Customer Reviews

Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have written a distinctly unusual book. Political scientists don't often write books that take sides in political arguments, and when they do, they usually don't do any better at it than common or garden pundits. It's hard to combine the attention to detail and to careful argument that academics are supposed to have with a passionate concern for the results of the fight. Off Center pulls off both. On the one hand, it is very clearly the work of people who have thought carefully and hard about how politics works. There's a depth of analysis here that's completely absent from the common or garden partisan bestseller-wannabe. But on the other, it doesn't pull its punches. Hacker and Pierson have no compunctions in arguing that the current Republican hegemony is dangerous, and needs to be rolled back. (rest of review below fold)

They start by examining the conventional wisdom that American politics has strong centripetal forces, so that political parties have strong incentives towards moderation. According to both centrist pundits and many political scientists, parties that don't cater for the moderate voter should get booted out of office. This political commonplace doesn't appear to be true any more, to the extent that it ever was. The Republicans have been transformed over the last twenty years from a loosely organized coalition in which moderates appeared to have the upper hand, to a party that is astonishingly well disciplined by the standards of American political history and dominated by right-wing radicals. How has this happened?

Hacker and Pierson immediately discard two common explanations, neither of which is supported by the facts. First, there is no evidence that Americans are more conservative on social issues than they used to be; indeed some evidence suggests that they are now a little more centrist. Nor does it appear that mobilization of "morals voters" was the key to Republican success in the last Presidential election - detailed analysis suggests that state-level efforts to put gay marriage on the ballot helped Kerry, not Bush. Second, there is no evidence of a general process of `polarization' in which both the left and the right are rapidly seceding to the extremes, leaving moderate voters with few palatable choices. The evidence suggests the contrary - while Democrats have become only somewhat more left wing, as Southern Democrats have either disappeared or defected to the Republicans, the Republican party has shifted radically to the right. Positions that were in the mainstream of the Republican party of the 1970s and 1980s are anathema today.

So why hasn't the Republican party been punished by voters for its radicalism? As I understand it, Hacker and Pierson's explanation has three main components. First, information. Voters are often poorly informed about politics, and are vulnerable to "tailored disinformation," which distorts public perceptions. Second, institutions. The Republican Party has been able to use its dominance of Senate, House and Presidency to set the agenda and to sideline opposition. Finally, networks. "New Power Brokers" like Tom DeLay have been able to assemble networks that bring together politicians, think-tankers, funders and lobbyists, creating a coherent agenda across separate institutions, rewarding and protecting loyalists while brutally punishing those who go off-message.

By bringing these together, Hacker and Pierson can explain how the Republican party has succeeded in bringing through radical policy shifts that go against public preferences. Their analysis of the 2001 tax cuts, the Bush energy plan, and the Medicare drugs bill shows how highly objectionable policies can be crafted to fleece the public without raising much in the way of public opposition. In the case of the tax cuts, assiduous propaganda disguised the fiscal impact of the cuts and made them look less biased towards the rich than they in fact were. Republican leaders made sure that they were sent to the floor for voting without opportunity for proper debate or for consideration of alternatives. "Sunsets," "phase-ins" and "time-bombs" were deployed to make the measures temporarily more palatable and to disguise their true costs and long term consequences. "Backlash insurance" provided protection to Republicans who signed onto the agenda.

Nor do Hacker and Pierson confine their argument to the legislative process. Executive action (and non-action) too is important, as witnessed by their account of the systematic gutting of the EPA's and OSHA's ability to enforce regulations.

The book's detailed discussion of how the Republicans have been able to pull all this off is valuable in itself. Readers who have paid attention to Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall over the last couple of years will already know much of the story, although not all of it. Hacker and Pierson uncover some interesting and important new facts. But where the book shines is in providing the analytic chops to draw it together into a coherent whole. Off Center does this in two ways. First, it provides a taxonomy of the different tactics that right wing radicals in the Republican party have used. Second, and more importantly, it shows how distortion of information, manipulation of institutions and careful application of network resources work to reinforce each other. Without understanding all of these - and the interaction between them - you can't understand the quite remarkable success of the Republican party over the last few years.

