What do you think?
Rate this book
The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Pola by Ronald Brownstein (2007) (1) Formats P
Book by Ronald Brownstein
496 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
77 people are currently reading
348 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
July 4, 2014
Interesting history of the political process, but ultimately unfulfilling in remedies. Hauntingly prescient about President Obama, though not intentionally, through Brownstein's analysis of President Bush' shatteringly partisan administration. Written before the 2008 election puts this book's revelations/prescriptions into a told-you-so perspective when read today - so my big question to the author would be how does our current President measure up?
May 22, 2022
This book was overall a very good read. It was fascinating to delve into a behind-the-scenes review of the partisanship that is seen outside of Washington. The author helped to paint a picture of the how and why of partisanship as it has grown over the past decades.
The main reason I did not give this book five stars is that it was itself a bit biased, and lacked some imagination for moving beyond out partisan ways. It is also important to note that there was an editing error.
Predominantly, it was a bit frustrating that the author pinned the majority of the blame for partisanship on a single President. Although there is blame to be placed there, the author chose to park on this one President for multiple chapters, without fully exploring the blame that could have been laid on others, or the full factors that influenced the decisions made.
Outside of that, this book was definitely a good read, and I would recommend it. There were many interesting facts of history that were included, as well as sound advice for the future, albeit most of it thinking within the box.
The writing style of the author was easy to read. It was a well-researched book in most regards, without being boring or frustrating to read.
The main reason I did not give this book five stars is that it was itself a bit biased, and lacked some imagination for moving beyond out partisan ways. It is also important to note that there was an editing error.
Predominantly, it was a bit frustrating that the author pinned the majority of the blame for partisanship on a single President. Although there is blame to be placed there, the author chose to park on this one President for multiple chapters, without fully exploring the blame that could have been laid on others, or the full factors that influenced the decisions made.
Outside of that, this book was definitely a good read, and I would recommend it. There were many interesting facts of history that were included, as well as sound advice for the future, albeit most of it thinking within the box.
The writing style of the author was easy to read. It was a well-researched book in most regards, without being boring or frustrating to read.
July 9, 2022
Informative and interesting, though a bit of a slog at times. His extensive research is demonstrated throughout the book and in the nearly 40 pages of notes at the end. Furthermore, in his acknowledgements he reveals that many of the insights and quotes from various political figures (Tom Davis, Linsey Graham, Patrick Leahy, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton to name only a few) were from interviews conducted for the purpose of this book.
The book is meant to be nonpartisan, though it comes across as moderately democratic. I think it's important to consider that this book was published 2007. So the reason the for the focus on the Bush administration is largely due to it's relevancy and recency at the time of publication.
In the final chapter he (accurately) predicts what might happen we're the supreme court to reverse Roe v Wade.
The book is meant to be nonpartisan, though it comes across as moderately democratic. I think it's important to consider that this book was published 2007. So the reason the for the focus on the Bush administration is largely due to it's relevancy and recency at the time of publication.
In the final chapter he (accurately) predicts what might happen we're the supreme court to reverse Roe v Wade.
November 23, 2024
Of course I decided to read this in an election year. Brownstein covers US partisan politics from the late 1800s to right before Obama's presidency, and gives illuminating insight into the current state of things. The later chapters deal with a political period I vividly remember, and gave me a levelheaded perspective I didn't have access to at the time. This book, while dated, is incredibly valuable as backstory for our current political climate as we work out where we go from here.
September 29, 2008
Why is is so difficult for Congress or the President of the United States to get anything done? Why is it that our elected leaders cannot tackle so many of the deep and important challenges facing the nation? Journalist Ron Brownstein attempts to answer these important questions in this provocative and illuminating book.
Full disclosure: I know the author. We both covered national politics, he for the Los Angeles Times and me for Reuters in the 1996 and 2000 presidential race. We were friendly but and not personal friends, although, I deeply respect his judgment and talent.
Brownstein argues that partisan politics have become so bitter, toxic and divisive that neither party has any interest in cooperating with the other. Both parties have become beholden to their political bases which are mutually antagonistic, following widely divergent cultural values. Yet, in order to get anything done, it remains necessary to build bipartisan coalitions. It may be possible to narrowly win elections based primarily on energizing the base, as Bush did in 2004, but when important national challenges loom, a president who has not reached out to the other party invariably finds it impossible to govern on the shaky basis of such a narrow majority.
In an exhaustive historic review, Brownstein goes through previous periods of American history. The Republicans from the 1890s to the Great Depression, governed in a similar way -- and were turned out of power after 1932 for decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, both sides reached out more to the center, forming bipartisan coalitions. However, in those days both parties were much more diverse than today. There were southern Democrats who were more conservative than many Republicans and moderate Republicans more liberal than many Democrats. Was this a golden age of bipartisan cooperation? Hardly -- the southern Democrats were mainly concerned with preserving their racist, exclusionary Jim Crow society.
In analyzing our current predicament, Brownstein puts most blame on the Republicans -- Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the Bush-Karl Rove team who set out to exclude Democrats from power and to rule for the benefit of their own narrow segment of society. Democrats, in order to survive, had to respond in kind.
But history teaches that a party that governs for the benefit of the few eventually awakens the wrath of the many. The pendulum always swings -- as it is about to do again.
Full disclosure: I know the author. We both covered national politics, he for the Los Angeles Times and me for Reuters in the 1996 and 2000 presidential race. We were friendly but and not personal friends, although, I deeply respect his judgment and talent.
Brownstein argues that partisan politics have become so bitter, toxic and divisive that neither party has any interest in cooperating with the other. Both parties have become beholden to their political bases which are mutually antagonistic, following widely divergent cultural values. Yet, in order to get anything done, it remains necessary to build bipartisan coalitions. It may be possible to narrowly win elections based primarily on energizing the base, as Bush did in 2004, but when important national challenges loom, a president who has not reached out to the other party invariably finds it impossible to govern on the shaky basis of such a narrow majority.
In an exhaustive historic review, Brownstein goes through previous periods of American history. The Republicans from the 1890s to the Great Depression, governed in a similar way -- and were turned out of power after 1932 for decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, both sides reached out more to the center, forming bipartisan coalitions. However, in those days both parties were much more diverse than today. There were southern Democrats who were more conservative than many Republicans and moderate Republicans more liberal than many Democrats. Was this a golden age of bipartisan cooperation? Hardly -- the southern Democrats were mainly concerned with preserving their racist, exclusionary Jim Crow society.
In analyzing our current predicament, Brownstein puts most blame on the Republicans -- Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the Bush-Karl Rove team who set out to exclude Democrats from power and to rule for the benefit of their own narrow segment of society. Democrats, in order to survive, had to respond in kind.
But history teaches that a party that governs for the benefit of the few eventually awakens the wrath of the many. The pendulum always swings -- as it is about to do again.
April 24, 2008
In this book, Ronald Brownstein covers the history of how politics have operated in Washington since the McKinley administration (1896) through the present day to show how Washington has become a hyper partisan political (again, actually…our current climate is very reminiscent to the first few decades of the 20th century) machine, and offers steps that might see us through to the other side. The first 150 or so pages covering the historical context (namely the resorting of the political map, ideologically and physically) are essential, but written in a rather clunky style. I found myself struggling at times with his narrative and he has the tendency to throw out a bunch of names while only offering sparse back-story. However, once we soldier through, he offers how, in our current age, politics in this country has become akin to warfare with members of congress viewing those in the other party as the enemies who must be crushed, not as merely people with genuine differences of opinion who are all working to solve the problems of the country. This strategy has seen our current presidential administration that, essentially, speaks for a faction within a political party as opposed to truly speaking for people across the broad spectrum that encompass the American landscape. Brownstein argues that this way of administering is not sustaining as is alienates too much of the populace and makes genuine advancement of policy that speaks to the majority of the county almost impossible to deliver. He offers ideas to help move forward into a "post-partisan" America but I'm not sure if we're ready to move in that direction yet. He acknowledges that folks on both the left and right have valid points to make and that the answer to many issues lie somewhere in the synthesis of those ideas; that we are offered too many false dichotomies and that by drawing from portions of both ideological sets, we can create a society that works for as many possible, but it would mean that nobody gets everything they want. Anyway, if you're looking for a book that will help look at the current state of politics and wonder how we got here and how we might get out (if you're bothered by the state of things, as am I), then pick this up.
