Customer Reviews

The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America

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

 

 

Ronald Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War", offers up much to be digested in history, calculation, process and outlook. The author, a distinguished contributor to the national political scene, has studied American politics from McKinley to Bush. We seem to be right back where we started from, with a mid-twentieth century romp through bipartisanhip.

Brownstein's book is a fair comparison of how the country felt and voted at any given time since 1896. The era from McKinley to Hoover more or less matched the hyperpartisanship of today, while FDR's time through the 1980s allowed for compromise and historic legislation. While this is a comprehensive work of age-old politics, it's really more about the last fifteen years....the era of Clinton and "W". This is the part of "The Second Civil War" where Brownstein makes his mark and it's clear he has some distinct opinions. The Gingrich crowd, never a particularly likeable American flavor favorite, began the ball rolling in earnest toward a "take-no-prisoners" approach to Congress, heightened only by the intense partisanship of the Bush presidency. In so many words, Brownstein points out that because of this, we've lost more than we've gained and it will take years of rebuilding to set things straight. He's right, of course, and I kept wondering while reading this book if we've really hit the political nadir just yet in America.

I highly recommend "The Second Civil War" for its insight and depth. Ronald Brownstein has done a remarkable job in putting this book together and it should be read by all who have a serious interest in American politics and those who care about where this country might be headed in that regard.

Ron Brownstein does a masterful job of describing the nature of partisanship and bipartisanship in the US Congress from 1896 to the present. He describes the situations and attitudes that led to the extreme partisanship from 1896 to 1932. He consistently lauds bipartisanship in the making of public policy but he also describes the splits in the majopr parties that made bipartisanship both possible and necessary. I disagree with his present analysis of the need for, and desirability of, bipartisanship today. Nonetheless he does a masterful job of describing the present basis for the present extreme partisanship which he decries. His recommendations for a more bipartisan approach to policy making makes a lot of sense. I just think that the country is moving more to a realignment than he thinks. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the present, unhealthy gridlock read this book.

Politics and History--

This is a well written book, well thought out and thoroughly researched. The strongest case it makes is neither for conservatives nor liberals, but the need for moderation. Those rare times when the parties have worked together have been the only times that the Washington powers have achieved worthwhile goals. Polarized and uncompromising times produce nothing but threats, and not since the Civil War--not even Vietnam and Iraq--has the country be so divided. We might as well be shooting at each other as killing with wrong headed policies and laws that express nothing but the extreme views that are arrived at by brute power rather then compromises and modeeration. That, too, is a civil war, just a different kind, but, in many cases, just as damaging.

i have to say that this book is extremely well documented. it is well written. it offers hope and pragmatic possible solutions for many of the problems our nation faces in the next 20 years. it is also one of the driest books that i've read in the past year or two, falling asleep or shifting to something different after a dozen pages or so ... it's captivating, but, well, simply dry. well worth the read and the price, new. it is an excellent book that, i wish, more politicians and decision-makers would read, especially the last half of the book. thank you for this masterpiece!

Though I've long studied American history as a layman, I learned so much from this book. Brownstein gives an overview of politics and the parties over the last 110 years, and upends a lot of my preconceived notions. The book is meticulously researched, and Brownstein convincingly proves his case- that never before in modern American history have the parties been so divided, yet so equal in support and numbers. This book is additionally recommended because of Brownstein's lack of bias, portraying the positives and negatives of both parties, but mostly preaching that strong adherence to party has been to the detriment of our nation.

Why is is so difficult for Congress or the President of the United States to get anything done? Why is it that our elected leaders cannot tackle so many of the deep and important challenges facing the nation? Journalist Ron Brownstein attempts to answer these important questions in this provocative and illuminating book.
Full disclosure: I know the author. We both covered national politics, he for the Los Angeles Times and I for Reuters in the 1996 and 2000 presidential race. We were friendly but and not personal friends, although, I deeply respect his judgment and talent.
Brownstein argues that partisan politics have become so bitter, toxic and divisive that neither party has any interest in cooperating with the other even when the national interest demands it. Both parties have become beholden to their political bases which have become bitterly antagonistic, professing loyalty to widely divergent cultural values. Yet, in order to get anything done, it remains necessary to build bipartisan coalitions. It may be possible to narrowly win elections based primarily on energizing the base, as Bush did in 2004, but when important national challenges loom, a president who has not reached out to the other party invariably finds it impossible to govern effectively on the shaky basis of such a narrow majority.
In an exhaustive historic review, Brownstein goes through previous periods of American history. The Republicans from the 1890s to 1929, governed in a similar way -- and were turned out of power after they were blamed for the Great Depression for decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, both sides reached out more to the center, forming bipartisan coalitions. In those days both parties were much more diverse than today. There were southern Democrats who were more conservative than many Republicans and moderate Republicans more liberal than many Democrats. Was this a golden age of bipartisan cooperation? Hardly -- the southern Democrats were mainly concerned with preserving their racist, exclusionary Jim Crow society.
In analyzing our current predicament, Brownstein puts most blame on the Republicans -- Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the Bush-Karl Rove team who set out deliberately to exclude Democrats from power and to rule for the benefit of their own narrow segment of society. Democrats, in order to survive, had to respond in kind and themselves have become tougher, less willing to compromise and more interested in frustrating the other side than cooperating to do the nation's business.
But history teaches that a party that governs for the benefit of the few eventually awakens the wrath of the many. The pendulum always swings -- as it is about to do again.
For more about me and my latest book The Nazi Hunter: A Novelgo to www.alanelsner.com.

Many of the themes covered in this book have been the discussed in other recently published books. (For example, Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Borzoi Books) by Robert Reich, The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman, The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy) by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein.) All of the above authors focus on the hyperpartisanship of recent years. Sometime around the late 70s to early 80s the degree of partisanship in our politics began to rise sharply. And as a result, this polarization of parties has left the government ineffectual in the face of pressing national problems.

Ronald Brownstein, formerly of the LA Times and currently with The Atlantic, traces the recent history of relations between the major parties. He tells us that from the time of the New Deal up to the Great Society programs, we had "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history." Brownstein calls this "the age of negotiation." This period also turned out to be a golden age for the middle class with the gap between the rich and poor the narrowest in our history. (Reich and Kurgman are better on the economic benefits of bipartisanship.) During this period politicians were more willing to reach across party lines to pass legislation, both on domestic and foreign fronts.

The period from the mid-60s to mid-90s was, according to Brownstein, was a "period of transition." Yes, there was partisanship, but there was still a willingness to work with the other side. Nixon, for example, was at odds with Democrats on Vietnam, but on domestic issues he was willing to compromise. By today's Republican standards, Nixon would be considered left of center. Reagan, although father figure of today's Right, was not or at least tried not to be divisive. He, too, made many concessions to the Democrats. Clinton, on the other hand, was famous for poaching Republicans from the center, using the time-honored maneuver of triangulation. It was not until his impeachment that the current period of hyperpartisanship ushered in.

The impeachment was intiated by the politics of the base on the Right, and it spawned a politics of the base on the Left. It was here that organizatons like Moveon and lefties like Michael Moore started to turn up the volume. Brownstein tries to give a balanced account by saying that both sides are responsible for hyperpartisanship, but in my view, the Right was much more responsible. The Left has had no equivalent of Tom Delay, Karl Rove, or George W. Bush. The Right is better funded and better organized.

The Bush II presidency is the apex of this phenomenon. During the first six years, votes in Congress have been almost strictly along party lines. Bush II and movement conservatives have tried to put as much of the conservative agenda into law with the narrowest of margins. This is the government of 51%. As we can see, governing from the base has proven to be a disaster.

The 2006 elections were a call for change. The current crop of Democrats in Congress are actually much more conservative and cautious than those of, say, Tip O'Neill's day. Hyperpartisans of the Left are calling for a Bush/Cheney impeachment, but the Democrats in Congress say it is not on the table. (Even though there is a better case against Bush than there was against Clinton.) Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans have learned that governing from the base doesn't work.

Ron Brownstein provides an excellent historical context for how we have come full circle to again embrace extreme polarization in our political system. He leaves the judgment to the reader as to whether this is someting we should decry or embrace for a great portion of the book and then postulates a rational critique as to what this does to the system and potentially how it might be overcome. This book is not for those for whom history is a mystery, but is for those who understand how politics is an everchanging and dynamic system and that we are at a point where we must decide if, at this critical time, can accept continuing gridlock.