This form of analysis is shown to best analysis in the chapter on the New Power Brokers and the networks that they have built to support the Republican agenda. As Hacker and Pierson say, in an argument that's worth quoting at length:

Most political analysts have missed the scope of this crucial development because they have failed to fully appreciate the increasingly networked character of the modern conservative movement. The GOP coalition is not simply the sum of its parts. Looking only at Congress, or only at lobbyists, will not reveal the full picture. Instead, the power of the leadership, and of others at the top of the new Republican hierarchy results in large part from their increased role in linking these realms. Looking only at Congress, or only at lobbyists, will not reveal the full picture. Top Republican leaders are, quite literally, brokers. And their power is multiplicative, not additive. The more they can control the behavior of legislators, the more they can control the behavior of lobbyists. And the more they can control the behavior of lobbyists, the more they can control the behavior of legislators. Each link in this complex chain of power holds together because the leaders - and only the leaders - can deliver.

This insight - and the chapter develops it considerably further than this quote would suggest - is key to understanding the role played by actors such as Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. Many reporters and commentators have had difficulty in identifying what exactly it was that DeLay and Abramoff have done, and why it's so problematic. They've only really latched onto the DeLay and Abramoff stories as they've started to look like conventional cases of corruption. But the problem is far more deep-rooted than politicians and lobbyists who may be skimming the profits. It's a complicated network of exchange relationships which is legal, at least in part, but which acts to short-circuit the basic safeguards that are supposed to ensure that politicians represent voters' interests. Unless you understand the complicated connections between fundraising, lobby-organization and policymaking, and the ways that key actors weave all three of these activities together, it's impossible to understand what's going on. Hacker and Pierson draw the map that you need to draw these connections.

I highly recommend the book - but I do have some cavils. Although the book was written before the collapse of Bush's Social Security initiative, it would have been interesting to see some detailed analysis of where the Republicans have failed as well as where they have succeeded (there is a little in there, but it gets short shrift).

More seriously, there's an unresolved tension in the book. The main argument of the book suggests at several points that Republican policies are part of a more or less coherent long term plan. But Hacker and Pierson also provide us with some evidence which suggests that the dominance of the Republican party is leading to incoherent policy and an overwhelming focus on the short term. This tension rises to the surface in Hacker and Pierson's analysis of the "Starve the Beast ... later" strategy. Hacker and Pierson depict the ballooning of spending under Bush as a calculated move, "a high stakes gamble [which] Republicans expect to win" down the road, when the bill comes due and popular programs have to be radically pared down or eliminated to pay for it.

But there's an alternative explanation which would talk to short term gain as well as long term planning. As Pierson emphasizes in earlier work, most politicians tend to have short time horizons - many of them don't care very much about policy train wrecks ten or twenty years down the line. They probably won't have to deal with the problem; someone else will be in office by then. This suggests that the burgeoning of spending is less a long term strategy than a relatively unstable and ad-hoc compromise between the anti-tax jihadists and politicians in Congress who are more interested in goodies for their donors and constituents (in that order) in the short term than in the problems that the longer term will bring. Off Center quotes from Padgett and Ansell's classic study of Cosimo de Medici's network of power in Renaissance Florence in order to understand the Republican network today. But as Padgett and Ansell argue, Cosimo succeeded through improvisation, and through refusing to allow himself to be tied down and made predictable, rather than through laying down a plan for the longer run. It would have been nice to have seen more of this kind of analysis; not least because it points to some of the weaknesses and potential fissures in the Republican coalition.