Read
September 28, 2010Long time political journalist Ron Brownstein surveys the past 150 years of American politics to distinguish the trends that have led to the polarized political climate we know today. This book was a gift from G, who used to know the author professionally.
Brownstein functions here as both a journalist and a historian, and offers a thorough analysis that draws surprising but convincing parallels between for instance the politics of today and those of a century ago in terms of how the press and Congress and political parties were organized and operated. He makes a convincing case that the bipartisanship of midcentury was a byproduct of internally divided Republican and Democratic parties, which derived from historical sectional loyalties and national divisions over race. The Civil Rights movement led to a "sorting out" of political allegiances that continues almost to this day and leads to increasing partisanship. Also polarization is enhanced by some other factor such as increased rapid travel allowing Congressmen to spend more time in their home districts, and the power of interest groups whose finances and membership increase when there is controversy. Brownstein offers copious polling data over decades of time to back up the trends he describes. In this light such events as Clinton's impeachment over his sex affairs, and the 1995 shutdown of government by Republicans withholding funds, and the 2000 election ballot count fight, were just examples of a growing national partisanship trend and much less the result of individual personalities or circumstances. Brownstein suffers from the assumption that whatever policies will produce more "bipartisan" or "consensus" political support are good for this reason alone, and spends too little time analyzing the virtues of various policies. Some of his predictions circa 2008 (e.g. that national health care could be an issue that would bridge political divides and bring bipartisan consensus) seem jejune in the light of 2010, but most of his observations still hold up.
Brownstein functions here as both a journalist and a historian, and offers a thorough analysis that draws surprising but convincing parallels between for instance the politics of today and those of a century ago in terms of how the press and Congress and political parties were organized and operated. He makes a convincing case that the bipartisanship of midcentury was a byproduct of internally divided Republican and Democratic parties, which derived from historical sectional loyalties and national divisions over race. The Civil Rights movement led to a "sorting out" of political allegiances that continues almost to this day and leads to increasing partisanship. Also polarization is enhanced by some other factor such as increased rapid travel allowing Congressmen to spend more time in their home districts, and the power of interest groups whose finances and membership increase when there is controversy. Brownstein offers copious polling data over decades of time to back up the trends he describes. In this light such events as Clinton's impeachment over his sex affairs, and the 1995 shutdown of government by Republicans withholding funds, and the 2000 election ballot count fight, were just examples of a growing national partisanship trend and much less the result of individual personalities or circumstances. Brownstein suffers from the assumption that whatever policies will produce more "bipartisan" or "consensus" political support are good for this reason alone, and spends too little time analyzing the virtues of various policies. Some of his predictions circa 2008 (e.g. that national health care could be an issue that would bridge political divides and bring bipartisan consensus) seem jejune in the light of 2010, but most of his observations still hold up.
March 9, 2011
Note to author: partisanship is a good thing. It draws distinctions between political ideas and idealogies and forces people to make a choice. What's the point of having political parties if there's not any difference between them?
Anyway, this is a tediously boring book about the history of why our (American) political system is now so polarized and divided. Amid all the discussion about polls and statistics (given in underwhelming charts) is a slightly interesting look at the twentieth century and how politics worked in the different eras, but then it degenerates into a modern Bush-bashing diatribe by a political correspondent from the LA Times. It continues to yearn for the "good ol' days" when Congress got things done, not seeming to get that government governs best when it governs the least or not at all. The solutions it calls for (to overcome the divide and get things done) disregards the basic tenets of the Constitution that say the federal government only has power to do so much; the rest lies with the states.
For most of the history portions of the text, the writer is able to keep a "balanced" approach, but when he gets into the modern era (1980-present), his bias comes. This wouldn't be so bad if he stated his bias up front, but like most journalists today, he pretends objectivity. The things he castigates Republicans about I have no doubt he would crow about as wonderful if they had been done by Democrats.
Anyway, this is a tediously boring book about the history of why our (American) political system is now so polarized and divided. Amid all the discussion about polls and statistics (given in underwhelming charts) is a slightly interesting look at the twentieth century and how politics worked in the different eras, but then it degenerates into a modern Bush-bashing diatribe by a political correspondent from the LA Times. It continues to yearn for the "good ol' days" when Congress got things done, not seeming to get that government governs best when it governs the least or not at all. The solutions it calls for (to overcome the divide and get things done) disregards the basic tenets of the Constitution that say the federal government only has power to do so much; the rest lies with the states.
For most of the history portions of the text, the writer is able to keep a "balanced" approach, but when he gets into the modern era (1980-present), his bias comes. This wouldn't be so bad if he stated his bias up front, but like most journalists today, he pretends objectivity. The things he castigates Republicans about I have no doubt he would crow about as wonderful if they had been done by Democrats.
February 23, 2020
I read the 2009 edition of this book, which ends before Obama's presidency begins. This limits the book's ability to identify trends, making it feel less practical as a guide but interesting as a history of polarization.
May 13, 2012
Brownstein's study of hyperpartisanism provides a thorough historical background and a a pretty level analysis of how our current political parties - both of them - have led us to a point where the country is so evenly divided into doctrinaire factions not even close to one another in ideology that we have quite a logjam in government. His solution (make it easier and more acceptable to compromise) is reasonable if difficult to achieve given the current political mindset. That's the good part. Unfortunately, he is terribly repetitive; points interesting when made the first time are less so as they are repeated in later chapters. The book is at least 75 pages too long.
January 29, 2009
This book gives an interesting history of twentieth century presidential history in terms of shifting dynamics in the two US political parties and how this relates to the president's office term. I felt as if the current president read this as he attempts to present his presidency in terms of overcoming the partisan divide in Washington.
November 17, 2011
An interesting historical analysis of partasenship (and non-partisanship) in the US. It also points out how the Democratic and Republican parties have switched sides on many issues since the Civil War with Democrats becoming liberal and Republicans becoming conservative (it used to be different). I encourage all liberals and conservatives to read it.
August 28, 2013
It's interesting to see that complaints of partisanship are not just endemic to the post-Reagan era. They've been going on nearly as long as there has been a Congress. Although, honestly, the current political theory on both sides of the aisle in DC seems to be "we need to burn down the village in order to save it."
March 2, 2009
If nothing else, a really good primer on the modern history of political dealmaking, and a good diagnosis of what ails American politics today. His solutions in the last chapter are less than striking, fairly hedged and not as "bold" as he makes out, but on the whole, a worthwhile read.
April 28, 2015
A surprisingly interesting book which, although written in 2007, covers what is happening right now in Congress. Some fascinating glimpses into how different administrations dealt with party loyalty versus across the aisle cooperation.
March 17, 2009
I had to stop after about 100 pages, as I got far too bored. Partisanship bad, bipartisanship god blah blah blah (blah blah blah).
August 17, 2008
The parts about Bush are a little redundant considering what's out there, but this history of partisanship, party alliance and political power over the last century is fascinating.
Read
April 9, 2011Another book of observations from the bleachers....
July 3, 2012
Phenomenal by author from National Journal. Compares 1850s, 1890s to 1938, to partisanship of 94-08
January 13, 2008
Well written, more historical than I expected. Ultimately pessimistic.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews