It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the Politics of Extremism

by Thomas E. Mann, Norman J. Ornstein

Acrimony and hyperpartisanship have seeped into every part of the political process. Congress is deadlocked and its approval ratings are at record lows. America’s two main political parties have given up their traditions of compromise, endangering our very system of constitutional democracy. And one of these parties has taken on the role of insurgent outlier; the Republicans have become ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, and ardently opposed to the established social and economic policy regime. In It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein identify two overriding problems that have led Congress—and the United States—to the brink of institutional collapse. The first is the serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Second, while both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost. With dysfunction rooted in long-term political trends, a coarsened political culture and a new partisan media, the authors conclude that there is no “silver bullet” reform that can solve everything. But they offer a panoply of useful ideas and reforms, endorsing some solutions, like greater public participation and institutional restructuring of the House and Senate, while debunking others, like independent or third-party candidates. Above all, they call on the media as well as the public at large to focus on the true causes of dysfunction rather than just throwing the bums out every election cycle. Until voters learn to act strategically to reward problem solving and punish obstruction, American democracy will remain in serious danger.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Political Science, Audiobook, Government, American History

225 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 2012

Reviews

[Lis Carey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a scary book.

First, it needs to be said that Ornstein and Mann are not "liberals" in any sense. They are, at most, center-right conservatives. They are respected and popular pundits "inside the Beltway" and frequent guests on the Sunday political talk shows.

At least, before they published this book.

We're all aware that our politics in recent years have been unusually broken, with gridlock and partisan obstructionism preventing even basic government functions from being carried out properly. Conventional, mainstream media wisdom says that this is equally the fault of both sides, that Democrats and Republicans both have become more extreme in recent years.

Mann and Ornstein say that's not correct, that the Democrats have moved a little to the left, while the Republicans have become an extreme ideological outlier, unwilling to compromise on anything, and not accepting even a shared understanding of facts and evidence with the rest of the world.

Furthermore, they document this: the slight shift in the Democratic ideological tilt, as they lost the Dixiecrats, with very little movement in the rest of the Democratic caucus, while Republicans moved much further to the right. This happened in part because they welcomed the Dixiecrats who no longer felt welcome in the Democratic party, but also as a result of deliberate strategy and tactics used to break the longstanding Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. One of the key players in this was the relatively pragmatic Newt Gingrich, who deliberately developed parliamentary-like party discipline and unity, in order to obstruct the Democrats, make Congress less functional, therefore less popular, and induce the voters to "throw the bums out."

The authors lay out clearly the ways in which parliamentary parties, the Republicans especially but the Democrats, in response, developing similar if not quite as strong discipline, are incompatible with the governmental structure we have, which requires a high degree of consensus and cooperation in order to work. They beautifully explain how the GOP has driven the system closer and closer to the edge, driving out the liberals, the moderates, the center right, the merely "very conservative" members of their own party, in pursuit of ever-greater ideological purity.

They also, thankfully, lay out suggestions for how to make the situation better. These suggestions include changes to the government (extraordinarily hard to achieve), changes to how the parties behave (very hard to achieve), and changes to voter behavior (dependent on voters recognizing the seriousness of the situation.) They propose open primaries as one way to lessen the power of the extremes, and encourage voters and candidates more ready for cooperation and compromise in order to get the practical business of government accomplished.

This is an important book, one that everyone who cares about our political system ought to read. Unfortunately, it's getting very little attention because the mainstream media that normally love Ornstein and Mann haven't been interested in having them on since this book came out. Why? Maybe because they place a lot of blame on the mainstream media for buying into the false equivalency of "both sides do it" and not reporting on the genuinely extreme and destructive behavior of the current Republican party.

Highly recommended.

I bought this book.

[Jay Connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Asymmetry.

Perhaps the most relevant concept in understanding the full brace of change that is this new century is “asymmetry.” The simple Webster definition is: not identical on both sides of a central line. In other words, it is a mistake to try to understand something that is asymmetrical by using false equivalence. This is much easier said than done. The human animal is preconditioned to think in terms of balance and symmetry. For example, when we look in the mirror or at someone on the street, we tend to “see” a balanced face, whereas if you were to draw a plane through the middle of the face you would see that it is “not identical on both sides of a central line.” We simply want to “see” balance.

The harm in seeing balance in a face is negligible. The harm in seeing balance where it does not exist in many aspects of our world this century is disastrous.

Already this century, I have reviewed several books which discuss the reframing that is required in a world of asymmetry: military (“Drift,” “It Worked for Me”); terrorism (“The Art of Intelligence”); business (“That Used to be Us,” “Imagine,” “Boomerang,” and “What would Google Do?”); finance (“All the Devils are Here,” “A Colossal Failure”); education (“Fire in the Ashes”); medical / pharma (“End of Illness”); media (“Cronkite”); law enforcement (“Murder in Amsterdam,” “The Secrets of the FBI,” “In the President’s Secret Service”). In each case, failure came from trying to understand both sides or both actors as equal.

Terrorism gives us perhaps the best insight: in the past where our enemies were states, military might was the best response. Today where our enemy can act anywhere in the world in seconds with beyond-nuclear potential for harm – bio or digital – it is hard to see that huge military outlays are a sufficient (or appropriate) response.

“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks” helps us understand the asymmetry of today’s American politics. Congressional and bipartisan scholars, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, clarify and propel earlier books of this election cycle – “Our Divided Political Heart” and “Do not Ask What Good We Do” – by helping us reframe the dynamics between the political parties.

The asymmetry comes not from proportion of the electorate (both Democrats and Republicans can call on fairly equal number of followers) rather the asymmetry is measured by intent. When the Republicans made their primary objective defeat of Obama rather than the historical intent of each of the parties that has been focused on the best interests of the country, politics became asymmetrical.

In every chapter of this book, Mann and Ornstein, document the ways in which the Republican Party became “the insurgent outlier in American politics and as such contributes disproportionately to its dysfunction.” No matter how much FOX or MSNBC seem to create false equivalence – e.g., both sides lie – our spiraling failure to come to grips with what is in our country’s best interest cannot be shared, it is not equal. “The culture and ideological center of the Republican Party itself, at the congressional, presidential, and, in many cases, state and local levels, must change if US democracy is to regain its health.”

The weakest part of the book – given the above unilateral requirement for the Republican Party to reform – is the concluding chapter with a series of prescriptions for a cure – from change in senate filibuster rules to overturning Citizens v. United. One section, however, can be acted upon by all citizens and will perhaps go the furthest in goading the Republican Party to change: RESTORE PUBLIC SHAME.

The country needs the remaining (if dwindling) opinion leaders from institutions like the military, churches, universities, foundations, business, the media, and public life AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US to denounce those who profit from bombast and lies and to denounce the television and radio networks and print outlets that give them airtime and web and print space, with the legitimacy that flows from them. We need to demand truth in the public square and not give the moral permission that Rudy Giuliani endorsed at the recent Republican Convention in Tampa: “not every fact is always absolutely accurate.” We must simply point out that then it is NOT a fact.

PS Putting my “money where my mouth is” in an effort to Restore Public Shame is this post to Facebook together with a link to a strong Obama ad making the case that we ARE better off today than we were four years ago: “I've refrained for the past 15 years of making any partisan argument, since the solutions we have catalyzed in our "Working Differently" communities have been embraced across the political spectrum. However, this year I believe the differences are so stark and the ability of our communities to continue to shape their own solutions are so much at risk, standing mute is no longer an appropriate approach. Please like if you agree.”

[Nicole R · Rating 3 out of 5]

*****WARNING: This review is of a book on politics*****

I have experience (albeit limited) of working in the Republican minority in the Senate as well as the Democrat minority in the House. Recently, I decided to leave politics and return to academics, and the complete inability of the House to function was not a minor player in that decision.

So, when I saw this book by Mann and Ornstein - two well known non-partisans who have been praised by the left and the right - I was extremely interested in what they had to say. They layout many of the reasons they believe that Congress has become gridlocked and contentious and they are not shy about highlighting extremely conservative Republicans for many of the problems.

While I do not claim that Democrats are the picture of perfect politicians, and extreme liberals annoy me just as much as extreme conservatives, I have to admit that many of the points highlighted in this book are spot on.

It is the Republican strategy of late - as highlighted in interviews, memos, and actions - to deliberately disrupt the normal budget process in order to keep in in the news. What we end up with is government shutdowns, short term spending bills that cripple the executive agencies, and the downgrading of the US credit. In the Senate, the filibuster is being abused in ways that even the Democrats didn't dream of when they were in the minority to prevent Presidential appointments, draw out the passage of popular legislation, and take time away from more pressing matters. Now, I know that a compromise is a two way street, but meeting in the middle is key.

Mann and Ornstein also highlight the media's role in this divide. It is no secret that Fox is the Republican go-to news station, MSNBC is the Democrat home, and you never hear a story that highlights and praises congressmen who reach across the aisle to find something they can agree on. The extreme politicians who spout party line rhetoric that is often, to be honest, downright wrong, are allowed free reign to saw what they want with little media responsibility to fact check.

The political history of how we got to where we are today, starting with Gingrich in the 1970's, was very interesting and highlighted that this has actually been an escalating problem for decades. I would have liked a little more political balance because I think what they had to say was important but the way they portrayed it will probably cause most conservatives to instantly dismiss it.

I think the biggest disappointment in the book was the recommendation on how to change and move forward. They suggested massive changes to our political system and Constitutional amendments that would alter how we vote, how our votes count, and how candidates are allowed to raise money. The suggestions, if applied to a blank canvas government would probably set up a better system than we have now, but realistically these will never fly. Seriously, massive Constitutional amendments?!?

Overall, it is nice to know that I am not the only one frustrated with the way things are going in Congress and while blame cannot solely rest with one party over another, the blame does appear to lean a little more to one side than the other.

[John Purcell · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5... It's nice to find a well researched and articulate book that gives voice to the confusion and bewilderment I have experienced watching political discourse and activity over the past couple of years in this country, especially since Obama was elected. I have had so many WTF moments, incredulous that what was happening in the regular course of government was actually happening. The faux debt crisis, for me, was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one where I seriously thought Republicans were committing treason. Their actions and positions last summer were so obviously motivated by party-wide self advancement, rather than the good of the country they were elected and paid to serve, that I felt they should have been taken out back and summarily shot.

This book clearly takes the position that our government, with pure partisan politics at the center, is dysfunctional, with the possibility that if something is not done, it will "get worse". The culprits are the current Republican party, which the authors term an "outlier" in party politics, with a take no prisoners attitude. They don't care what happens to the country, believing that to save the beast they must first kill it. This is a radical Ideology at its core, designed to make the country hate the government in power so badly that we will "throw the bums out", allowing them to effortlessly move into the political vacuum created. It's insidious.

The authors, two normally conservative members of established Washington think tanks, do a very nice job of relating the history, starting in the 1970s, progressing through the Reagan years and highlighting the nefarious plan of Newt Gingrich to move the Republican Party to prominence. They give example after example of the obstructive, yet irrational nature of the current Republican plan (one they find highly dangerous to the stability of the country). But they don't stop there. They then discuss multiple suggestions for stopping and reconstructing the political process to get us back on a two party system that actually works together in a robust, albeit oppositional manner for the betterment of the country.

Apparently, Mann and Ornstein were the "go to" guys for the Sunday talk show circuit, until this book was published. Now they are pariahs, ignored by all the talk shows (except Chris Hayes on MSNBC). For that reason alone you should read this book.

[Marijah · Rating 5 out of 5]

At first I was concerned that the authors were presenting too slanted a perspective but as I continued to read I discovered that they'd plenty of evidence and facts to back up their claims. I wound up being very convinced, and depressed, by the view they have of our current American political climate.

[Jerry · Rating 1 out of 5]

My recommendation is don't waste your time reading this book. This is an extremely biased progressive rant on the Republicans. They say it is all the Republicans fault. "Some readers may be struck by a lack of balance in our treatment of the two major political parties." Well, yes! 98% about the sins of the Republicans and hardly a word of blame for the Democrats. They point out that there is no longer any overlap between the parties as the Republicans "veered" right and the Democrats "drifted" every so slightly to the left. The authors would like to see our system of checks and balances replaced with a more practical parliamentary democracy.

If you want a more balanced account of how partisan politics is working now in Washington read Bob Woodward's Price of Politics. If you want a better understanding of the differences between our founding principles in government and European parliamentary government read Dennis Prager's Still the Best Hope. If you want to know the true sentiments of the voters of America and some practical ideas on what we need to change to get the country back on track read Scott Rasmussen's The People's Money.

[Ownbymom Ownby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bias alert. It's always easy to read a book which agrees with your personal bias, and this book fits that category for me. Mann and Ornstein recently spoke on our campus and reminded me of why I enjoyed the book. Their thesis is that currently Congress is completely dysfunctional because we have a constitutional system but a Congress which acts as if it were a parliament. They argue that, at this time at least, the Republican Party is responsible for the majority of the blame because they have moved so far to the right. Republicans are willing to attack positions that they previously held if it means they can fight Pres Obama. Early in the book, they quote Utah Congressman Jason Chafetz who somewhat brags about bringing the government to a standstill over a refusal to raise the debt ceiling. Chafetz says that it would be fine if things collapsed. "We would have done it, too." Because of recent gerrymandering, Chafetz has become my representative, so I'm even more interested in this comment. I don't want to complain about having received virtually no campaign mail from him, but I'm nevertheless surprised. I can only imagine that he feels his seat in Congress is so secure that he doesn't need to campaign, even though he has a new set of constituents. He's probably correct.

[A · Rating 3 out of 5]

not the worse university read i had to do. a bit biased but still not sure how.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating books. To author a work like this immediately invites people to label the authors thorough liberals with an ideological axe to grind. My response: Are you joking>? Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein are straight shooters and not particularly ideological (read their work): one is employed by the Brookings Institution (Mann) and the other by the American Enterprise Institute (Ornstein). The former organization is moderately liberal; the latter moderately conservative. Neither is extreme. Indeed, Brookings once published a book advocating school choice (not something one associates with a liberal organization). So, frankly, anyone who argues that these authors are reflexive liberals do not know what they are talking about.

However, one can understand why some would be angry with the authors. They discuss the hyperpartisanship apparent in the United States these days. They explore how the country--especially its national institutions with special emphasis on Congress--have become so dysfunctional. They trace the historical developments leading to the current governmental "institutional collapse." One of the key elements of their thesis is that this is not both parties being equally guilty. The authors say (page xiv): "The first [argument] was our assertion that the partisan polarization at the root of our governing crisis is asymmetric; that the two parties are not equally to blame. We offered strong evidence that in recent years the Republican Party had become extreme in terms of both policy and process." They also damn the press for their tendency to try to be balanced--asserting that both parties are rather equally to blame.

This is a controversial book, but also one that gets one to thinking about the current dysfunction--whether at the state or national level. Sometimes, I think that points may be undersupported, but--overall--a usefully provocative volume.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is not good, to put it very mildly.  It is, however, a type of bad book that deserves attention because it is bad mainly because of its horrific bias.  According to the authors, the dysfunctional state of the contemporary American political system is all the fault of extremist (read:  constitutionalist) conservative politicians and activists who have threatened to undo the New Deal "consensus" pork-barrel politics of corruption and bloat through various means, and the authors have their panties in a wad about it.  This book is so biased that the authors cannot think of any extremist Democrats to blame to even give the pro forma appearance of impartiality that most books about political balance do.  For some reason, politicians who urge a return to basic principles are the problem, and the authors cannot cite a single example of extremist leftists who are a problem even though this book was written after the horrors of Occupy, when such examples were (and remain) easy to find.  It takes a special kind of ignorant person, someone who is so blinkered by political partisanship, to make this kind of laughably bad book that only plays well to fans of MoveOn and the Daily Kos, or whatever extremist "Democratic" socialist de jour is trying to gain popularity on any given day.

At least this book is mercifully short at just over 200 pages, as it would be intolerable as a longer book given its extreme bias.  The authors begin with an introduction and then divide the remaining seven chapters of the book into two parts.  The first part of the book consists three chapters that seek to present the author's woeful case for the problem of division in the contemporary political world, discussing the new politics of hostage taking, where hostages include leftist judicial choices and misguided bills (1).  The authors then seek to uncover the seeds of dysfunction (2) and look beyond the debt ceiling fiasco (3) to a future full of fighting over the cost of politically popular but economically ruinous entitlement programs.  After that the authors offer some laughable and misguided solutions, including some bromides to avoid (4), some ways to "fix" the political system (5), some discussions on bad ideas for reforms of the political system (6) that typically favor leftist activists who want to throw away the Electoral College to further their interests in vote fraud, and then some ways to navigate the current electoral system (7), after which there are acknowledgments, notes, and an index.

Beyond all of the bias in the book, there is something fundamentally wrong with this book, and that is the way that the authors assume that it is a bad thing when Congress doesn't get to do very much.  Is it a bad thing when bureaucrats have less time to make bad laws, or when it takes longer for mediocre to bad laws to pass Congress so that fewer of them can be passed?  Not in the least.  The authors assume that an active Congress that is writing lots of laws is in fact doing something good, when the best thing that Congress could do is often nothing at all.  There are already too many bad laws on the books, already far too much influence in the writing of laws and policies by lobbyists of one kind or another, and in such a case we are all better served by a government that does, at all levels, as little as possible and passes as few laws as possible, and gets rid of a great many of the laws and regulations that we now have.  For the authors, though, this sort of sensible viewpoint is anathema, and as a result the authors are in panic that their ideals will be threatened by Congressmen who actually want government to show some restraint.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I consider myself a centralist and an Independent when it comes to voting and political views. In the past 3 presidential elections I have voted for each of two major parties, and a 3rd party candidate. Over the past 12 years I have felt my own political views and observations change. But it was not until reading this book that I thought to question that maybe the political parties themselves have significantly changed in that time.

This book writes a scathing review of the Republican Party’s actions in the last decade, they have often acted like a child taking his ball and going home when they can’t have it their way. The book has plenty of negative things to say about Democrats too, they have acted childish often too. But over the past decade, especially since Obama was elected, the Republican Party has been about obstruction. They are unwilling to compromise and find center ground. Their goal is to keep Obama and Democrats from accomplishing anything…..even if the idea was originally proposed by Republicans.

I try hard to stay informed and keep up on politics, even though it drains and frustrates me. I want to continue to do so. But it gets harder all the time. Mann & Ornstein offer several ideas on how to move things back to the center. I would recommend this book to people of any political view. Its assertions are well backed up, and I found it refreshing when the authors admitted things they were far from certain about. It is thought provoking and a great conversation starter. The book is very accessible and easy to read.

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read and reviewed this for a politics course. I'll put my entire review here. But know this:

Whether you are American or not--conservative or liberal--Democrat or Republican--it is crucial that you read this book.

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, described in the “Preface to the Paperback Edition” (if, admittedly, by themselves) are “straight shooters shooters who don’t traffic in partisan or ideological spin,” (Preface to the Paperback Edition, location 173/4441) use the book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks” to identify the problems in Congress today. The problem, in their view, is mostly (though not entirely) the Republican party, which has over the past two decades “become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition (Preface to the Paperback Edition, location 173/4441).” Despite no public agreement by Republicans, “score of self-identified e-mailed [them] with generous words of agreement and thanks, and dozens of former Republican elected officials privately embraced [their] analysis (Preface to the Paperback Edition, 174/441).” They provided a great deal of evidence for their analysis, yet were called “ultraliberals” by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Preface to the Paperback Edition, location 186/4441).

In addition, Mann and Ornstein criticized the current mainstream media “for failing to do its job of reporting the news in to do its job of reporting the news in a straightforward fashion, even if it meant in an ‘unbalanced’ way (Preface to the Paperback Edition, location 186/4441).” They wrote that said media had reverted to the style of the partisan media in the 19th century, and they provided a great deal of evidence in the book for their analysis that led to this conclusion, as they did with their analysis of the Republican Party (location 186/4441. Despite the evidence for this, they were again criticized for their analysis, this time by “many in the traditional media—commercial (and even sometimes public) broadcasting and national and regional newspapers (199/4441).”

It is difficult to argue their analysis, as well as their offered solutions to address the problems they named or their conclusions, in large part because their analysis did provide a great deal of evidence. The citation portion of the book was several pages long, almost a twelfth of length of the book itself. (This statement if made based on the paperback and updated ehook editions, which includes evidence and events that take place after President Obama was elected for a second term and the earlier part of his second term,)

The “Aftermath to the Paperback Edition”, which covers pages 202 to 222, largely summarizes and reinforces the entire text, but perhaps it does so especially with more evidence the majority of their analysis in the rest of the book. As they wrote in the section of the “Aftermath to the Paperback Edition,” entitled “Sources of Dysfunction”, covering pages 215 to 218, “today’s sharply polarized and strategically focused political parties fit poorly with a constitutio3nal system that anticipates collaboration a well as competition within and across separated institutions” (Mann, 216)”. In the same section they also wrote, “parliamentary-style parties in a separation-of-powers government are a formula for willful obstruction and policy irresolution. The continuation of divided party government and the promiscuous use of the filibuster after the 2012 election have largely frustrated the policy direction affirmed by majority electorates and supported in polls taken of voters since the election” (Mann, 215). In multiple sections of the book, far too many to cite within this review, the use of the filibuster has been used by a large majority (though not exclusively) by the Republican members of Congress, mostly within the House, and is a large part of their evidence for the Republican Party as the both large and main part of the source of dysfunction within Congress.

More is written to support the book’s analysis of the Republican Party as the large and main part of the source of the dysfunction in the section entitled “The Election and Its Aftermath,” (Mann, 206-215). In the section mentioned in the previous sentence, “[t]here were some early signs in [the election’s] aftermath that the dynamic might have shifted, especially from some of Speaker John Boehner’s comments on November 7, 2012, reproduced on page 206 of the text:

Mr. President, this is your moment.
We’re ready to be led, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.
We want you to lead—not as a liberal or a conservative, but as the President of
the United States of America.
We want you to succeed.
Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.
Let’s rise about the dysfunction, and do the right thing together for out country together in a bipartisan way.”

If only this had been the view of all elected Republicans, then the past three years might have been extremely different. Much more than was accomplished might have also been accomplished. Sadly, on the same day (November 7, 2012,) Mitch McConnell (a Republican who position in the Senate was mentioned in the beginning of this review) who, being more cruel than anything else, and whose words are reproduce on pages 206 and 207, “offered words that were more mean-spirited than:

The American people did two things: they gave President Obama a second chance to fix the problems that even he admitted he failed to solver during his first four years in office, and they preserved Republican control of the House of Representatives.
The voters have not endorsed the failures of excesses of the President’s first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control. Now it’s time for the President to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely-divided Senate, step up to the place on the the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.”

The reviewer would like to note that a key word in McConnell’s words on November 7, 2012, was, “Republican-controlled”. Yes, others use this term, but from Mitch McConnell they are particularly significant. He is the man who, after the government barely managed to avert default by passing a budget on July 31, 2009, said, “I think some of our members may have thought that the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance of shooting. What we did learn was this—it’s a hostage worth ransoming (Mann, 25)”. Despite the offensive terms of his phrase, especially when it came to the budge of the country of which he is both a citizen and a Senator elected to represent the citizens, he did not suffer much for his words. Nor was he the only Republican in Congress to use such terminology; Jason Chaffetz of the House said, “[…] ‘he was well aware of how the leadership had used his and others’ willingness to a default happen as a bargaining chip, and said he didn’t mind at all. ‘We weren’t kidding around, either, he said. ‘We would have taken it down (Mann, 25)”.

Over and over, in the book and the afterward, their analysis of the Republican Party (again, backed by 23 pages of citations) has proven accurate—not simply for the time in which it was originally written, not simply for the time in which the “Afterward for the Paperback Edition” was written, but for times since then—though noting such things would be outside the range of this book review.

They even wrote in the section of “Afterward for the Paperback Edition” entitled “The Election and Its Aftermath” that there was a “further sign of trouble ahead for Boehner, in reference to their writing about the expiration of tax cuts and the expiration of the sequester from 2011. This was proven true when a compromise was proven true, after several options were struck down by the house, when it came time to vote for an 11th Hour compromise developed between McConnell and Vice-President Joe Biden. The author comment on trouble ahead was proven true when Boehner went onto the House floor to vote aye for the compromise—unusual for Speaker of the House, who traditional do not vote at all—while the second- and third-ranking GOP leaders in the House of Representatives voted no (Mann, 207-209).

A particularly strong degree of trouble all around came in Congress when gun control suddenly became an issue again after another school shooting. Republican House Rep. Tom Coburn tried, with many other senators, to find a compromise. When it came time to vote—after even Republicans had voted to move the bill ahead during an attempt at a Republican filibuster—it failed to pass. Republican Senator Pat Toomey, “when many journalists blamed Obama for not being touch enough with senators (Mann, 211), who corrected them “in a conversation with reporters: “In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it (Mann, 212).” It should be noted this very thing—that may Republicans had not voted for bills they wanted to pass or for people they personally approved of confirmation to offices yet said despite that said they would not vote for—within various sections throughout the book. It would be extremely difficult, despite the reviewer having highlighted them all, to find all for in-text citation, but even more so—why bother? Republican Senator Toomey’s statement alone is enough to show that the problem of Republicans voting against something, and doing so simply because the Democrat president supported it, is enough to prove that said problem within the Republican Party exists.

While in the section of the “Aftermath to the Paperback Edition” entitled the section “Sources of Dysfunction” continues to note problems with the press identifying the actual issues at hand, said by the authors to be “asymmetric polarization and the mismatch between our parties and governing institutions (Mann, 216,217), more hope for change in media and the press is given in the section entitled “How Will It Change?” (Man, 221, 222) The authors repeat their argument from the text that, “democratic accountability and political change rest ultimately with the public (Mann, 220).” Unfortunately, the public has yet to accept that this responsibility is theirs; it remains “an accomplice to the partisan polarization and dysfunctional politics that flows from it (Mann, 221).”

That said, in the same section that comments on the public, the authors also say that the press and media have improved from its former mode of almost always providing reports, in whatever form, that seem to give equal accountability to both sides, as opposed to writing the truth. They have presented “stories documenting the sharply ideological views and behavior of Republican politicians and the growing public perception that the GOP’s rigid extremism is undermining our ability to confront our significant problems (Mann, 221).” Stories being presented now, including ones (including op-eds and analytical pieces on topics the authors themselves present in this book) are more than important. They given Republicans in Congress who want a less extreme Republican Party a firm basis to work from as they try to achieve that goal. It also gives Democrats something to cite as they fight to regain a majority in both houses of Congress (Mann, 221).

Ultimately, the text is summed up entirely in the “Preface to the Paperback Edition”, “Introduction,” and “Aftermath to the Paperback Edition”. (As I used the Kindle edition for this book, I have no page numbers for the “Preface to the Paperback Location,” nor for the “Introduction”. I have been forced to use locations for in-text citations for “Preface to the Paperback Edition”, which the Kindle edition gives for both that and the “Introduction”.) Yes, the reviewer could have cited the text itself, which she did read despite a truly horrible migraine, and is why this review is being turned in at the hour it is—but when the “Aftermath to the Paperback Edition” provides such an excellent resource, she does not see the point. It provides all the analysis and conclusions of problems that the text does, but it goes farther: it shows that after the first edition of the book was published that not only did the same problems mostly continue, but a) some were openly admitted to exist by at least one member of the Republican party, and b) in the area of the press, it has shown that some of the problems show hope of change.

Most reviews, especially in the college style (which this reviewer has done her best to use) include contradictions to the author’s writings, especially to their conclusion. This review cannot do that with honesty and integrity, which she strives for in all assignments. (She strives for integrity to the point that in this semester she refused to answer a question in an assignment in a different class, because doing so would compromise her integrity; after explaining why in the area where the question should have been answered, she was given full points.) This reviewer cannot do that because the authors are right. Time has proven them right.

Now, the reviewer feels, it is time to do something about it.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone seems to agree that politically we are a nation divided. Not surprisingly our major political parties, our media, and our government reflect that division and we’ve ended up with a divided and dysfunctional government. The authors of this book think that’s backwards. Americans aren’t unusually divided, but our political parties are, and that’s created a dangerously dysfunctional government. How did that happen? They identify two main problems.

One, the political parties have become much more “ideologically coherent and internally unified than in the past.” That may sound like a good thing, but in America’s separation-of-powers system, it turns out to be a disaster. In a parliamentary system like Britain or Canada one party can win the election, run the government for several years, then be held accountable in an election. But in a separation-of-powers system one party is seldom clearly in charge. There are many veto points within the system (filibusters, holds in the Senate especially), making it very difficult for majorities to act. For our system to work there has to be cooperation. That’s easier to achieve when the parties are loosely united coalitions with diverse constituencies. Historically that’s been the case, but not now.

Second, the parties are not only unified and ideological, they are asymmetrically unified and ideological, the GOP has “moved sharply to the right”. Here the authors mince no words in describing the modern GOP:

the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

You might think--at least I would--that voters would punish the GOP for moving out of the mainstream. The authors explain that the GOP has avoided that fate, in part by exploiting the media’s “reflexive tendency to use false equivalence to explain extremes.” No matter how extreme the position taken, the media dutifully report “two-sides”. The authors recommend that reporters “report the truth”. But “two-sides” reporting is easy and it frequently gives the media what it wants, confrontation and drama, which produces what it really wants: readers and viewers.

So the system works for the media. Unfortunately it presents a misleading image to average Americans who are left thinking that they live in country where “the only dialogue... is between polarized right and left”, and that “Americans can no longer share a common set of facts and debate options”.

The other tactic used by the GOP (we might it call Gingrich's Gift since the authors say it’s Newt Gingrich’s legacy in American politics) is to work beneath the radar as a minority party to muck up the machinery of government--refusing to cooperate in committees, filibuster everything, refuse to confirm appointments, block implementation of enacted laws by denying funding. etc. Then hope that voters will react with “undifferentiated disgust” and throw the bums out. The president’s party generally gets blamed for dysfunctional government, and in a separation of powers system there are a lot of ways for the minority party to muck up the works.

So, in a nutshell, we have political parties that are poor match for our system of government, one party has discovered a way to win by tossing sand in the machinery of government, and the media have found a comfortable niche as enablers-in-chief. What can we do about it? The authors have a long list of suggestions, but number one on their list is expanding the vote.

“Higher turnout”, they say “would pull more citizens with less-fixed partisan and ideological commitments into the electorate.” As an example they cite Australia which has mandatory voting. It’s only a $15 fine if you don’t vote, and you can vote for “none of the above”, but it generates nearly universal turnout. In addition Australia uses a instant runoff system (IRV). Voters rank their choices; if no one gets a majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped and those voters’ second choice is moved to number one. The process is repeated until someone has a majority of the vote. The virtue of this system is that voters can back minor party candidates--a party or someone they are actually enthusiastic about---without fear of wasting their vote.

I like these ideas, and they have many other sensible ideas to expand the vote. For example, does Tuesday voting make any sense? Let’s vote on weekends when people have time. Unfortunately most of their ideas would require our government to take action, a Catch-22 if there ever was one.

From a historical perspective, I just have to mention the irony of “expanding the vote” as a solution to this problem. After all, many of the checks and balances in our system were put there because the founders feared that majority rule would be government by an unruly mob. Apparently we’ve discovered that the great unwashed are actually quite moderate. What we need now is for the great majority to get involved and save us from the political elites!

[Alyssa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This accessible book makes a lot of solid arguments. It was written by two scholars, one from the liberal Brookings Institute and one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and that definitely shows in the way they make their criticisms of Congress and what they call the politics of "hostage-taking" and obstruction, since they highlight issues that are important to both Democrats and Republicans. Their combined voices definitely make for arguments that would be considered firmly rooted in the political center -- in any democratic country other than the United States of America. And unfortunately, that is the book's downfall: their arguments are sound and I agree with their reasoning on many issues, but their recommendations rely heavily on the complete restructuring of the Republican party towards more moderate stances. But what they didn't seem to anticipate was that the voters don't want to see more reasonable, rational policy-making; instead, many conservative voters want to take the party even further to the right.

At least, that's how it seems to me. My mindset is certainly tainted by what I've seen of the primaries, and that certainly affected my reading of this book. The authors address the danger of filibusters, obscure campaign financing, bias in the media, and politicians' refusal to acknowledge scientific facts in the face of certain politicized issues. But none of this is new -- and the conclusion the authors leave the reader with is that people will certainly get so disgusted with the lack of compromise and progress that the day-to-day workings of the Legislative Branch will eventually be forced to change.

Honestly, what's happening now in American politics may fit that description. But I think that change is moving the Republican party towards the exact opposite direction Mann and Ornstein expected, or hoped, it would. Some of their pronouncements were eerily prescient, even more so than they could've known, such as this gem from chapter 7, "Navigating the Current System":

"Trashing others, undermining their very legitimacy, and lying openly and repeatedly about individuals or institutions now bring no visible penalty or public obloquy. In fact, it can mean fame and fortune. Changing the country's poisonous culture, which has metastasized beyond the political area, requires first an effort to restore some semblance of public shame."

It's ironic (read: sob-inducing) that someone who has prospered from this exact behavior now has a very real chance of running our country.

Mann and Ornstein offer quite a few such recommendations at the end of the book. They warn against electing an outsider on the hope that he or she will be able to live up where the incumbent failed (also sounds familiar). They also encourage voters to entrust the president's party with the majority in Congress to avoid stalemates (this one really makes me hesitate, and I would definitely ask the authors to elaborate on this idea), speak out against filibusters and holds in the Senate, and drop the "We need independent candidates!" narrative, since they believe any truly independent candidate doesn't have strong enough ideas to get anything done. "A democracy cannot float above politics," they say.

Once again, they make some strong points. They are concerned with balance, but in their mind, the Republican party is skewed further to the right than the Democratic party is to the left, and so much of the book is spent stating how the Republican party needs to change. I agree with them, but it's hard to read their recommendations without getting discouraged. Their focus on calling out the Republicans for their mistakes would incite rage among modern conservatives, and none of the authors' ideas would get through to the voters whom they call upon to create change in the first place.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short, accessible, and comprehensive overview of the current state of polarization and dysfunction in the U.S. Congress. The authors start by describing some examples of what they call “the new politics of hostage taking” where a super-majority is required to do anything in Congress and where the minority has gotten in the habit of threatening to shut down the government and bring down the economy unless they get what they want. (Chapter 1)

How did it get to be like this? They basically pin the blame on Newt Gingrich in the late 1980s and his strategy to incorporate parliamentary-type tactics and de-legitimize political opponents. Over the last three decades these strategies have come to be accepted as normal and appropriate. This was compounded by the widening ideological polarization and partisan/geographical sorting of the two major political parties over the last few decades. We now live in a world where there is no ideological overlap between the two major parties and where partisans essentially adhere to completely different worldviews and have different standards of what they accept as legitimate, fact, and reality. It becomes difficult to find common ground in situations like this. (Chapter 2)

As they put it: “a fundamental problem is the mismatch between parliamentary-style political parties (ideologically polarized, internally unified, vehemently oppositional, and politically strategic) that has emerged in recent years and a separation-of-powers system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to work their will” (page 102).

In chapters 4-7, the authors give recommendations for what they think can or should be done to help repair the extreme dysfunction in Congress. These solutions range from large (turn our government into a parliamentary system) to small (limit filibusters to one per bill). There are some interesting proposals that are certainly worth consideration. If enacted, they would undoubtedly do much to alleviate today’s extreme state of legislative gridlock.

As I tend to be cynical by nature, however, I can’t say that I think there’s a remote chance that any of their proposals (even the small ones) will be adopted any time in the near future. Even if they were enacted, their recommendations will merely minimize the secondary effects of the polarization without getting to its root cause, which they identify in Chapter 2 as the ideological/partisan self-sorting that has occurred in America over the last three decades. In my view, we the public are responsible for the cause, while politicians merely take advantage of and intensify the effect.

To me, the only long-term hope for changing the new politics of gridlock and polarization is for some new, major issue to emerge in the American political landscape that will create new ideological coalitions, making the Democratic and Republican constituencies more ideologically diverse. The last time this happened was in the late 1960s/early 1970s when the seeds of the current polarization began. Only when the partisan constituencies diversify will elected officials be incentivized to pursue more moderate, diverse policies and once again value compromise and results over gridlock and polarization. I hope this comes sooner rather than later.

[Mitchell Friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 of 5. Interesting book with lots of great points and ideas but somehow not grabbing. I guess that's the risk of writing books for the middle-ground even if they come to the conclusion that much of what is going on in United States national politics right now can be pointed to be the fault of the Republican party.

The solutions were pretty interesting. They included making voting mandatory (either with a small fine for not voting or a small tax credit for voting or an election lottery), Australian ballots, open primaries (top two advance). The filibuster change was interesting - basically it forced the minority party to do more work - voting with at least 40 votes to continue filibuster. And there were more.

I think making the senate hold system no longer private would help.

Read this if you are interested in possibilities for better US government - but don't read it expecting a completely engaging argument. But it would be a good book to start a discussion from.

--
I find that the book stuck with me and would be worth re-reading. As such I'm bumping my rating from a 3 to a 4.

[Ronald · Rating 1 out of 5]

While the book starts out strong with strong documentation of what is currently wrong with the United States of America. IE those people willing to put money and power above the safety of our people and Nation. Unfortunately the solutions offered are no different than those already reject by sane Americans. Shadow Governments and changes to the consitutions. Thought the most amusing solutions are for Americans to simply vote smarter and those elected officials go back to doing what is best for America! It is funny because both the Republicans and Democrats claim that is what they are doing.

I guess the one funny part of this book is the many times the authors go into detail about how the Republicans are currently causing the most problems for our country. Then "to be fare" they say it is also the Democrats fault with no actual evidence provided.

Frankly if you are going to suggest solutions you should make ones based in reality and not fantasy.

Frankly after reading all this I want to go start a Super PAC since that seems to be the only way to make money in our current crappy economy.

[Denny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Politically, I lean left more often than right, so I expected to like this book a lot more than I did, especially since one of the blurbs I read praised it for being nonpartisan. I certainly disagree with the several reviews I read that were harshly critical of the book and accused it of being over-the-top biased in favor of liberals.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the sorry state of America's political affairs. It's Even Worse Than It Looks does reserve some criticism for liberals, but it heaps a lot more blame on conservatives than many of them deserve. I appreciate the fact that Mann and Ornstein gave detailed explanations of their several thoughtful and creative proposals for fixing the system and restoring it to some semblance of balance, but I think most of the ideas for change they expound border on being far too liberal ever to be implemented. I didn't dislike the book, but it won't be the last such title I read. I welcome any suggestions my fellow Goodreaders have for similar books that are a lot less biased and that contain more balanced suggestions for improvement.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book argues that gridlock in Washington is caused by 2 things: greater polarization of the 2 parties (i.e., move to the right by the Republicans and to the left by the Democrats) and, more importantly, the asymmetry of this change (i.e., the Republicans have moved further right than the Democrats have moved left). And to pile it on, the authors argue that the Republicans have adopted heinously undemocratic tactics to get their way. I buy some some of their argument, but not all of it, particularly the last part. To do so would require me to believe that the likes of New Gingrich and Eric Cantor are political geniuses and their counterparts on the Democratic side are mere nitwits. That reveals the failing of the book: the authors say very little about the Democrats, either about the extent to which they have contributed to the gridlock, or the extent to which they have exerted efforts to minimize it. Do they throw fuel on the fire, do they merely watch Rome burn, or do they saddle up and bring in the fire engines? The Republicans are indeed horrible; but if the Democrats are in fact angels, this book offers no proof.

[Ray · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're looking for a very well written book that blames everything since the flood on the Republican party, this is a book for you. Almost anyone will find something with which to agree. But if you're looking for a solution that goes beyond "please, vote Democrat." this isn't the book for you. Most of the suggestions for specific modifications of the present badly-functioning Congressional system appeared in or were inferrable from the earlier book, Broken Branch.

Remember: I didn't say there were not analyses with which careful non-polemic disagreement wasn't
either (a) possible or (b) logically defensible found in the book.

My guess is that all Democratic candidates for election or reelection will carry a copy in their backsacks.

[Mehrsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty dry in the beginning, but he offers some really interesting paths forward at the end of the book. Opt out system for voting being my favorite. But he is too dismissive of other avenues of reform like campaign finance. He also makes a case that things are a mess, but let's not be fooled into thinking it's bad on both sides. That's just not true.

[Judie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was updated in 2016. The word "Looks" has been changed to "Was." The first part of this review covers the newer edition. My review for the original book follows.
In 2012, Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein published IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN IT LOOKS, a book detailing what is wrong with America’s democratic system, how it got that way, and what can be done to correct it. The last paragraph reads : “We end where we began: it is even worse than it looks. But we are confident that is the worst has not yet hit, better times, and a return to a better political system, do indeed lie ahead.”
Sadly, their confidence was misplaced. The book was reissued in 2016 under the title IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN IT LOOKS WAS and containing a new Preface and Afterward. As the election date nears and we have gone through a difficult primary and election year, the book is more relevant than it was four years ago. “What used to be widely seen as loony is now broadly accepted or tolerated.”
There are many reviews of the original available so I won’t spend much time on the body of the book. It tells how Congress changed, primarily through the deliberate efforts of Newt Gingrich whose philosophy was to destroy the government in order to change it. He and his followers were quite successful in their efforts using tools such as taking hostages, deliberately creating dysfunction, and using responsibilities such as the debt ceiling to create unnecessarily crises. Through developing a non-functioning government and with the assistance, possibly unwittingly of the media, they managed to convince a majority of Americans to blame both parties for the problems, not just the GOP that was the villain. Through lies and distortions, they managed to replace some excellent representatives and senators with novices whose loyalty was to their party and not to the country as a whole. One of their tools was gerrymandering districts to ensure the election of fellow right-wing extremists. (To learn more details about how gerrymandering was used in the US, read Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy by David Daley.)
The end of the book presents ideas for avoiding the current dysfunction.
The following items are covered in the preface and afterword of the 2016 edition.
“Our Madisonian system is predicated on the willingness of elected officials representing highly diverse interests to engage in good faith negotiations and compromise.” When the GOP members of Congress met before President Obama took the oath of office and agreed to block all of his proposals and Mitch McConnell stated his top priority was to “make Obama a one-term President,” that ideal became impossible. The middle became ignored while the extremists gained power.
The media has played a large role in exacerbating and prolonging the problems. Trying to prove they weren’t biased, they created a false equivalence between the parties and candidates. Instead of emphasizing which party was responsible for the failures of Congress, it blamed Congress as a whole. As a result, too many potential voters see no difference between candidates and parties. Many people now think all present members should be replaced, ignoring the good work done by so many current members and the chaos that would result with a Congress filled with novices. More time and space has been given to Trump because of his outlandish actions and statements than to Hillary because she isn’t as “exciting.” Because of that some potential voters don’t read the stories and assume that he would be a better President.
Through the outlets that did show deliberate bias, such as some right-wing talk shows, cable news, and ono-line articles, people’s initial beliefs were reinforced even when they were inaccurate. For months, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has been publishing at least two anti-Hillary editorial cartoons. While there have been some negative ones about Trump, there are not nearly as many.
During the primaries, David Roberts looked at the frustration in the mainstream media at its inability to call out Donald Trump for lies and misstatements....He emphasized the willingness of GOP politicians to play fast and loose with the truth the media’s declining power to penalize politicians for lying, including its reflexive penchant for pointing out ‘both sides’ and its reluctance to be criticized for partisan bias; and the new response of political figures of denying lies even when presented with incontrovertible evidence they are wrong.”
A strong motivating factor is self-interest which makes finding common ground for political reform a daunting challenge.. The GOP’s current electoral arrangements favoring big money, low voter turnout, and single-member districts work to their advantage. Democrats agree with the result and want change but bipartisan cooperation on political reform is chimerical.
There are actually fewer swing voters, only five percent of the electorate. Most people vote straight ticket without considering the results. Each side sees the other as dangerous.
The US has one of the lowest rates of voter turn out in the developed world. Under the false charge of voter fraud, the GOP has been working in many states to make it more difficult for voters who are likely to vote for democrats to cast ballots. Many people don’t vote because they don’t think their votes count or because they don’t take the time to learn about the candidates and their issues or the effects of their actions on the country and world. Voter education and involvement is mandatory for change.
Whatever the outcome of the 2016 election, there will be problems afterwards. IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN IT LOOKS WAS presents an excellent analysis of those problems and plausible ways to improve our government for the future.

2012 Edition:
While there has been disagreements between the political parties almost from their inception, previous generations of politicians realized they had to work together and compromise in order to lead our county. According Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, that model began falling apart when Newt Gingrich became a Congressman.
They acknowledge that the Democrats, who had been in charge for a long time, did not always play fair, but members of both parties put the good of the country ahead of that of the party. Now the party comes first for the Republican majority.
They offer many examples, beginning with the debt limit crisis of 2011 during which Republicans, many of whom supported the proposed bill, kept it from coming up for a vote and then voted against it just because President Obama supported it. Political appointees, including judges and cabinet personnel, were not affirmed because of Republican intransigience. Votes that should have taken a few days were delayed for weeks. Unnecessary and misused filibusters brought Congress to a standstill frequesntly for excessive lengths of time.

The arrival of almost one hundred new Representatives in 2010, many of whom ran on a promise to change Washington and who lacked political experience or savvy, voted strictly to stop President Obama.

After presenting many examples, they offer possible solutions:

Expanding the vote by making it easier for people to vote. Currently, many states are making it more difficult. The suggest following the lead of many other countries by making voting mandatory and by making it more convenient by expanding voting hours, moving from Tuesday to the weekend, and making registration easier.
Have open primaries. That would make political extremists less powerful because the centrists would have to be reckoned with.

Fix the way campaigns are financed and prohibiting lobbyists from contributing to candidates.

Having the media stop being "balanced" and become more accurate by not treating lies and distortions the same as it treats facts.

This book should be read by anyone interested in preserving our democratic republic and learning how carefully the divisivness has been cultured.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With New Politics of Extremism by Thomas E. Mann, Norman J. Ornstein

“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks" is an excellent book that clarifies clearly the source of dysfunctional politics in America and what will it take to change it. Most books do a very good job of describing what ills our political system but very few excel at providing sensible recommendations like this book does. The astute analysis provides recommendations that go from the practical to a political utopia. This first-rate 274-page book includes the following seven chapters: 1. The New Politics of Hostage Taking, 2. The Seeds of Dysfunction, 3. Beyond the Debt Ceiling Fiasco, 4. Bromides to Avoid, 5. Fixing the Party System, 6. Reforming U.S. Political Institutions, and 7. Navigating the Current System.

Positives:
1. Well-researched and well-written book that is accessible to the masses. The authors provide a credible and well substantiated case for their observations and conclusions.
2. The authors come from opposing political backgrounds that give the book credibility by reaching consensus on what is causing dysfunction in American politics.
3. It’s about getting to what more closely relates to reality than what is perceived to be fair and balanced. “We were told this part of our book was discussed in a number of newsrooms and provided ammunition to journalists often frustrated by the insistence of producers and editors that they give precedence to fairness and balance over reality and truth.”
4. An excellent and logical format. The first part of the book focuses on the problem while the second half on the solution.
5. An excellent Preface that captures the sentiment of this book best captured by the most enduring quote, “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
6. An interesting look book at recent political history. The authors do a wonderful job of capturing as accurately as possible the chain of events based on the best information they were able to obtain based on their expertise in political science.
7. Bold conclusions backed by supporting arguments. “Republicans greeted the new president with a unified strategy of opposing, obstructing, discrediting, and nullifying every one of his important initiatives.” “Never before have cosponsors of a major bill conspired to kill their own idea, in an almost Alice-in-Wonderland fashion. Why did they do so? Because President Barack Obama was for it, and its passage might gain him political credit.”
8. The two sources of dysfunction identified. “The first is the serious mismatch between the political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Parliamentary-style parties in a separation-of-powers government are a formula for willful obstruction and policy irresolution.” “The second is the fact that, however awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier…”
9. The rise of the “Young Guns” and the politics of uncompromising conservative politics. Many great examples of their influence, “But, as Mike Allen of Politico revealed at the time: A Senate Republican leadership aide e-mails with subject line ‘Gang of Six’: Background guidance: The President killed any chance of its success by 1) Embracing it. 2) Hailing the fact that it increases taxes. 3) Saying it mirrors his own plan.” Excellent stuff!
10. Points that cut to the chase. “Partisan polarization is undeniably the central and most problematic feature of contemporary American politics.”
11. Interesting observations. “Since the late 1970s, Republicans have moved much more sharply in a conservative direction than did Democrats in a liberal direction.”
12. Some mind-blowing facts. “On Memorial Day, 2002, during George W. Bush’s administration, thirteen nominations were pending on the executive calendar. Eight years later, under Obama, the number was 108.”
13. Sensible and fair recommendations, “Bringing the Republican Party back into the mainstream of American politics and policy and return to a more regular, problem-solving orientation for both parties would go a long way toward reducing the dysfunctionality of American politics.”
14. Interesting section on actions to avoid (bromides).
15. Three avenues of electoral reform. “The first is to moderate politics by expanding the electorate. The second is to reduce the presumed bias against moderate voters and candidates by altering how votes in the election are converted into seats in government. The third avenue of electoral reform seeks to break the polarizing dynamic of the parties through changes in campaign fund-raising and spending rules and practices.”
16. Interesting suggestions that resonate. “A better and stronger reform would be to require forty-one votes to continue the debate, not sixty votes to end the debate, putting the burden squarely on the minority where it belongs.”
17. The need to restore public shame, agreed. “The country needs the remaining (if dwindling) opinion leaders from institutions like the military, churches, universities, foundations, business, the media, and public life to outspokenly denounce those who profit from bombast and lies and to denounce equally the television and radio networks and the print outlets that give them airtime and web and print space, with the legitimacy that flows from them.”
18. The politics of dysfunction reaches the absurd. “In the debate over health reform, some ideas that had originally come from Republicans and conservatives were trashed simply because Obama and Democrats had embraced them.”
19. Includes an afterword that addresses the election of 2012 and its aftermath.
20. Links to notes.

Negatives:
1. The main message is repeated almost to a fault but you won’t leave with any doubts with what the authors are espousing here.
2. Failed to explain in detail how Parliamentary Politics works. I can reach conclusions based on context but the suggestion merited a separate appendix. It would have kept it from affecting the excellent flow of the book.
3. To my surprise the authors did not address the religious right aspect of the extreme right.
4. No formal bibliography.

In summary, this turned out to be one of my favorite political books of the year. It covers the subject of dysfunction in the government with mastery and it does so in a succinct and lucid fashion. I commend the authors for providing the public with a much needed book on such a divisive topic and for giving it the realistic treatment that it demanded. The authors provided many good practical suggestions; excellent work gentlemen. I highly recommend it!

Further suggestions: "When the Tea Party Came to Town: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives' Most Combative, Dysfunctional, and Infuriating Term in Modern History" by Robert Draper, “Rule and Ruin” by Geoffrey Kabaservice, “That’s Not What They Meant!” by Michael Austin, "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America--and What We Can Do to Stop It" and "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It)" by Thom Hartmann, “The Republican Brain” by Chris Mooney, “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges, “Blowing Smoke” by Michael Wolraich, "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future" by Robert B. Reich, “Act of Congress” by Robert G. Kaiser, "War on the Middle Class" by Lou Dobbs, and "Winner-Take-All Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was originally written in the lead-up to the 2012 election, with a new edition published in the lead-up of the 2016 elections, and looks at how the US government ended up in the hyperpartisan quagmire which has, contrary to any optimistic prognostications cautiously offered in the afterword, only gotten worse since. The observations the authors offer may not be groundbreaking but are certainly insightful and their opinions well-reasoned. I may not agree entirely with all their views and proposed solutions, but this was an interesting and insightful read nevertheless, tackling a problem that has lost none of its relevance.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

The most alarming thing about this book is that it was published in 2012, amended in 2016, and every issue the authors have spotlighted has continued to get worse since. I learned a lot about the abuse of filibusters, best practices from other countries (e.g. mandatory voting and instant-runoff voting in Australia), and how a parliamentary system might help break the deadlock of our current situation of separation of powers with extreme polarization. My only criticism is some passages are a bit slow or missing context for the layperson, but overall I thought this was a very edifying read. I appreciate the authors’ attempts to lay forth constructive suggestions though I’m pessimistic at this point that such reforms are even possible! Would definitely appreciate a re-spin post-Trump.

[Arjun Mishra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I know that many readers will be miffed and upset that the two eminent Congressional and Constitutional scholars place the majority of the blame on the obstruction and single-minded tactics of the right-wing of the Republican Party (which as the authors document, is engulfing the entire party and throwing out anyone not right-wing enough), but that case is truly there to be made and there is hardly an alternative to take the lionshare of the blame.

I attended a talk by Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute (the conservative think tank that employs co-author Norman Ornstein) a couple months ago. Lugubriously, Dr. Brooks discussed how the future of conservatism was bleak in this country and how conservatives were losing the argument, especially morally. I disagreed with him then, and I disagree now. An observer of Congress and American politics can testify to the widespread success that conservatism is and has been enjoying. The youth of this country is returning back to the center right, as opposed to the center leftism of a previous generation. The country used to be majority Democrat; even with demographic changes, it is more equal now. He wasn't, but if Brooks were talking about my conservatism and his conservatism (that Northeast kind that used to dominate the Republican party but has been eschewed for myopic policies and destructive politics), then he would be right.