Finally, the book suggests to me that there's room for a future debate about the precise circumstances under which a coalition, such as the Republican movement, can radically shift the rules of the political game over the longer term. Rick Perlstein (rightly) gives Off Center a highly enthusiastic blurb. But his own analysis of US politics, as I understand it, argues that the political system is more malleable than Hacker and Pierson might suggest. Hacker and Pierson argue that US politics has gone off-center - and they want to return it to something like its natural state of balance. Perlstein argues that the center of balance has shifted radically to the right - but that the left is in principle is capable of doing what the right has done, and creating a political space that is implicitly skewed towards left wing priorities and objectives. Both analyses point in the same direction in the short run - Hacker's work on the politics of risk is exactly the kind of long-term thinking that Perlstein calls for in his pamphlet on the Stockticker and the Superjumbo. But they have quite different long term implications. It'd be nice to see further discussion of this. But enough already - buy this book.

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's highly readable book is a timely look at how extremists pulled the Republican Party to the right--and are now pulling the country along.

Even if it does not reflect a majority of Americans (who have more liberalized attitudes on abortion, contraception, and GLBT issues) the right learned that who is in control ultimately decides the agenda. Room in the 'big tent' for moderates in the mold of William Weld and Gerald Ford is rapidly shrinking today; the official party machinery does not recognize their positions on social issues as 'good policy'.

That shrinking environment produces an extreme polarization. Ironically as they accuse the Democratic party of being 'extremist left-wingers' the Republican Party moves ever-further to the right. Flying in the face of conventional electoral wisdom (which says the most voters are in the middle) this strategy has only become more pronounced in the past years.

The strategy is abetted by very careful media positioning. Using legislative leadership and media allies (ahem...Fox News) these extremists are able to convince a majority of the American public to 'trust us'. In other words, how a policy is sold becomes more important than that policy's actual effects upon the American people. We saw this both with President Bush's tax cuts package and the war on terror, both of which were originally adopted without significant visible public dissent 'We' are convinced that 'we' are included in the people to actually benefit from a bill---despite being in a much lower economic bracket.

I also appreciated their examination of the political role of agencies. How a bill is implemented can affect the public perception of enacted legislation and who is staffing an agency ultimately affects how policies are created and implemented to enact legislation. Both the White House and Republican congress are most likely to support people who share their unilateral view of the nation and world---'they' are the only ones with the 'correct' answers. If there is a problem, it is best to let 'other people' deal with it while you are moving onto another target.

Then there is the symbiotic view of the relationships between lobbyists and legislators, Republican Party leaders have figured out that the control of one facilitates the compliant nature of another.

However, I was honestly shocked by their research that social conservatives had not played a role in this shift because their conclusion trumps at least 30 years of evidence from many other political scientists.

Providing a thoughtful read, this book is highly recommended for personal and academic collections. Hacker and Pierson's engaging text encourages readers to think critically about American government, image, and power issues.

OFF CENTER is a wonderfully provocative yet deeply serious new book about the larger political forces behind today's headlines. Written by two of the nation's sharpest political scientists, it explains how the Republicans gained power--and what they are doing to try and keep it. This fast-paced book contains penetrating discussions of many crucial issues, including taxes, Social Security, and election reform. The authors' most disturbing claim--sure to spark debate among professors and politicians alike--is that the GOP has deliberately and skillfully weakened the normal mechanisms of electoral accountability in order to serve a privileged few. Whether one believes that the Republican majority is undermining American democracy or that it is saving it, this is a tremendously stimulating book that all informed Americans will want to read.

You can ignore some of the more vitriolic reviews of this political science treatise, ranting either for or against, just because it criticizes the Republicans. Such reviews are from pundits who read a lot of popular commentary, and think they understand real politics. There is a very large difference between political commentary, which is the sloganeering of popular observers ranging from Michael Moore to Ann Coulter, and political science, which is backed up by solid academic theory and scientific evidence. Those of us familiar with academic dissertations in this field will be pleasantly surprised by the readability of this one. If you're also exasperated by the continually lowest-common-denominator jingoism of today's political discourse, then you'll also be surprised by the strength of this book's positions.

