Customer Reviews

Why Americans Hate Politics

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I originally purchased and read "Why Americans Hate Politics" shortly after it was published. Recently, I came across the book in my library and read it again.

Few modern-day books and in depth analyses manage to weather the test of time. Mr. Dionne's thesis, to his credit, is further affirmed in its accuracy just four days short of 2003. This achievement is only diminished by the frustration of knowing that we've sunken much deeper into this morass of "ideological polarization" vis a vis liberalism and conservatism as it affects today's political climate in the U.S.

Mr. Dionne could hardly have predicted the proliferation of cable networks with their steady diet of disciples from both sides pummeling the viewer 24 hours a day. Neither could he have imagined the depths to which politicos, think tanks, and special interest groups would plunge as this "polarization" continues to feed upon itself some 12 years later.

"Why Americans Hate Politics" should be on every required reading list in our colleges and universities as well as among engaged and concerned citizens in the United States - especially given current events.

"Why Americans Hate Politics" is a brilliant treatment of the major themes of American politics of the last 50 or so years from today's best political journalist. This book showcases exactly what is so good about Dionne's Washington Post columns: insights that are always penetrating, and never anodyne.

Dionne nicely handles a wide spectrum of issues, such as feminism, the resurgence of religion in politics, supply side economics and the divisions in both modern liberalism and conservatism. At the same time, Dionne provides depth, breadth and context that are uncharacteristic of many textbooks that cover the same period. Dionne does not heed the traditional fissures between political history, intellectual history, economic history and civil rights history. Because of this tack, Dionne effectively conveys just how much was going on at any point in American political life.

Finally, I appreciated Dionne's willingness both to mention and cite other works that provide a more thorough treatment of given subjects. Among the many titles I got from reading Dionne's book were Nicol Rae's "The Decline and Fall of Liberal Republicans," Kevin Phillip's "The Politics of Rich and Poor" and John Richard Neuhaus' "The Naked Public Square." Any book that gives me three suggestions of three more "must read" titles gets extra points.

I like bold books that make bold statements. "Why Americans Hate Politics" opens swinging for the fences, saying accurately that the New Left elected Reagan. And when the book isn't speaking difficult truths, its articulating things clearly that you've probably sensed before. This book traces American Politics from the 60s to 91, outlining the major shifts in ideologies and how they are represented in the political parties. The way it displays these sometimes dramatic shifts could be the books highest value. To see the words "liberal" and "Republican" next to each other feels bizarre, though it shouldn't, and people where described as such not long ago. "Why Americans..." argues essentially there was an insurgency in the Democratic Party in the 60s that split the centrist New Deal consensus. While there were inherently some contradictions in that consensus, the Vietnam War exacerbated the split. At the same time, a conservative coalition emerged, thanks in large part to William Buckley's National Review and the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, that was able to unite two former democratic flanks, namely the libertarian/internationalist neo-conservatives and the traditional/religious populists. The cause of anti-communism solidified that coalition. In turn, the Democratic Party was caught trying to balance the radicals of the sixties and the New Dealers from the past. The two sides have battled it out ever since.

Most importantly and refreshingly, Dionne takes both sides seriously and at their word. For example, he is eloquent in pointing out that and that most religious conservatives don't want to delegitimize other's faiths or force others to their own, they just don't like being mocked as dupes. Further, conservatives are foolish when they dismiss the 60s as being merely a radical frenzy. Our current attitudes of equality and opportunity, that no one serious would dissent from, were fought for in that era and those victories must be acknowledged. Both parties have had successes and mistakes, and could learn from each other.

There are a few problems with the book, however. At one point it seemed as if Dionne couldn't decide whether the South became Republican because of demographic and economic changes, or because it is simply anti-civil rights. I also think that he succumbs to impulse (like Thomas Friedman) that says everyone is mostly right and we just need to compromise toward the middle. Compromise is of value, but it's not the highest value. But overall it is a great book displaying how unnatural coalitions in our two party system make politics about symbolism rather than substance. The fight against terrorism will act like anticommunism in that it will continue to hold the conservative coalition together while it will put liberals into a bind when trying to articulate their strategies in that fight. But these schisms are on the horizon and must be dealt with. Then, hopefully, we can put the war of symbols aside. But I'm not holding my breath.