A great book that is rather right down the middle. It does a great job of covering the history of politics back to the early 1900s while still focusing on the recent dynamics. Clearly a lot of Bush and Clinton references but it does a good job of removing bias.

A definite eye-opener.

America is the richest, most powerful nation in the world, possibly even in the history of the world. But as Brownstein points out, we cannot agree on a plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, balance our federal budget, provide health insurance for the nearly one in six that don't have it, agree on a plan to improve security at our borders, stabilize our Social Security and Medicare programs, take steps to rebuild economic security for our middle-class citizens in the age of global economic competition, agree on an approach to fight Islamic terrorism, or formulate a strategy for reducing gases contributing to global warming. In each case, most elected officials will not accept half the solution (that proposed by the other party) - eg. both raise taxes AND cut spending to balance the budget, both improve fuel economy AND develop new domestic oil sources. Each party is increasingly moving towards operating as the champion of one group against another, confrontation instead of cooperation, ideology instead of pragmatism.

The percent in Congress voting with their party has risen from about 705 in the latter 50's to about 90% today. At the same time, the gap between Republican and Democrat approval ratings of incumbent presidents has risen from about 40% to 75%.

Bush II changed from a "uniter" in Texas to a "divider" at the national level almost immediately upon taking office. The presumed logic is that people in the middle are not "up for grabs." Thus, there is no point trying to win more of the over, and one should instead focus on moving as far as possible to satisfy the base - not work on building broad coalitions.

DeLay/Santorum's "K-Street project" was intended to drive the Democrats into permanent minority status. It even included tracking how PACs split their dollars between Republicans and Democrats - thus, it was not sufficient to merely donate to Republicans. The result was that donations dropped significantly from businesses to Democrats. Lobbying firms and business organizations were also expected to hire Republican aides leaving Congress and mobilize their own employees to support Republican causes.

Advancement in the House no longer was to be determined by seniority - instead it would be a combination of support for the party agenda. Those found failing would be threatened with opposition in the primary and denied earmarks (pork). The resulting increase in cohesion decreased Republicans' need to rely on Democrat support.

This increased cohesion also led to the almost total absence of congressional oversight over Bush's actions - and possibly their increased likelihood of failure. (Even the House Ethics Committee was effected - when Republican members supported investigating fellow Republicans, they were replaced.) Life was much different under Clinton - Republicans regularly challenged his administration, even requiring 140 hours of sworn testimony on whether the White House Christmas Card list had been used to troll for Democrat donations.

With the operational focus now on satisfying the base, election strategy shifted to maximizing turnout of that base. Databases were employed to predict those most likely to support Republicans, using data such as "Did they own a gun?" "Had they contributed in the past?" "Did they belong to a church?" "What type car did they drive?" (Volvo owners were more likely Democrats; SUV owners Republicans). Bourbon drinkers were more likely Republicans, while those drinking vodka more likely Democrats. The result was that Republican votes increased 11 million in 2004, while Democrat votes went up only 8 million (anger at Bush apparently helped motivate them). It was the smallest re-election margin ever since the two-party system began in 1828.

The 2006 election, however, showed that announcing the demise of the independent voter was premature. Bush's problems with Social Security, Iraq, immigration, Terry Schiavo, and Katrina, combined with Republican sex and fiduciary scandals produced a Democrat victory. Similarly, Gov. Schwarzenegger won in California by changing his original hard-line to a conciliatory approach.

Meanwhile, Democrats are have lately been emulating the Republican strategies, if for no other reason than self-defense - especially to foil Bush's effort to change Social Security. At the same time, the media are becoming more one-sided - eg. the airwaves favor conservatives, while the Internet has favored liberals (eg. Democrats obtained 1/6 of their 2004 funds through the Internet).

Recommendations from the author include abandoning closed primaries (or at least allow independents to vote), use independent groups to redistrict, reduce earmarks, limit floor votes to 20 minutes, and ensure that both parties are represented on conference committees. It also would be nice if everyone adopted former President Clinton's request that he be informed of any criticisms of his proposals based on logic.

The bottom-line question now is "Are we doomed to perpetual campaigning and stalemate?" The "good news" is that over-playing to the Republican "true believers" by ignoring competency when filling positions (Bush and Cheney war advisers, Bremer's Iraq group, Katrina's emergency management, etc.) has backfired badly and should be less likely to occur.