Hacker and Pierson explain, from a true political science perspective, the inordinate power of the ultraconservatives in today's political environment, and how this is possible when they espouse policies that are so far from the ideological "center." The authors provide convincing evidence that the Republicans' true success has arisen not from connecting with voters on real issues, but by consolidating power from within the party, and by manipulating governmental rules and procedures. The far-Right Republicans have also bullied their more moderate colleagues into taking more extreme stances, thus leaving ultra-Rightists as the only choice for more moderate voters who lean naturally toward the Republicans or don't wish to vote for the Democrats. Therefore, the far-Right has succeeded in advancing an extreme economic and military ideology that is far from the Centrist view of the vast majority of Americans. The political science evidence is solid, and goes very far in realistically explaining what's wrong with modern American politics, without stooping to slogans and epithets. Another advantage of this book is its very plausible ideas for solutions (except for a rosy request for the re-empowerment of labor unions), which deal in real political tactics and making change from within the existing political structure, and these are far beyond the utopian idealism of the popular commentators. Those with a real understanding of real politics will appreciate the scientific strength of this book.

However, there are a few rather large gaps in Hacker and Pierson's methodology, especially with their neglect of American voter behavior. They dabble occasionally in issues of low voter turnout and lack of effective media information. However, they avoid the severe modern problem of American voters choosing candidates based on thin and hyperbolic moral issues, and actually believing that such candidates will deliver comparable economic and sociopolitical policies. When a citizen votes for a politician who is likely to export his job overseas and wreck his local economy, just because that candidate is against gay marriage, this is a destructive trend that Hacker and Pierson overlook (they also miss the related issue of the complete aimlessness of the Democrats in recent years). Also, Hacker and Pierson base their fundamental arguments on the sanctity of "the center" in American political history, and how prior trends of extremism have been reined in by natural moderation in the electorate and the constitutional political structure. Unfortunately, the authors pretty much take this concept as a given, and this beloved "center" may actually be an overly wishful view of the past. [~doomsdayer520~]

Hacker and Pierson explain how Republicans rule with the slimmest of majorities, yet stray dramatically from the moderate center of public opinion to again and again side with the affluent and ideologically extreme. Major reasons include the unmatched Republican coordination and cohesion, sophisticated partisan gerrymandering making most House districts completely safe, and the base having the troops to influence the typically low-turnout primaries that determine who goes to D.C.

Each year, with retirements etc., the Republicans become more conservative via the increased power of the base vs. new candidates. In the Senate, Democrats won the last three elections with 2.5 million more votes, yet hold only 44 seats because Republicans dominate the less populous states.

"Off Center" also points out that polls citing support for Bush's tax cuts are meaningless because they were not put into context - eg. what will be given up? Paired with Social Security, tax cuts lose 74 - 21, Medicare 65 - 25, and deficit reduction leads by over 2:1. Unrealistic projections of federal surpluses and the costs of the tax changes (helped by staggered phase in dates -> underestimated 40%) were used to obscure their effects on competing priorities. Republicans also deliberately ignored its increasing the pressure for changing the Alternative Minimum Tax - seeing this as another opportunity to reduce taxes later. Another ploy was to confuse "average family" tax cut with "average tax cut" in the public's mind. Finally, the tax cuts scheduled expiration in 2010 is anticipated to great a large incentive for donations from the rich in that year.

Tom DeLay, a key figure in controlling House Republicans and lobbyist donations and a self-described ideologue, also utilizes agenda control to achieve his objectives. For example, in the Clinton impeachment debate he refused to allow consideration of the more popular and moderate censure alternative. Similarly, on Social Security reform, Bush refused the Reagan option of creating a bipartisan review - it had to be his way. Very conservative energy, EPA, OSHA, and bankruptcy bills were passed in a similar "no-alternatives" manner. Finally, the Medicare drug bill was passed courtesy of misrepresented costs, while providing great benefit to the drug and insurance industries and increasing costs for many recipients.

Another factor helping Republicans is that in 2000 more than 40% of those in the economic bottom 1/3 did not vote, vs. only 13% in the top third.

