badly.
- “The purpose of an economy should be to improve the way of life of its people—that is, to improve the measurable quality of life of each and every person in a society.” (p. 202). Many leaders would deny that this is even the goal of society, while others, even if they agree, don’t put their efforts toward actually accomplishing it.
Yang’s ideas are reasonable proposals to improve things. In chapter 19, he champions:
- Universal Basic Income. His signature proposal, which has become well-known thanks largely to his efforts. It seems clear that there will soon be more people than jobs, and in any case no one _deserves_ to have to work at all. We’ve been conditioned, again, historically, to think it’s necessary to survive, even when society has the means to eliminate the necessity.
- Health care for all. Blindingly obvious that this should be a human right.
- Taxing automation. A logical and feasible way to pay for the above.
In chapter 20, he calls for:
- Ranked choice voting. A clear improvement that mitigates the problems with our entrenched two party system by allowing people to vote for the candidate they really want to win without fear of “wasting their vote”.
- Term limits: As Yang says, “three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole, while individual members sport reelection rates of 94 percent.” (p. 174). This makes no sense. Incumbents are obviously cruising to reelection based on name recognition and contacts. Even if they are actually good leaders, and surely some of them are, that’s not an argument for allowing them to hold the job indefinitely.
- Banning lobbying. Giving money to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment is the very definition of bribery. Even if it’s not illegal, it’s clearly unethical, and should not be acceptable in modern society. One example in particular is the fact that “[t]he IRS should be able to tell us how much we owe and automatically file our taxes for us.” (p. 260) Of course it should, and this is the way it works in some countries. The main reason it isn’t done this way in the US is due to the lobbying efforts of TurboTax maker Intuit and other unethical tax preparation companies, who are following incentives to make more money as opposed to making life better for people.
And then there is “fact-based governing—that is, … policies based on their ability to deliver an improvement to some attribute or measurement of societal progress or health.” (p. 255)
Yang is also an eminently decent person, encouraging us to “extend a sense of grace and tolerance toward the people who disagree with us or who are different from us in some way—even those who attack us.” (p. 274) This may be the hardest thing for readers to accept, and while I agree that this is an admirable goal, I’m not convinced that it’s always the right thing to do. Yang justifies his position as follows: “If one’s psychological makeup helps determine our political views, then I should not hold your politics against you, because there’s a substantial chance you were born with a disposition toward the candidates and party you support.” (p. 253) Fair enough, but on the other hand, if someone’s political views contribute demonstrably to making society worse rather than better, we can’t be “tolerant” of those views. Ideas are not deserving of respect; only people are, and only then until they do something to lose that respect. Getting back to the fact-based governing mentioned above, we need “evidence, facts, and results and … legislator accountability based on whether they can demonstrate that they’ve helped move us in a better direction.” (p. 256) If a politician doesn’t meet that standard, then those who support him are simply wrong.
All this to say that this book is absolutely recommended for anyone interested in improving our society, which ought to be all of us. We need more people like Yang to move us in the right direction: forward.
February 19, 2023
This guy should run for president. Based on his ideas and personality, and not name recognition alone, he would outlast over a dozen mayors, governors, members of congress, and the senate. He would be endorsed by the richest man in the world. After he gracefully bows out not wanting to accept anymore donation money from hard-working supporters because he can't win, a lot of his predictions of the economy, job loss, and the need for cash relief will come true. And then haters will assume he's just a Silicone Valley tech bro.
But seriously.
I'm not sure how I felt about learning how the sausage was made during his presidential run. Parts of it were really fascinating about certain unscripted moments and what went into all the preparation. Other moments that I was hoping were unscripted and genuine turned out to be calculated. In all, he was by far the most likeable and genuine person in the field of candidates, probably ever.
In the book he talked about how running for president isn't for the faint of heart. People get mercilessly attacked and it's really hard work. He says because of the disruption to their comfort zone, these people are not doing it for personal gain. Yang is just too optimistic for his own good. Most people on those stages are trying to revive a dying brand, get a cushy job as a cabinet member, or sign bigger book deals. I don’t believe they are altruistic angels of hope.
Why is Yang different? Because when he is personally attacked, he doesn't leverage his minority status for clicks and soundbytes. He doesn't say that Trump is the root of everyone's problems like every other politician, rather, Trump is a symptom of a disease in America that we all need to fix. Yang isn't in it for publicity and fomented partisanship. He sincerely has faith in humanity and believes everyone has the best intentions. That's why his economic, incentive-based solutions make sense. He doesn't present anecdotal quips as to why his social and moral platform is superior, he makes calm, rational decisions based on history, statistics, economics, and people's best interests.