There is nothing new or groundbreaking in this book. You can find all of the charts and information on Ezra Klein's wonkblog, which has documented how this 112th Congress is the least productive in the post-war era, much less so than the Do-Nothing Congress of the Truman era. It puts everything together and lambasts the various problems of this current Congress. This is very important, as old norms have given way and ceded to new norms, which are dysfunctional and lend themselves to more problems. We all know the various problems: compromise is a dirty word, moderate Republicans are overthrown for myopic and nascent politicians with litter understanding of how American politics work, gerrymandering (authors dispute this), etc. I wish that they would have touched on voter fraud and obstructing voters from voting by creating a spate of laws that restrict voting based on IDs. It is necessary and an exigent topic.

Their solutions are an intellectual exercise at best. There is no chance that they will be implemented. At best, they will be considered on Sunday talk shows and intelligent punditry shows. I have seen them on television a couple times discussing the topic and while that segment shines of intelligence and optimism, hosts rarely discuss the topic again, despite its importance. As a Republican unhappy with the state of his party, this book rings true and resonates.

EDIT: It should be noted that the Brookings Institution is not liberal. It is non-partisan and non-ideological. That could contribute to why it is consistently rated the best think tank in the world.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

f anyone still doubts that the American Republic is in dire shape -- and, for what it is worth, I think it has been replaced by an oligarchy of extreme wealth -- I would recommend this intelligently written, fact and evidenced based book.

Both authors are long-time observers of the American political system, especially at the federal level. And, while they do note several occasions when they have criticized proposals or actions of the Democratic Party, they have written this book to underline their conviction that the Republican Party -- over the past 20 years -- has increasingly taken the position of an "outlier" party, that is, one that is both far to the extreme right of most Americans and, equally important, one fixated on taking and keeping power rather than on the principal charge of all governments in democracies -- to actually govern.

They describe in some detail just how this has happened, beginning with the deliberate choice of Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to grab power for the Republican Party by demonizing their opponents and seeking out social and political hot points by which to rally citizens through the hot buttons of anger and fear. They also highlight the important role that extreme wealth -- and the media and so-called "think tank" cheerleaders -- have played in enabling and furthering this strategy.

The sad truth, evident all about us, is that this tack has been overwhelmingly successful. Intent upon rolling back all of the progressive programs of the last 70 years, the Republican party is increasingly filled with angry, self-righteous occupants who have little interest in governing but, rather, are intent upon imposing their own ideologically fueled views unhampered by any inconvenient evidence or scientific facts. This is not only keeping the federal government tied up in knots, but is accelerating the United States' decline in so many important areas of quality of life. The evidence is all about us!

The second half of their book does contain, importantly, several sections devoted to concrete proposals to help "set right" this situation. While I have no trouble endorsing these -- and I commend them to you for your attention -- the problem is that these important corrective measures -- that could play such an important role in restoring the government to the majority of citizens who want a government that both works and seeks to solve problems -- cannot come about without the concurrence of those in power. Unfortunately, they have everything to lose from these proposals that would seek to tamp down extremism by both furthering the voice of more moderate elements of the electorate and advancing innovative solutions built upon compromise.

Just like the ancient Romans, we are distracted from the dissolution of the republic by the bread and circuses of candidates whose lack of depth, and also an emotional stance bordering on idiocy, are masked by the steady drumbeat of social issues that inflame rather than enlighten or inspire.

Menchan's "boboobsie" in full triumph!

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that Noam Chomksy loved, because it shows how technically the Republican Party can no longer be called a political party but instead is a “radical insurgency”. In 1994, Gingrich issued a pre-election memo that advised attacking democrats as being corrupt with these words added: “betray, bizarre, decay, anti-flag, anti-family, pathetic, lie, cheat, radical, sick, traitors.” The Republicans then got their first House majority in forty years. Attacking your opponent, while delegitimizing the Congress, became the new easy way to power and Gingrich was richly rewarded. But, the reward of Gingrich gave America the modern permanent political campaign and undermined public trust in government. “A sizable number of the Republicans in Congress are center-right or right-center, rather than right-right. But the insurgent right wing regularly drowns them out.” The Republicans are in a feedback loop; they say government can’t be trusted and then they make it so you trust it even less, which then gets them more votes. According to Mann, “The GOP’s unabashed ambition is to reverse decades of economics and social policy by any means possible.” Citizen United happened because Justice Roberts unilaterally raised a broader issue than the rest of the court was focused on and the other justices strangely allowed it. Tuesday voting stems from a useless 1845 law that should be changed to get a lot more voters. Libertarian William Niskanen found a secret the Right doesn’t want you to know: “lower taxes actually increase the size of government”. McCain faced a mutiny if he went with Lieberman in the 2008 election and so instead went with Palin and lost. The art of compromise has been lost as the Republicans only stray farther right. These days “outsider candidates garnered nearly 70% support, while establishment candidates captured under 20%.” This explains Trump, the outlier, easily winning after this book was published. Extreme Republican candidates no longer need to justify or fact check because their voting base swears they see the same thing. Loony and angry is broadly tolerated. But there is good news - look at “non-Whites who are growing in proportion by 2 percent per year”. The Right knows every year the many centuries of unchecked American white supremacy will be harder to continue; it must be really upsetting them to know their days of white affirmative action are numbered… Oops…

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is well worth reading.

Two political scientists -- one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the other from the moderate Brookings Institution -- have collaborated on an important book that outlines how "the politics of extremism" has undermined our Constitutional system of government. They conclude: "Today's Republican Party ... is an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government." As the most recent example, they cite the debt limit "crisis" in which Republican House members held the credit rating of the United States hostage to advance their political ends (and succeeded in having the credit rating downgraded).

Here are some examples of the extreme shift rightward documented by the authors:

-- There is a massive expansion of chain e-mails, which purport to contain facts, but are ways to spread lies virally by word-of-mouth. Of the 79 chain e-mails about national politics deemed false by PolitiFact since 2007, only 4 were aimed at Republicans. Almost all of the rest concern President Obama or Democrats.

The percentage of presidential nominations confirmed by the Senate by the end of the administration's first year:
George W. Bush (2001) - 80.1%
Barack Obama (2009) - 64.4%

Number of pending confirmations by Memorial Day (16 months after inauguration)
George W. Bush, 13
Barack Obama, 108

"There are additional incentives for obstruction in (the) policy-making process. Witness the Republicans' immense electoral success in 2010 after voting in unison against virtually every Obama initiative and priority, and making each vote and enactment contentious and excruciating, followed by major efforts to delegitimize the result."

[Sylvia Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book completely aligns with my thoughts about why good legislation - PROGRESSIVE legislation - rarely, if ever, gets passed these days. Mann and Ornstein do a good job of pointing out the problems with the most popular prescriptions for our polarized politics - third party candidates, term limits, budgetary amendments, etc. - and identify what REALLY is to blame: a uniquely American governing system ill-suited to today's political and societal realities. In other words, the governing structure the framers of the Constitution bequeathed to us - separation of powers - doesn't work in a world with ideologically rigid political parties. Some of Mann and Ornstein's solutions - such as modernizing voting, putting more restrictions on lobbying and reforming filibuster rules - go in the right direction toward ameliorating the more egregious abuses by extremists in Congress. Maybe I'm wrong, but, I'm not sure tinkering around the edges of an outdated governing structure is going to be a panacea. Yes, uprooting institutions that Americans have been used to for 200+ years is disruptive, but change is hard, yet change is sometimes necessary. I'm not sure the Republican party is ever going to go back to the way it was 40 years ago, particularly since it now represents a shrinking, and increasingly angry, constituency. There is also a growing number of Americans who don't identify with either party. And there are many people who only care about one or two issues. Since we now have a country with ideologically distinct political parties and a population with a diverse number of views on many issues, then we might as well have a governing structure that reflects that reality. Moving toward some sort of a parliamentary system with proportional representation and majority coalitions has to be where America has to go eventually.