Money spent lobbying has nearly doubled since '97 to almost $2 billion/year; indirect lobbying (eg. telemarketing, issue ads) raises the total to nearly $6 billion. Republicans instruct lobbying groups to provide backing for the leadership's positions at the outset, well before key features have been finalized. The message is that "if you support us, we will see to it that you are taken care of - if you hold out or seek to negotiate separate deals with individual members you can kiss your cause good-bye." In addition, DeLay et al "whip" interest groups to put pressure on legislators, even on issues far removed from the clients' own concerns. Finally, lobbyists understand that contributions to Republican leadership PACs are necessary to get a seat at the table, and that contributions to individual members should be made only with leadership approval.

Republican House leaders have also strengthened their position by removing ('94) the autonomy of committee chairmen - formerly their chief rivals for power. Traditionally chairs came via seniority, and provided power over staff and agendas. Now their terms are limited to 6 years, and the positions are filled by the leaders. Republican leadership also controls participation in conference committees - frequently bills emerging have little resemblance to what was passed in the Senate.

Finally, "Off Center" explains how "backlash insurance" (for those in moderate Republican districts) operates. Issues that would subject moderates to pressure (eg. minimum wage) are simply kept off the agenda. Secondly, through conference committee control, a moderate can vote for a mild version of a bill in the House or Senate, and then be faced with a much more conservative conference committee product that is either "up or down" - no amendments.

An excellent primer on how Republicans, especially in the House, frustrate the voice of the people.

Media pundits will have you believe that the nation is divided neatly between red and blue states, mutually exclusive schools of thought that will seek absolution before considering compromise. There is credence for this line of thinking when examining the current regime. Looking at the Bush administration, one can see a puritanical state which espouses values and dictates policies which have been co-opted currently by an ideologically extreme agenda that leans severely to the right. The success of this comparatively small group has been surprising in their endurance, but co-authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, both political science professors at Yale and Berkeley, respectively, contend that most of the American public is, in fact, moderate.

They explain that moderation avoids extremes at the ends of ideological and policy making spectrums and that support for progressive policies must be explained with not only good reasons but also in quantifiable terms so that trade-offs can be enumerated. This is not that revelatory, but what sets this book apart from the rest is the lucid way that Hacker and Pierson explain how the public makes trade-offs in deciding on issues. Conventional wisdom says that to stay in power, a party must appeal to swing voters and the moderate middle. If the party veers too far right or left, the laws of political gravity should bring it down.

However, as the co-authors point out in case after case, the Bush administration and the radical right-wingers in Congress continue to gut programs supported by most Americans while lining the pockets of their corporate cronies without ever facing repercussions on Election Day. The dubious strategy shows how the Republicans furthered their unpopular policies through a potent combination of centralization, misinformation, secrecy and "backlash insurance"-a variety of tactics used to keep wayward members in line while shielding them from voter outrage. One of the most common insurance policies is "catch and release," in which the leadership allows moderates to vote their "conscience" as long as it won't threaten passage of a bill.

Hacker and Pierson, however, point out that the honeymoon may soon be over and feel that Bush is already feeling the repercussions of not veering back to center. For example, the Bush administration's attempt to privatize social security, its top agenda item, has yielded to an organized movement that highlighted the horrific trade-offs of the Bush reform proposals. The co-authors identify exactly how Bush has recognized a "diminished appetite" for changing Social Security, which is the direct result of the center's expression of moderation.

In fact, there has been a growing momentum as the center is regaining some clout through the voices of potent, high-profile opponents. A key example is Senator John McCain's efforts to prohibit torture and inhumane treatment of U.S. prisoners of war. As a postscript to the book, this past Thursday, December 15, 2005, after months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel. Other cracks in the GOP facade are starting to show as almost all of the "New Power Brokers" named in the book are either under investigation or indictment - Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff.

Even so, Hacker and Pierson feel strongly the right won't be easy to supplant. Republicans continue to operate with impunity, as their leadership proposes to offset the cost of Hurricane Katrina by slashing $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps and student loan programs. Concurrently, however, they continue to push for another $70 billion in tax cuts, including elimination of the estate tax. They were even able to get the Gasoline for America's Security (GAS) Act passed, a polluter-friendly bill condemned by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The GOP has perfected the art of gerrymandering to the point where one political scientist estimates the Democrats would have needed to win 57 percent of the vote nationwide to retake the House in 2004.

Responding to the Republican hegemony will be a matter of finesse. With great insight, the co-authors argue that the solution will not be to hope that the masses will wake up and suddenly take an interest in politics. A counterforce needs to be defined much the same way the labor unions wielded their leverage in the last century. In our increasingly unequal society, in which government activity is onerous and inextricably complex, the last decade has shown that individual voters are no match for a mobilized and coordinated conservative movement capable of managing the agenda and shaping and distorting the flow of information to citizens.

This is invaluable reading, and fortunately, Hacker and Pierson's book is well written targeted specifically for a concerned and educated audience. I don't believe this a progressive manifesto but rather a reference book for any conservative or progressive to read to confirm intuitions that there is a pre-existing common ground. The co-authors give us ample evidence that Americans can and often do agree, on the values that should inform policy making and on the particular polices that ought to be adopted. Strongly recommended.

Democracy has generally had a leveling effect that pushes most politicians to the center. Historically extremists in politics are squeezed out as their values and agendas diverge from the general public. So how is it that the Republican Party has managed to increasingly move further away from the center and continue to be elected? How do you sell snow to Eskimos? It seems that there is a growing disconnect between the desires of the electorate and their voting.

I look back fondly on the days when I only disagreed with the Republican Party on general policy issues. The truth is that the current Republican Party is literally tearing Democracy apart at the seams. It starts with the primaries where the GOP consistently throws its support behind right leaning ideologues creating a swarm of like minded sycophants willing to tow the party line. Candidates are controlled by their purse strings thanks to the ballooning cost of elections. They find themselves indebted to those with the biggest pockets and to the GOP itself thanks to a dramatic increase in campaign funds coming from the party itself. Lower and middle class voters are left with almost no voice in Washington. After being elected, Republican politicians are constantly monitored for ideological purity by groups like Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth. Stray too far and next election you'll find yourself with a strong challenger from the GOP itself. The increasingly irrelevant `moderate' Republican's seem to have taken their position in stride voting against party lines only when the votes are irrelevant. It creates a lock step mentality following the lead of the increasingly powerful Executive Branch. "In 2003, [voting along party lines] reached the highest levels in the five decades in which they have been tallied" There is a breakdown in the separation of powers and marginalization of the opposition party as debate is stifled by a Republican Party that seems uninterested in hearing opposing ideas.

Meanwhile the GOP has worked to become the puppet master over lobbyists with Congressman like Tom DeLay DEMANDING support and cash from lobbyists for congressional bills that have yet to be presented like the Social Security reform bill. Companies have to pay for a seat at the table and in the case of the pharmaceutical industry the authors write that it, "now contributes 80 percent of its money to Republicans. PhRMA has essentially become an extension of the GOP."

The authors write, "voters have proved no match for a mobilized and coordinated conservative movements capable of managing the agenda and shaping and distorting the flow of information to citizens." Perhaps nothing is more important to the Bush administration than controlling the flow of information and their mendacity is legendary. From Cheney's blatant lie saying the energy bill contains, "...no new financial subsidies of any kind for the oil and gas industries" to the monumental $135 billion dollar lie about the cost of Bush's Medicare `reform'. The authors quote despicable GOP pollster Frank Luntz who advises that, "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth" There is such an endless laundry list of egregiousness committed on the American public from government sponsored propaganda to selective leaks to press intimidation.

The authors close with some insight from James Madison who said that "parchment barriers" were not sufficient to protect democratic freedoms. Rules can be rewritten, un-enforced or re-interpreted to their breaking point. The Bush administration has shown even American democracy can be a very brittle thing when those in charge have the desire to usurp it and it's up to the electorate to right the wrongs that have been committed.

Perhaps nothing sums up the current GOP like this quote from Tom DeLay to reporter Elizabeth Drew, "You've got to understand, we are ideologues. We have an agenda. We have a philosophy. I want to repeal the Clean Air Act. No one came to me and said, `Please repeal the Clean Air Act.' We say to the lobbyists, `Help us.' We know what we want to do and we find people to help us."

An on-target anaylsis of a Republican elite power structure that is not accountable, not responsive, and certainly not transparent. "Backlash Insurance","Closed Rules","Phase-Ins","Time Bombs","Sunsets", and other deceptive policy designs- clue you in to the behind the scene processes that strike out the WE THE PEOPLE clause. Framing and Labeling, The Greying Of Reality, False Balancing, Lies And Face-Value Transmission are some of the other techniques used to drown THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION in the Republican's elite bathtub. An example that illustrates their intent well is the following: Republican's were asked by a journalist if the tax law they just passed was "smoke & mirrors"- they laughed, "We hope so" & paraphrased Abraham Lincoln "You can fool some of the people all the time, & all the people some of the time - and if you think about it, those are pretty good odds" In casino parley, the house wins. And Another sad day in hell, but well worth the time & effort spent peeling away the onion layers of deception to get to the truth.

I found this book to be quite an eye-opener. I've been one of the countless left wondering why 1) ordinary voters would choose to put people in office that are obviously inept at advancing sound fiscal policy (we are about to reach 8 trillion in debt after 20 years of Republican-controlled budgets) and 2) how arch-conservatives get bills passed that are known to be unpopular with the majority of the people. Thanks to these authors I now have an understanding of what is happening in America, and it has little to do with the country turning to the right (Michael Moore was accurate on that point.)

The first revelation is that many voters are increasingly robbed of their preferred choice: a moderate Republican, leaving them only to choose between an radical right Republican and the Democratic choice. This is because radical activists like Grover Norquist and Tom DeLay put a lot of money in primary caucuses in order to defeat middle of the road Republicans. Because most people don't pay attention to or come out to vote in primary elections, activist radicals on the right can control the choice of candidates in the November elections.

Even more enlightening is the authors description of how ultra-conservatives in the House and Senate (ab)use Robert's Rules in order to set and accomplish their agenda. For example, after the House and Senate vote on their versions of the bill, the bill is supposed to go into a commitee that makes compromises between the two versions. Hastert, DeLay and Frist stack this committee with arch-conservative dittoheads, and basically rewrite the bill so that all of the radical right's agenda is conserved, while any moderate or liberal inclusions are excised. But at this point, no one can protest; the rules of Congress only permit an up or down vote. So in effect, the arch-cons can basically right their own laws without having to allow debate.

Yet I'm only giving this book four stars because it lacks some detailed explanations. Those of us who aren't apprised of tax laws need more exposition than the authors want to give. It would be nice to find a book called "Corruption for Dummies" that would explain how campaign finance and tax laws are manipulated by the likes of the PACs and lobbyists. That is not to say you should not purchase this book. You should. You must. It is way better than the usual political fare out there.

One more thing, that review who says that 64% of donations under $200 dollars goes to Republicans is lying. In the last election Bush and Kerry received about the same amount from -$200 donations: about $60 million.

Very informative. i don't necessarily agree with every point made, but it certainly makes you think about the whole picture and how are government is really being run, as opposed to what we are allowed to see.

Hacker and Pierson argue that Politics has become seriously `off center' and more so in the direction of the Republican Party. "The transformations of the Republican Party...the increasingly conservative (and increasingly Southern) leadership of the GOP has reflected and refracted the growing power of the base in its successful quest to reshape the party it heads." (H&P, 2005, p.111). The Republican Party have reorganized their whole organization, starting from the Base, going back to grass roots, and focusing on a whole new type of game plan included with insurance policies if all else should fail (backlash insurance). The new Republican Party, to this point, has been successful because of its strong alliance to the Base, the enforcement and commitment of all of its members, and especially the discipline and coordination that is constantly displayed among them. The Republican Party has come to thrive on the "...increased inequality of resources and organization between the rich, the radical, and the rest." (H&P, 2005, p.111).