Customer Reviews

Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South

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

 

 

An overall good book. The author I think has a useful strategy, and lots of numbers to back it up. In fact, my main criticism of the book would be that Scaller is better with numbers than complex philosophical arguments. He can tell you a lot of useful information on the political situation in many places around the country. He analyzes the politics in the south very well. The historical analysis from decades ago is less interesting, though. There is a curious ommission with Katrina, and all the corruption that exposed. Maybe that was because he was trying to protect the line that it was a problem with the feds, not the local southern politicians - but if his thesis is that we're giving up on the south, that would give us free reign to criticize the southern politicians as well.

Later in the book, as he started talking about a non-southern political strategy, he could have said more about policy. There was one chapter on demography that read like a census report. Only one chapter was specifically devoted to policy, and I think there is more to say about that while still utilizing his tactical approach. In that chapter, I also picked up on some contradictions, like the Publisher's Weekly people. The chapter opens with a couple of on-the-money quotes about the Democrats being 'against' stuff, rather then 'for' stuff. Yet later in the chapter, he argues that NAFTA and CAFTA were perfect examples of where we should "plant a flag" in opposition, and show resolve. He never gives any positive examples of "flag planting."

This is the first book I've read in the 'genre' of partisan tactics, so perhaps many of these criticisms would apply to other books as well. But I think a good book on policy should address some of the political issues, and visa-versa. The author does have an insightful argument that the Democratic leadership should consider, and I still think it's a worthwhile read just for that.

I haven't read many Political Science books since college, but I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to make sense of modern political strategy. Whistling Past Dixie explains the figures and factoids behind all the punditry and wonkery--how Republicans engineered a political majority and how Democrats can take it back. Schaller offers more strategy than opinion which makes it a refreshing read for anyone interested in politics--right or left.

Thomas Schaller's "Whistling Past Dixie" offers a comprehensive look at where both parties stand relative to each other in today's politics. The insight and detail are wonderful and although it reads more like a textbook than a flowing narrative, Schaller has outlined where Democrats need to look beyond the South to win in upcoming elections.

One problem with "Whistling Past Dixie" is that it was published before the recent midterm elections and references to what might happen in the "upcoming 2006 races" are now history. One wonders why the author could not have held off having an updated version of this appear until after the November elections, therefore eliminating some of the guesswork.

"Whistling Past Dixie" is less of a hands-on approach for Democrats to win elections as it is an analysis of the current national political realties, but it is nonetheless pointed in its partisan appeal and renders some good advice for Democrats. It's worth the read if you can get past some of the now "old news" it offers.

Tom Schaller's book is a must read for all Democrats. It is extremely well-written and well-reasoned. Thirty-five years from now it will be cited as the seminal work outlining how the Democrats achieved majority status in the first half of the century.

Written in 2006, Schaller accurately predicted the importance of the West to the Democratic Party in the 2008 election. Schaller noted the rise of then-Senator Obama, but thought the then Senator would be brought on as vice-president, not on the top of the ticket, let alone be President of the United States.

Shaller's critique of the Democratic Party is overall fairly solid; however, he is either missing, or lacking in a few things, such as how the party is going to curry the support of gun owners. The party can and does, but on a case by case basis. It's also confusing where Shaller stands on Dean's 50 state strategy. In one chapter he praises it, while in another reemphazing the need to cut on the South.

Overall, worth reading. This book would have been fairly solid if Schaller had written a 20-30 page introduction about the demise of the Democratic Party in the post-civil rights era, culture wars, etc instead of a major section on it. After the introduction gone on to the problems of the South, electoral strategy, etc.

Schaller's argument makes perfect sense, and was borne out in the results of the 2006 election. I highly recommend it to anyone who does not want to see this country drift toward theocracy.

Schaller's basic thesis is not wrong, nor is it particularly original. For a better written version of the same book, read "The Emerging Democratic Majority" by Judis and Texeira.

However, what makes this book so weak is the unacceptable number of errors. For example:

- On pg. 137, Schaller describes the untimely death of Senator Wellstone. He places this death on the eve of the 2000 election (it was in 2002) and describes the upcoming race Senator Coleman faces against prosecutor Amy Klobuchar (Coleman is up in 2008, and Klobuchar was already a declared candidate for the seat in 2006 being vacated by Mark Dayton)
- On pg. 289, Table 7.1 lists Tom Carper as a Republican Senator
- On pg. 295, Schaller claims that since 1944, only one Democratic candidate has received a majority of the popular vote, Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course, Lyndon Johnson received 60% of the popular vote in 1964.

I haven't read this book yet, but I heard an interview with the author last night on NPR. In that light, I can't comment on the book or it's proposals, but I can say that the author sounded very knowledgeable and his arguments well thought out and supported. I am in the middle of the road politically, and the author is clearly a passionalte liberal, but the book sounds as if it would be an interesting look into the next presidential election for people on both sides of the political spectrum.

In all fairness, I have not yet read the book. One would think that American Sectionalism has already been played out and seen before in the 1850s. It wasn't a happy ending. Why someone would try to divide the union by geography again would be a bad thing unless the author believe that a second go around would be a good idea In today's political climate, that could well be the case.

dismiss an entire area of the country. In a TV interview, he states the only places in the South that have any redeeming qualities have the fewest native Southerners. The man has a complex; not to mention he fails to understand our nation or the democracy that was established to govern it. The "fly-over" attitude is played out and old.