Looking at some of the negative reviews on this page, I have to wonder whether these readers read the same book I did. I though Dionne's book was a political opus and the large number of awards it has received encourages my judgement. What Dionne explains is how we got to where we are today (or at least to 1992 when the book was written). This includes the ideological spectrum, the travels of each political party, and most importantly, why our people are so disgusted with politics. Because he is a liberal, Dionne's criticisms of his ideology and his explanations for the political failure of liberalism are particularly credible and insightful. I heartily recommend this book. If you share my opinion, see Robert Samuelson's "The Good Life and Its Discontents."

I came across this book about a year ago, if that, at my local public library. Dionne's piercing analysis opened my eyes to the answer, or beginnings of an answer, to a question that had been so residual in my mind.

Looking at the publication date, I was taken aback. The book is so relevant, and it was originally introduced to the market in 1992.

But that's a footnote. Dionne's thesis is simple, yet brilliantly incisive: American political "apathy" is only apparent; the hostility among most people toward 'politics' and, especially, 'politicians' can be explained, he writes, toward the "false choices" provided by our ineffective two-party system.

So, instead of energy and solidarity, we are seeing (and have been seeing for many years, as Dionne indicates) paralysis, stagnation and a 'polarized' climate that denies a third way.

Read it.

I am not a fan of E.J. Dionne's columns by any stretch of the imagination. A friend suggested I read this book, and I have to say I was VERY impressed.

Dionne's account of the dynamics of American politics over the past fifty years is nothing short of remarkable. The book combines political theory, history, and biography in a way I've never experienced before.

His interpretations of the evolution of liberalism and conservatism in postwar America are amazing - well-balanced between explaining the ideological abstracts of both sides and illustrating his discussions with the people and events that shaped them. It is high-end, dense political writing, and Dionne does it well.

I look forward to reading his other books now... I'm still no fan of his columns though...

Facinating reading on the evolution of political thought through the last thirty years of the 20th Century. If you have an interest in politics and economics and are the least bit curious about ideas it can't be beat. When you finish you should follow up with "They Only Look Dead" which, sort of, takes up where this book leaves off. Dionne is a great writer and a solid thinker.

This books is any easy read, but it covers the subject well. The author explains the ways that political parties have evolved in the last 20 years and demonstrates why Americans feel less connection with the political process.

Dionne, one of my favorite political columnists, kept up his usual solid work in this book. He looks at all the mistakes the left made in the 1960s that allowed the conservatives to take over then explains what that group has done wrong since it has taken control of policy. Thorough, in-depth analysis that delivers an uncompromising view of both ideologies.

E.J. Dionne, Jr. gives us an informative journalistic account of modern American politics, and I learned many facts from this book. I have reservations about his thesis, however. If I understand it, Mr. Dionne argues that Americans are presented with false (rather extreme) choices by leaders of the two main political parties. This polarized and polarizing rhetoric turns people off. Most people are at the political center, and accept some premises from one party and its ideology and other premises from the rival party and its ideology.

This is my problem. I do not think that Americans who are turned off by politics are turned off because of this perceived extremism. They are either bored by politics, or consider it a waste of time to try to understand it in depth. In fact, this perceived "extremism" is part of the sensational theater of politics without which Americans would pay even less attention to it. Let us face it: politics is both theater and business. Politician have to compete for attention with America's mind-boggling entertainment industry and American people's own challenges and travails. How does it do that? From time to time, both parties exaggerate and sensationalize their differences. Truth be told, the differences between the two main parties are almost nonexistent, as they always are in two party systems. And a two party system naturally results from a single-member district, simple plurality electoral system, i.e., first past the post system. Many people do not know that rhetorical differences between most Republicans and most Democrats are minor, because they lack a comparative perspective. In many countries of Europe, the rhetorical debate is quite ideologically wide-ranging. Moreover, when it comes to practical/policy differences between Democrats and Republicans, such differnces pail to insignificance.

In short, elites play up rhetorical differences to make politics more, not less, interesting for most people. A cold empirical analysis shows that real policy differences of the two parties are marginal. This, by the way, is what in large part accounts for our political stability and public policy continuity. The genius of the system lies in its ability to adjust to the times without major political upheavals. And this is made possible by political elites whose verbal battles belie real and continuous cooperation.