While most others want the status quo in a system that incentivizes inaction and corruption, Yang's proposals of terms for congress, ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, restrictions on lobbying, and democracy dollars would make today's politics unrecognizable in the best way. People and good ideas would be represented and encouraged, not money and tribalism.
But seriously.
I'm not sure how I felt about learning how the sausage was made during his presidential run. Parts of it were really fascinating about certain unscripted moments and what went into all the preparation. Other moments that I was hoping were unscripted and genuine turned out to be calculated. In all, he was by far the most likeable and genuine person in the field of candidates, probably ever.
In the book he talked about how running for president isn't for the faint of heart. People get mercilessly attacked and it's really hard work. He says because of the disruption to their comfort zone, these people are not doing it for personal gain. Yang is just too optimistic for his own good. Most people on those stages are trying to revive a dying brand, get a cushy job as a cabinet member, or sign bigger book deals. I don’t believe they are altruistic angels of hope.
Why is Yang different? Because when he is personally attacked, he doesn't leverage his minority status for clicks and soundbytes. He doesn't say that Trump is the root of everyone's problems like every other politician, rather, Trump is a symptom of a disease in America that we all need to fix. Yang isn't in it for publicity and fomented partisanship. He sincerely has faith in humanity and believes everyone has the best intentions. That's why his economic, incentive-based solutions make sense. He doesn't present anecdotal quips as to why his social and moral platform is superior, he makes calm, rational decisions based on history, statistics, economics, and people's best interests.
While most others want the status quo in a system that incentivizes inaction and corruption, Yang's proposals of terms for congress, ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, restrictions on lobbying, and democracy dollars would make today's politics unrecognizable in the best way. People and good ideas would be represented and encouraged, not money and tribalism.
January 1, 2022
Full disclosure: My politics do not generally align with those of Andrew Yang and I am generally position on the right.
Having said that, I have always found Yang to be interesting and he genuinely seems like a decent, family man that truly wants a better country without all of the nonsense that we often see in Washington. I don’t believe that a Freedom Dividend would make a major difference in most American’s lives. I don’t believe that a lot of impoverished Americans would make any meaningful change in their lives simply by sending them free money. I think that our recent Covid checks have proven this. However, I completely agree with Yang’s concerns with technology and job loss are issues we need to address seriously and I’m glad that he is highlighting this. I also have issues with his stance on police brutality and solutions to fix the problem. Although it has been an issue in our country, he seems to spout the same “fixes” that other politicians repeat at nauseam. These people obviously have no idea what cops deal with or what their jobs actual entail. As someone that works with police on a daily basis at my job, I see what these men and women actually deal with. Overall, most cops are great people trying to protect citizens in their community. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people that they deal with are drug or alcohol addicted, violent, mentally unstable, or have no regard for others. Therapy sessions and hugs will not change these people just as harsh prison sentences won’t either. This is something we all need to understand when talking about large changes in policing. Overall, I liked this book and enjoyed catching more of a glimpse in to the mind of Andrew Yang. We need more activists and politicians that have the heart that he does. Let’s continue to try and improve ourselves in order to build a more prosperous and unified country that we can be proud to leave to our children.
Having said that, I have always found Yang to be interesting and he genuinely seems like a decent, family man that truly wants a better country without all of the nonsense that we often see in Washington. I don’t believe that a Freedom Dividend would make a major difference in most American’s lives. I don’t believe that a lot of impoverished Americans would make any meaningful change in their lives simply by sending them free money. I think that our recent Covid checks have proven this. However, I completely agree with Yang’s concerns with technology and job loss are issues we need to address seriously and I’m glad that he is highlighting this. I also have issues with his stance on police brutality and solutions to fix the problem. Although it has been an issue in our country, he seems to spout the same “fixes” that other politicians repeat at nauseam. These people obviously have no idea what cops deal with or what their jobs actual entail. As someone that works with police on a daily basis at my job, I see what these men and women actually deal with. Overall, most cops are great people trying to protect citizens in their community. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people that they deal with are drug or alcohol addicted, violent, mentally unstable, or have no regard for others. Therapy sessions and hugs will not change these people just as harsh prison sentences won’t either. This is something we all need to understand when talking about large changes in policing. Overall, I liked this book and enjoyed catching more of a glimpse in to the mind of Andrew Yang. We need more activists and politicians that have the heart that he does. Let’s continue to try and improve ourselves in order to build a more prosperous and unified country that we can be proud to leave to our children.
February 10, 2023
What a well-written book. Yang does a great job at highlighting a vast selection of issues faced by most Americans along with how to solve those problems. Additionally the plans that he outlines in order to fix the very evident problems in our country should be followed. I look forward to reading other books from him.
December 13, 2021
As Mr. Yang said a basic income guarantee has been around for a long time. I first heard about it in 2007. I rather liked this book, though I could’ve done with more how to do it, than reminiscing over his campaign trail, even though it was interesting and informative. He does explain how to do somethings but more detail was needed for a person who really wants to shake things up. I borrowed it from the library, but I’m going to buy the book because in the end there were interesting things I hadn’t thought of and need a reference for when I decide to get off my a$$ and shake things up and move us forward.
December 14, 2021
I enjoyed learning about his ideas and possible solutions to make a difference in how government functions and improve people’s lives.
November 29, 2021
As in his previous book, Andrew Yang presents a clear picture of the political landscape and actionable positive steps that can be taken to correct some of the worst inadequacies of our current system. I highly recommend this book for anyone that is tired of the inaction our current duopoly has been displaying.
November 30, 2021
Important ideas regardless of affiliation.
November 26, 2021
A path back from the brink
Forward is an easy to follow, logical breakdown of today’s major societal problems and proposals to fix them. Andrew Yang uses his own personal experiences on the presidential campaign trail to illustrate many of the issues. He sets forth a path with realistic near term and long term solutions that can hopefully, if undertaken, reverse our course toward ever increasing societal discord and back to an era of peace and prosperity for all Americans.
Forward is an easy to follow, logical breakdown of today’s major societal problems and proposals to fix them. Andrew Yang uses his own personal experiences on the presidential campaign trail to illustrate many of the issues. He sets forth a path with realistic near term and long term solutions that can hopefully, if undertaken, reverse our course toward ever increasing societal discord and back to an era of peace and prosperity for all Americans.
March 4, 2022
Clearly written and full of interesting ideas on how to change the chaos that is Washington DC.
November 11, 2022
I liked this book more than I expected to and more than his previous book. If you can read it with an open mind (regardless of your views on Yang himself), you might appreciate the perspective he brings to some big issues in US politics and media. The first section on his presidential bid is also interesting. Not everyone may like him, but Yang has a lot of worthwhile things to say.
October 27, 2021
I'd really give it a 4.5 stars, but that's not an option unfortunately. I enjoyed The War on Normal People better (gave that 5 stars), but this book still gave some interesting insights. A lot of the description of how the government is so archaic was very eye-opening, and surprising how easy it would be to fix if the government wasn't so broken. Also the description of the link between personality (seemingly at least somewhat genetic) and political views was pretty astounding. Overall, was a great book, a lot of biography of his life during/after the presidential campaign that could be slow at times. But sections 2 and 3 really got into the details I was looking for.
January 5, 2022
Disclaimer: I don't follow politics. I was aware but not familiar with Andrew Yang's work prior to reading this.
Takeaways:
- Yang cites Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein several times
- Congress members are old. Average age for House: 57.6 years. Senate: 62.9 years
- Yang wants:
- Universal basic income. $1000 given to every individual.
- Rank choice voting: ability to select your second, third, etc. preference when filling out your ballot
- Objective scorecard on how the government is performing. Think "Measure What Matters" applied to the government
- I learned that it's very difficult to raise enough money to successfully run for office
- I don't fully understand how universal basic income and rank choice voting solve the structural inefficiencies described in earlier chapters. Yang described several issues but didn't propose clear paths to resolution or didn't connect his suggestions back to the issue they solve. Of the many issues described, a few stand out:
- media's incentive to publish sensational headlines rather than objective journalism. Sensational news gets better ratings / reviews and this helps media companies negotiate for more money when renewing deals with cable providers.
- the tendency for misinformation to spread quickly on social media
- incumbents have a very high reelection rate but congress overall has a very low satisfaction rate
Format: Audible
Takeaways:
- Yang cites Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein several times
- Congress members are old. Average age for House: 57.6 years. Senate: 62.9 years
- Yang wants:
- Universal basic income. $1000 given to every individual.
- Rank choice voting: ability to select your second, third, etc. preference when filling out your ballot
- Objective scorecard on how the government is performing. Think "Measure What Matters" applied to the government
- I learned that it's very difficult to raise enough money to successfully run for office
- I don't fully understand how universal basic income and rank choice voting solve the structural inefficiencies described in earlier chapters. Yang described several issues but didn't propose clear paths to resolution or didn't connect his suggestions back to the issue they solve. Of the many issues described, a few stand out:
- media's incentive to publish sensational headlines rather than objective journalism. Sensational news gets better ratings / reviews and this helps media companies negotiate for more money when renewing deals with cable providers.
- the tendency for misinformation to spread quickly on social media
- incumbents have a very high reelection rate but congress overall has a very low satisfaction rate
Format: Audible
October 14, 2021
The best parts of this book are the portions where Yang provides thoughtful insights from his presidential campaign. The least compelling sections are the summaries of issues he did a far better job writing about in his earlier book, The War on Normal People. I would have liked to see more of the former and less of the latter; in general I wanted him to dig deeper into the experiences he had over the past few years. However, Yang is always very action-oriented and I suspect the purpose of this book was less to foster reflection and more to lay the foundation for the launching of the Forward Party. I remain a huge fan and look “forward” to his next project.
August 6, 2022
It's good.
I can't say much as I'm already on board with many of his ideas, especially with his entrepreneurial spirit and emphasis on data over tribal loyalty. I'm tired of the political polarization I see online and in the mainstream media. I'm tired of a lack of progress being made to solve real societal issues. So while I don't see myself ever fully participating in politics, I do find Andrew Yang to be a refreshing voice while also not being a revolutionary.
So the 3 stars are more about the value I took away from the book than the content itself. I already knew most of his ideas before reading, so the most interesting parts for me were his first-hand experiences on the campaign trail.
Key excerpts:
- "People talk about running for office or running for president as an act of leadership. I’m not so sure about that. I actually think that in many respects running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader."
- "On the campaign trail, I could clearly see how politicians become susceptible to growing so out of touch. You spend time with dozens of people whose schedules and actions revolve around you. Everyone asks you what you think. You function on appearance; appearance becomes your role. Empathy becomes optional or even unhelpful. Leadership becomes the appearance of leadership...The process through which we choose leaders neutralizes and reduces the capacities we want most in them."
- "I joked that you could summarize running for president in two words: 'camera angles.' With every event my team would take a picture that would make the room or event look maximally crowded."
- "There’s a common assumption that people run for president because they have big egos and it serves their sense of self...This is seriously off base. Generally the opposite is true. Running for president is, by and large, an ego-destroying, humbling process. And the media is a very big part of that."
- "Eventually, if you’re a candidate, you see each other’s stump speeches over and over again. Late in the cycle, I’d come to joke that Democratic fundraisers should have us draw names from a hat and deliver another candidate’s speech...I can imagine someone parodying my stump: 'The robots are coming, we’re doomed, give everyone money right now.'"
- "On my campaign we tried to be responsible, but all of the structural forces pushed us to gather as much consumer data as possible. Data has become big business. How big? You might have heard the saying that 'data is the new oil.' That may be an understatement."
- "Many members of the national media feel they have a responsibility to reinforce particular candidates and their 'narratives' and dismiss others. They don’t just report on the news; they form it."
- "The national media initially presented me as the internet candidate and, bizarrely, the preferred candidate of alt-right white supremacists. One of the data points they cited was that I’d retweeted a New York Times article talking about the overdose rates in rural white communities, as if that were some kind of appeal to a racist element...The media was looking for its own way to define me—to offer up a caricature that would serve to sensationalize or minimize me out of the gate."
- "During the first Democratic primary debate in June 2019, I got only 2 minutes and 50 seconds of speaking time over 2 hours...some of it stemmed from the fact that the moderators from MSNBC were far more interested in generating airtime for certain candidates and narratives they were pushing than they were for the new random interloper...I found out later that some campaigns were known to be in touch with debate moderators to suggest that certain questions get asked. If you don’t have a direct line to the journalists, you can at least signal ahead of time to the press questions and topics that you would like to get, generally by attacking someone...I also found out later from the producer Ariana Pekary, who left MSNBC publicly in August 2020, that in April 2019 my name was on a list of candidates whom she was told not to seek an interview with without any explanation...the MSNBC flap offered another campaign trail lesson: don’t expect TV news organizations to act accountable, fair, and objective. Many don’t even see themselves that way. They’re not there to report the news; they’re there to make the news."
- "I had been in national politics only two years, and already I was facing choices based on loyalties and relationships and people who had fought for me and sacrificed for me. Imagine all of the relationships that accrue to people over ten, twenty, thirty years in politics. How many of their choices too would be shaded by trust and loyalty over the newcomer who might just be the right person at the right time?"
- "There is something naturally corruptive about being a successful politician that makes you want more money. Here’s the dynamic: You’re prominent and highly visible. You’re around rich people—your donors—who defer to you and whom you grow to consider friends. You’re plied by highly paid lobbyists every waking hour. You naturally start to compare yourself with these other people and think, 'I deserve at least as much as they have. I’m the center of attention in all of this. I’m just as smart and important as they are.' And people want to do you favors that involve money, including you in investment opportunities and the like."
As of the past week, his Forward movement has gained momentum and merged with other bipartisan groups: https://www.forwardparty.com/merger_s...
I can't say much as I'm already on board with many of his ideas, especially with his entrepreneurial spirit and emphasis on data over tribal loyalty. I'm tired of the political polarization I see online and in the mainstream media. I'm tired of a lack of progress being made to solve real societal issues. So while I don't see myself ever fully participating in politics, I do find Andrew Yang to be a refreshing voice while also not being a revolutionary.
So the 3 stars are more about the value I took away from the book than the content itself. I already knew most of his ideas before reading, so the most interesting parts for me were his first-hand experiences on the campaign trail.
Key excerpts:
- "People talk about running for office or running for president as an act of leadership. I’m not so sure about that. I actually think that in many respects running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader."
- "On the campaign trail, I could clearly see how politicians become susceptible to growing so out of touch. You spend time with dozens of people whose schedules and actions revolve around you. Everyone asks you what you think. You function on appearance; appearance becomes your role. Empathy becomes optional or even unhelpful. Leadership becomes the appearance of leadership...The process through which we choose leaders neutralizes and reduces the capacities we want most in them."
- "I joked that you could summarize running for president in two words: 'camera angles.' With every event my team would take a picture that would make the room or event look maximally crowded."
- "There’s a common assumption that people run for president because they have big egos and it serves their sense of self...This is seriously off base. Generally the opposite is true. Running for president is, by and large, an ego-destroying, humbling process. And the media is a very big part of that."
- "Eventually, if you’re a candidate, you see each other’s stump speeches over and over again. Late in the cycle, I’d come to joke that Democratic fundraisers should have us draw names from a hat and deliver another candidate’s speech...I can imagine someone parodying my stump: 'The robots are coming, we’re doomed, give everyone money right now.'"
- "On my campaign we tried to be responsible, but all of the structural forces pushed us to gather as much consumer data as possible. Data has become big business. How big? You might have heard the saying that 'data is the new oil.' That may be an understatement."
- "Many members of the national media feel they have a responsibility to reinforce particular candidates and their 'narratives' and dismiss others. They don’t just report on the news; they form it."
- "The national media initially presented me as the internet candidate and, bizarrely, the preferred candidate of alt-right white supremacists. One of the data points they cited was that I’d retweeted a New York Times article talking about the overdose rates in rural white communities, as if that were some kind of appeal to a racist element...The media was looking for its own way to define me—to offer up a caricature that would serve to sensationalize or minimize me out of the gate."
- "During the first Democratic primary debate in June 2019, I got only 2 minutes and 50 seconds of speaking time over 2 hours...some of it stemmed from the fact that the moderators from MSNBC were far more interested in generating airtime for certain candidates and narratives they were pushing than they were for the new random interloper...I found out later that some campaigns were known to be in touch with debate moderators to suggest that certain questions get asked. If you don’t have a direct line to the journalists, you can at least signal ahead of time to the press questions and topics that you would like to get, generally by attacking someone...I also found out later from the producer Ariana Pekary, who left MSNBC publicly in August 2020, that in April 2019 my name was on a list of candidates whom she was told not to seek an interview with without any explanation...the MSNBC flap offered another campaign trail lesson: don’t expect TV news organizations to act accountable, fair, and objective. Many don’t even see themselves that way. They’re not there to report the news; they’re there to make the news."
- "I had been in national politics only two years, and already I was facing choices based on loyalties and relationships and people who had fought for me and sacrificed for me. Imagine all of the relationships that accrue to people over ten, twenty, thirty years in politics. How many of their choices too would be shaded by trust and loyalty over the newcomer who might just be the right person at the right time?"
- "There is something naturally corruptive about being a successful politician that makes you want more money. Here’s the dynamic: You’re prominent and highly visible. You’re around rich people—your donors—who defer to you and whom you grow to consider friends. You’re plied by highly paid lobbyists every waking hour. You naturally start to compare yourself with these other people and think, 'I deserve at least as much as they have. I’m the center of attention in all of this. I’m just as smart and important as they are.' And people want to do you favors that involve money, including you in investment opportunities and the like."
As of the past week, his Forward movement has gained momentum and merged with other bipartisan groups: https://www.forwardparty.com/merger_s...
December 30, 2022
I love Yang's solutions-oriented mindset, which comes through in a powerful way in this book. He is able to get beyond platitudes to concrete plans of attack, most of which are compelling and promising. While I don't see much of an impact being made by the Forward Party, I admire the attempt at disrupting the duopoly and improve democracy.
November 9, 2021
This book is well written and the author lays out his ideas in an easy to read manner. I am always hopeful when someone proposes an alternative to our current two-party political system. But the "Forward Party" is really the Democrat Party with a few new ideas, only two of which I can support - term limitations for the House and Senate and get rid of lobbyists. I am not sure the Democrat party can stand a 3rd alternative because progressives and moderates are already splitting the party in two. Andrew Yang's biggest idea, the one he hangs his hat on, is to give every adult in America $1000 a month. I can't imagine the US Congress would pass a bill that gives Jeff Bezos $1000 a month. So there will be a cut off, and I will probably make just a tad too much as usually happens. Or even if we say Bezos can get the money, let's figure out the cost. On page 215 Yang states there are 250 million voting age adults in the U.S. So I assume these 250 million adults would get $1000 a month. By my long-hand calculation (I didn't use a calculator Mr. MATH Yang) tells me this equals $250 billion dollars a month and $3 trillion dollars a year. I think I carried my zeros correctly but even if I didn't it's a lot of money. Where does this money come from? He never tells us that. So I conclude I will receive $12K a year but my tax rate will double. No, thank you. I'd rather earn my money anyway. It seems leaders of the Democrat Party are always eager to just throw taxpayer money at every issue that annoys them, even if hardly any Americans agree with what they do. On page 282 he states that the Relief Bill announced in December 2020 gives $600 to "every adult and child in the Unites States." I can attest to the fact that this is not a true statement. My husband and I did not receive any money from either stimulus package. I am retired now but was not in 2019 so we received zilch, again because we made just a little too much. Another typical politician trick - state something like it is a fact when you know there is no one to dispute it. Another key principle of the Forward Party is ranked choice voting. You rank your choices in an election, let's say 1 through 4. If no one receives 50% of votes, then the votes for the person with the least amount of 1's are discarded and the second choice votes of people who voted for that person are applied. The process continues until someone receives 50% of the votes. In his example on page 219, the person with the most votes (46%) lost to the person with the second most votes (45%). I think he likes this idea because he thinks it will give him a better chance to win an election. In my state, we use a run off process whereby if no one gets 50%, the 2 people with the most votes are in a runoff election where people who voted for someone else can choose one of them. This has worked for my whole voting life of almost 50 years. I prefer this method because it is obvious what is happening. I fear ranked-choice is ripe for manipulating the votes. I saw Andrew Yang in an interview on TV and was impressed with his calmness and how he presented his ideas. He didn't explain what Universal Basic Income was but he talked about the division in our two party system. I liked him. Unfortunately after reading this book I see that he has become a politician, an elitist politician, thinking he knows the answers and he can tell those of us who are less intelligent what to do. The 6 key principles of the Forward Party are really things that annoy Andrew the most and and his solutions are what the government can do to fix them. It's like running to daddy government. No thank you. He even speaks in his book about how poorly the government is run (I totally agree) and yet he wants to throw more programs their way. On page 289 he states "the majority of Americans are now for Universal Basic Income." This is such a lie and convinced me I could never support him because again he's making things up. He offers no data to support this statement, a typical Democrat tactic. I doubt the majority of Americans have even heard of Universal Basic Income. I would like to suggest to Mr. Yang to travel west of the Mississippi River and stop in some of the states before he gets to California. I think he lives in a New England/California bubble and has no clue about the rest of the country.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews