What do you think?
Rate this book
Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid
People on the right are furious. People on the left are livid. And the center isn’t holding. There is only one thing on which almost everyone there is something very wrong in Washington. The country is being run by pollsters. Few politicians are able to win the voters’ trust. Blame abounds and personal responsibility is nowhere to be found. There is a cynicism in Washington that appalls those in every state, red or blue. The question Why? The more urgent question What can be done about it?
Few people are more qualified to deal with both questions than Joe Klein.
There are many loud and opinionated voices on the political scene, but no one sees or writes with the clarity that this respected observer brings to the table. He has spent a lifetime enmeshed in politics, studying its nuances, its quirks, and its decline. He is as angry and fed up as the rest of us, so he has decided to do something about it—in these pages, he vents, reconstructs, deconstructs, and reveals how and why our leaders are less interested in leading than they are in the “permanent campaign” that political life has become.
The book opens with a stirring anecdote from the night of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Klein re-creates the scene of Robert Kennedy’s appearance in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis, where he gave a gut-wrenching, poetic speech that showed respect for the audience, imparted dignity to all who listened, and quelled a potential riot. Appearing against the wishes of his security team, it was one of the last truly courageous and spontaneous acts by an American politician—and it is no accident that Klein connects courage to spontaneity. From there, Klein begins his analysis—campaign by campaign—of how things went wrong. From the McGovern campaign polling techniques to Roger Ailes’s combative strategy for Nixon; from Reagan’s reinvention of the Republican Party to Lee Atwater’s equally brilliant reinvention of behind-the-scenes strategizing; from Jimmy Carter to George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W.—as well as inside looks at the losing sides—we see how the Democrats become diffuse and frightened, how the system becomes unbalanced, and how politics becomes less and less about ideology and more and more about how to gain and keep power. By the end of one of the most dismal political runs in history—Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president—we understand how such traits as courage, spontaneity, and leadership have disappeared from our political landscape.
In a fascinating final chapter, the author refuses to give easy answers since the push for easy answers has long been part of the problem. But he does give thoughtful solutions that just may get us out of this mess—especially if any of the 2008 candidates happen to be paying attention.
Few people are more qualified to deal with both questions than Joe Klein.
There are many loud and opinionated voices on the political scene, but no one sees or writes with the clarity that this respected observer brings to the table. He has spent a lifetime enmeshed in politics, studying its nuances, its quirks, and its decline. He is as angry and fed up as the rest of us, so he has decided to do something about it—in these pages, he vents, reconstructs, deconstructs, and reveals how and why our leaders are less interested in leading than they are in the “permanent campaign” that political life has become.
The book opens with a stirring anecdote from the night of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Klein re-creates the scene of Robert Kennedy’s appearance in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis, where he gave a gut-wrenching, poetic speech that showed respect for the audience, imparted dignity to all who listened, and quelled a potential riot. Appearing against the wishes of his security team, it was one of the last truly courageous and spontaneous acts by an American politician—and it is no accident that Klein connects courage to spontaneity. From there, Klein begins his analysis—campaign by campaign—of how things went wrong. From the McGovern campaign polling techniques to Roger Ailes’s combative strategy for Nixon; from Reagan’s reinvention of the Republican Party to Lee Atwater’s equally brilliant reinvention of behind-the-scenes strategizing; from Jimmy Carter to George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W.—as well as inside looks at the losing sides—we see how the Democrats become diffuse and frightened, how the system becomes unbalanced, and how politics becomes less and less about ideology and more and more about how to gain and keep power. By the end of one of the most dismal political runs in history—Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president—we understand how such traits as courage, spontaneity, and leadership have disappeared from our political landscape.
In a fascinating final chapter, the author refuses to give easy answers since the push for easy answers has long been part of the problem. But he does give thoughtful solutions that just may get us out of this mess—especially if any of the 2008 candidates happen to be paying attention.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
14 people are currently reading
446 people want to read
About the author
Joe Klein
69 books53 followersJoe Klein is a longtime Washington, D.C. and New York journalist and columnist, known for his novel Primary Colors, an anonymously written roman à clef portraying Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. Klein is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is a former Guggenheim Fellow. Since 2003 he has been a contributor at the current affairs Time news group. In April 2006, he published Politics Lost, a book on what he calls the "pollster-consultant industrial complex". He has also written articles and book reviews for The New Republic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, LIFE and Rolling Stone.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
November 18, 2020
"A választók voltaképpen lusták, nem akarnak erőfeszítést tenni annak érdekében, hogy megértsék, miről beszélünk. Az érvelés nagy fokú fegyelmet, összpontosítás igényel; a benyomáskeltés ennél sokkal egyszerűbb. Az érvelés eltaszítja, sérti, döntéshelyzet elé állítja a közönséget; a benyomás ezzel szemben betakarja, magával ragadja, s teszi ezt anélkül, hogy intellektuális követelményeket támasztana."
(William Gavin, a Fehér Ház egyik beszédírójának Nixonnak írt feljegyzéséből, 1968)
Amíg még volt Könyvhét, mindig meglátogattam a Napvilág Kiadó standját, ahol 500 meg 1000 forintért felettébb érdekes köteteket tudtam magamévá tenni. Ott leltem ezt a könyvet is, és rá is csaptam, gondoltam, hátha segítségével rájövök, hogy jutott el az USA Lincolntól Donald Trumpig, ami azért valljuk be, van olyan minőségi zuhanás, mint Spielberg Cápa c. remekétől a Sharknado 6-ig* csúszni. Klein alapvetése, hogy a az amerikai politika végzetesen kilúgozódott, teljesen elveszítette emberi oldalát, ami főképp annak köszönhető, hogy a mindenkori elnökök és elnökjelöltek a politikai tanácsadók és marketingstratégák karmai közé kerültek. Addig volt olyan, hogy "program", a jelöltek képviseltek valamiféle ügyeket, képesek voltak meglepni választóikat valami eredetivel - ám valahol a '60-as években elkezdték az okosok úgy vélni, hogy mindez csak luxus, hisz az átlagos választó nem különösebben kíváncsi a programokra**. Ő személyt választ, következésképpen nem az érdekli, mit tesz a leendő vezér az oktatással vagy az egészségüggyel, hanem három kérdést tesz fel magának:
1.) Erős vezető lesz-e?
2.) Megbízhatok-e benne?
3.) Törődik-e a hozzám hasonlókkal?
És ha egy kampánystratéga eléri, hogy a választók többsége a fentiekre igennel válaszoljon, akkor onnantól kezdve pártfogoltja akár egy büdös szót se ejtsen arról, mire használja fel mandátumát, mindenképpen tarolni fog.
Így lett az elnökjelöltekből termék, aki körül fizetett marketingesek és szövegírók hada nyüzsög, akiknek más célja sincs, mint hogy alaposan kicsinosítsák őt. Gyurmáznak vele, patikamérlegen lemérik szavainak lehetséges hatását, közvélemény-kutatások tömegével próbálják megsaccolni, bevált-e számításuk, illetve milyen igényeknek kell még megfelelni, hogy a célcsoport méretét maximalizálhassuk. Ami ebből következik, az egy színtelen-szagtalan, mesterségesen előállított legóemberke, akiből minden őszinte megnyilvánulást kipurgáltak, és akinek valódi szándékai és képességei rejtve maradnak a választó előtt. Klein persze nem állítja, hogy a tanácsadók mind léhűtők és láblógatók, nézete szerint nagyon is fontos elemei a kampánynak, de csak addig, amíg a megfelelő jelölttel kiegészítik egymást - azzal, hogy uralmuk alá hajtották a látható politikát, beláthatatlan következményeket idéztek elő. Tulajdonképpen a polgárok legrosszabb ösztöneire támaszkodtak és azokat erősítették meg, ezzel pedig hosszú évek alatt eljuttatták odáig a választásokat, hogy már egy politikus sem mer komplex ügyekről összetett mondatokban beszélni vagy - ne adj' Isten - beismerni a hibáját. Nincsenek őszinte pillanataik, spontán megnyilvánulásaik, egyáltalán: nincs közöttük, aki embernek látszana. (Illetve ha annak látszik néha, csak azért, mert az ő marketingesei ügyesebbek.) Mindenki óvatos, köntörfalaz, biztosra megy, a választó pedig érzi ezt, és azt szűri le belőle, hogy a politikusok mind egyformák, folyton mellébeszélnek, akkor lehet hinni nekik, mikor ló legel a sírjukon. Ez pedig a demokrácia kiüresedését vonja maga után****.
Arra számítottam, Klein mélyebben elemzi majd ezt a problémát, egyfajta kemény, szikár társadalomtudományi vizsgálódást tesz le az asztalra - ebben végül is csalatkoztam. Ez a könyv sokkal anekdotikusabb, "újságíróibb" produktum, ami nagyjából Cartertől Bush második ciklusáig (uszkve 30 évig) követi a fejleményeket. Tulajdonképpen párviadalok eseménytörténete: elnökök és elnökjelöltek csatáit rögzíti, arra fókuszálva, milyen kampánystratégiákat és marketingtrükköket vetettek be a siker érdekében, és hogy ez mennyiben volt kompatibilis az adott politikus személyes kvalitásaival. Győzelmek és vereségek okaiba nyerünk betekintést, és ez nagyon jól van így. Egyfelől mert Klein megdöbbentően pártatlan, Reagan vagy Clinton remek húzásait ugyanúgy megtapsolja, Al Gore vagy McCain emberi tisztessége előtt egyformán kalapot emel. A negatív kampányokat mindkét oldalon fanyalogva nézi*****, és úgy általában: véleménye szerint a kialakult helyzetért a felelősséget közösen viselik. De a legfontosabb értéke e könyvnek alighanem az, hogy Klein közelről szemlélte a történéseket. Politikai rovatvezetőként a könyv legtöbb szereplőjét személyesen ismerte, sokukkal barátságot is ápolt, így megismerjük őket emberi oldalukról, sokszínű egyéniségként jelennek meg előttünk, akiknek megvannak a maguk gyarlóságaik és erényeik. Emberek tehát, még ha ezt a köréjük épített kampány el is leplezi. Kvázi a szemünk előtt buknak el és aratnak diadalt, az olvasó pedig olyan közelről szemlélheti mindezt, mintha a saját nappalijában rendeznék négyévente az elnökválasztásokat. Igazi - jó értelemben vett - "bennfentes-könyv", iszonyatosan sok mindent meg lehet érteni belőle az amerikai politika mozgatórugóiból. És még jól is szórakoztam rajta.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoYX...
** Ezt a felfedezést talán először a zseniális, de emberileg elviselhetetlen politikai machinátor, Pat Caddel installálta következetesen elnöki kampányra, mégpedig a demokrata Jimmy Carter idején, '76-ban***. Caddel egy fiatalkori tapasztalatából indult ki: zöldfülű közvélemény-kutatóként azt vette észre, hogy a legmélyebb Mélydélen, a fullrasszista Észak-Jacksonville-ben a kérdezettek között kábé ugyanolyan népszerű a demokrata Robert Kennedy és a republikánus George C. Wallace. Holott előbbi a szegregáció ellen szólalt fel, utóbbi mellette, és amúgy sem akadt egy kérdés sem, amiben egyetértettek volna. A megfejtés, hogy a szavazókat nem különösebben érdekelte a program - azt érzékelték csak, hogy Kennedy és Wallace is "tökös gyerek".
*** Carter esete amúgy iskolapéldája annak, milyen katasztrofális következménnyel jár, amikor a jelöltről olyan képet konstruálnak a kampány során, aminek ő valójában egyáltalán nem tud, nem akar megfelelni.
**** Itt kapcsolódhat be a kérdésbe Trump személye, akit egyébként Klein nyilván nem láthatott előre (a könyv 2005-ös), de tételeiből tulajdonképpen simán levezethető a megjelenése. Ugyanis a politikai kiüresedés oda vezetett, hogy a választó nyitottan fogadta az első olyan outsidert, aki nem úgy nézett ki, mint a sótlan mainstream.
***** Mondjuk a negatív kampány mestere ifjabb Bush volt (persze kampánycsapatával együtt), aki már a republikánus előválasztás idején látszólag független források igénybevételével azt terjesztette riválisáról, a háborús hős McCainről, hogy a hosszú vietnami hadifogság tönkretette mentális egészségét. Aztán az elnöki kampányban is ehhez az eszközhöz nyúlt, amikor a szintén háborús hős John Kerryről szivárogtatott ki hamis információkat annak vietnami tevékenységével kapcsolatban. Persze ezeket az információkat az érintettek cáfolni tudták, de addigra már megvolt a maguk hatása a választói hangulatra.
(William Gavin, a Fehér Ház egyik beszédírójának Nixonnak írt feljegyzéséből, 1968)
Amíg még volt Könyvhét, mindig meglátogattam a Napvilág Kiadó standját, ahol 500 meg 1000 forintért felettébb érdekes köteteket tudtam magamévá tenni. Ott leltem ezt a könyvet is, és rá is csaptam, gondoltam, hátha segítségével rájövök, hogy jutott el az USA Lincolntól Donald Trumpig, ami azért valljuk be, van olyan minőségi zuhanás, mint Spielberg Cápa c. remekétől a Sharknado 6-ig* csúszni. Klein alapvetése, hogy a az amerikai politika végzetesen kilúgozódott, teljesen elveszítette emberi oldalát, ami főképp annak köszönhető, hogy a mindenkori elnökök és elnökjelöltek a politikai tanácsadók és marketingstratégák karmai közé kerültek. Addig volt olyan, hogy "program", a jelöltek képviseltek valamiféle ügyeket, képesek voltak meglepni választóikat valami eredetivel - ám valahol a '60-as években elkezdték az okosok úgy vélni, hogy mindez csak luxus, hisz az átlagos választó nem különösebben kíváncsi a programokra**. Ő személyt választ, következésképpen nem az érdekli, mit tesz a leendő vezér az oktatással vagy az egészségüggyel, hanem három kérdést tesz fel magának:
1.) Erős vezető lesz-e?
2.) Megbízhatok-e benne?
3.) Törődik-e a hozzám hasonlókkal?
És ha egy kampánystratéga eléri, hogy a választók többsége a fentiekre igennel válaszoljon, akkor onnantól kezdve pártfogoltja akár egy büdös szót se ejtsen arról, mire használja fel mandátumát, mindenképpen tarolni fog.
Így lett az elnökjelöltekből termék, aki körül fizetett marketingesek és szövegírók hada nyüzsög, akiknek más célja sincs, mint hogy alaposan kicsinosítsák őt. Gyurmáznak vele, patikamérlegen lemérik szavainak lehetséges hatását, közvélemény-kutatások tömegével próbálják megsaccolni, bevált-e számításuk, illetve milyen igényeknek kell még megfelelni, hogy a célcsoport méretét maximalizálhassuk. Ami ebből következik, az egy színtelen-szagtalan, mesterségesen előállított legóemberke, akiből minden őszinte megnyilvánulást kipurgáltak, és akinek valódi szándékai és képességei rejtve maradnak a választó előtt. Klein persze nem állítja, hogy a tanácsadók mind léhűtők és láblógatók, nézete szerint nagyon is fontos elemei a kampánynak, de csak addig, amíg a megfelelő jelölttel kiegészítik egymást - azzal, hogy uralmuk alá hajtották a látható politikát, beláthatatlan következményeket idéztek elő. Tulajdonképpen a polgárok legrosszabb ösztöneire támaszkodtak és azokat erősítették meg, ezzel pedig hosszú évek alatt eljuttatták odáig a választásokat, hogy már egy politikus sem mer komplex ügyekről összetett mondatokban beszélni vagy - ne adj' Isten - beismerni a hibáját. Nincsenek őszinte pillanataik, spontán megnyilvánulásaik, egyáltalán: nincs közöttük, aki embernek látszana. (Illetve ha annak látszik néha, csak azért, mert az ő marketingesei ügyesebbek.) Mindenki óvatos, köntörfalaz, biztosra megy, a választó pedig érzi ezt, és azt szűri le belőle, hogy a politikusok mind egyformák, folyton mellébeszélnek, akkor lehet hinni nekik, mikor ló legel a sírjukon. Ez pedig a demokrácia kiüresedését vonja maga után****.
Arra számítottam, Klein mélyebben elemzi majd ezt a problémát, egyfajta kemény, szikár társadalomtudományi vizsgálódást tesz le az asztalra - ebben végül is csalatkoztam. Ez a könyv sokkal anekdotikusabb, "újságíróibb" produktum, ami nagyjából Cartertől Bush második ciklusáig (uszkve 30 évig) követi a fejleményeket. Tulajdonképpen párviadalok eseménytörténete: elnökök és elnökjelöltek csatáit rögzíti, arra fókuszálva, milyen kampánystratégiákat és marketingtrükköket vetettek be a siker érdekében, és hogy ez mennyiben volt kompatibilis az adott politikus személyes kvalitásaival. Győzelmek és vereségek okaiba nyerünk betekintést, és ez nagyon jól van így. Egyfelől mert Klein megdöbbentően pártatlan, Reagan vagy Clinton remek húzásait ugyanúgy megtapsolja, Al Gore vagy McCain emberi tisztessége előtt egyformán kalapot emel. A negatív kampányokat mindkét oldalon fanyalogva nézi*****, és úgy általában: véleménye szerint a kialakult helyzetért a felelősséget közösen viselik. De a legfontosabb értéke e könyvnek alighanem az, hogy Klein közelről szemlélte a történéseket. Politikai rovatvezetőként a könyv legtöbb szereplőjét személyesen ismerte, sokukkal barátságot is ápolt, így megismerjük őket emberi oldalukról, sokszínű egyéniségként jelennek meg előttünk, akiknek megvannak a maguk gyarlóságaik és erényeik. Emberek tehát, még ha ezt a köréjük épített kampány el is leplezi. Kvázi a szemünk előtt buknak el és aratnak diadalt, az olvasó pedig olyan közelről szemlélheti mindezt, mintha a saját nappalijában rendeznék négyévente az elnökválasztásokat. Igazi - jó értelemben vett - "bennfentes-könyv", iszonyatosan sok mindent meg lehet érteni belőle az amerikai politika mozgatórugóiból. És még jól is szórakoztam rajta.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoYX...
** Ezt a felfedezést talán először a zseniális, de emberileg elviselhetetlen politikai machinátor, Pat Caddel installálta következetesen elnöki kampányra, mégpedig a demokrata Jimmy Carter idején, '76-ban***. Caddel egy fiatalkori tapasztalatából indult ki: zöldfülű közvélemény-kutatóként azt vette észre, hogy a legmélyebb Mélydélen, a fullrasszista Észak-Jacksonville-ben a kérdezettek között kábé ugyanolyan népszerű a demokrata Robert Kennedy és a republikánus George C. Wallace. Holott előbbi a szegregáció ellen szólalt fel, utóbbi mellette, és amúgy sem akadt egy kérdés sem, amiben egyetértettek volna. A megfejtés, hogy a szavazókat nem különösebben érdekelte a program - azt érzékelték csak, hogy Kennedy és Wallace is "tökös gyerek".
*** Carter esete amúgy iskolapéldája annak, milyen katasztrofális következménnyel jár, amikor a jelöltről olyan képet konstruálnak a kampány során, aminek ő valójában egyáltalán nem tud, nem akar megfelelni.
**** Itt kapcsolódhat be a kérdésbe Trump személye, akit egyébként Klein nyilván nem láthatott előre (a könyv 2005-ös), de tételeiből tulajdonképpen simán levezethető a megjelenése. Ugyanis a politikai kiüresedés oda vezetett, hogy a választó nyitottan fogadta az első olyan outsidert, aki nem úgy nézett ki, mint a sótlan mainstream.
***** Mondjuk a negatív kampány mestere ifjabb Bush volt (persze kampánycsapatával együtt), aki már a republikánus előválasztás idején látszólag független források igénybevételével azt terjesztette riválisáról, a háborús hős McCainről, hogy a hosszú vietnami hadifogság tönkretette mentális egészségét. Aztán az elnöki kampányban is ehhez az eszközhöz nyúlt, amikor a szintén háborús hős John Kerryről szivárogtatott ki hamis információkat annak vietnami tevékenységével kapcsolatban. Persze ezeket az információkat az érintettek cáfolni tudták, de addigra már megvolt a maguk hatása a választói hangulatra.
October 21, 2009
this is pure dead on, like.
not sure i'm with klein 100% politically, but that should be the last reason not to like someone's book, if it's thoughtfully and well written. and this one has none of the partisan bickering and hysterical witch-huntery about it. he's diagnosing the political disease we're all sick of having but are collectively doing very little about treating: the cynical, superficial and synthetic circles of PR- and TV-driven political life in the u.s. he gets at the media (tricky, since he's of the media), the voters, the consultants, and - ultimately - the politicians. if politics is driven totally by focus groups and the constant campaign, how the hell is anything gonna get done? how is anything honest and meaningful gonna get said? klein's point is that it's not. until the pressure to perpetually campaign and to toe the lines drawn by professional politicoes is lifted (something he challenges politicians to do themselves), it's very hard to see a damn bit of truth or effectiveness or actual bi-partisan progress coming out of the government.
one of the major ways i disagreed with klein was his marginalisation and dismissal of fringe (or 'vanity', as he calls them) campaigns for the presidency, such as dennis kucinich or carol mosley-braun. it seemed in poor logic to sideline their efforts (just as kucunich was sidelined in the 2008 debate in las vegas) simply because they're not 'hard-hitters', and especially when his book was making valid points about the falseness of what constitutes a hard-hitting, winning campaign. granted, the sort of politics he's encouraging might just open the door for more candidates of that brave and out-spoken stripe; but that's more my reading of it than his intention.
he makes some eerily obama-like predictions on his wish-list for the 2008 president (more eerily so since obama's never mentioned). and considering the non-stop finger-pointing, despicable attacks, and general impatience in the u.s. political scene since january '09, this book reinforced my want for things to slow down, move at a less manic pace, and made me want our capacity to wait and see, to take thing step by step, to be more generous.
generous - that's the word. while not necessarily generous to all the individual players in the particular situations, overall it's a politically generous book, i felt. i liked that about it quite a lot. calm, courageous generosity in reality would be quite a political revelation.
not sure i'm with klein 100% politically, but that should be the last reason not to like someone's book, if it's thoughtfully and well written. and this one has none of the partisan bickering and hysterical witch-huntery about it. he's diagnosing the political disease we're all sick of having but are collectively doing very little about treating: the cynical, superficial and synthetic circles of PR- and TV-driven political life in the u.s. he gets at the media (tricky, since he's of the media), the voters, the consultants, and - ultimately - the politicians. if politics is driven totally by focus groups and the constant campaign, how the hell is anything gonna get done? how is anything honest and meaningful gonna get said? klein's point is that it's not. until the pressure to perpetually campaign and to toe the lines drawn by professional politicoes is lifted (something he challenges politicians to do themselves), it's very hard to see a damn bit of truth or effectiveness or actual bi-partisan progress coming out of the government.
one of the major ways i disagreed with klein was his marginalisation and dismissal of fringe (or 'vanity', as he calls them) campaigns for the presidency, such as dennis kucinich or carol mosley-braun. it seemed in poor logic to sideline their efforts (just as kucunich was sidelined in the 2008 debate in las vegas) simply because they're not 'hard-hitters', and especially when his book was making valid points about the falseness of what constitutes a hard-hitting, winning campaign. granted, the sort of politics he's encouraging might just open the door for more candidates of that brave and out-spoken stripe; but that's more my reading of it than his intention.
he makes some eerily obama-like predictions on his wish-list for the 2008 president (more eerily so since obama's never mentioned). and considering the non-stop finger-pointing, despicable attacks, and general impatience in the u.s. political scene since january '09, this book reinforced my want for things to slow down, move at a less manic pace, and made me want our capacity to wait and see, to take thing step by step, to be more generous.
generous - that's the word. while not necessarily generous to all the individual players in the particular situations, overall it's a politically generous book, i felt. i liked that about it quite a lot. calm, courageous generosity in reality would be quite a political revelation.
February 29, 2008
Klein describes how the business of polling and campaign advising has led most Presidential candidates to package and sell themselves rather than speak from the heart.
April 14, 2019
The author provides a candid account of the U.S. political system and its personalities (1976 – 2004). Generally, he’s not impressed. Boiled down, I think his message is that national politics has become all about winning, and less about governing, leadership and integrity. Political consultants and their candidates now say what people want to hear. Or, they employ a full-suite of dirty tricks or use focus-group, consultant-tested bromides that are yawners (“jobs, education, health care, and blah-blah-blah” litanies).
Voters respond to authenticity, to a straight-shooter, but the problem is that authenticity becomes “weaponized.” Karl Rove knew “that voters had three basic questions about a candidate: Is he a strong leader? Can I trust him? Does he care about people like me?” Answers to these questions became the second George Bush in 2000 and 2004. This is like Nixon in ’68 who, in “The Selling of the President,” and responding to voters concerns about his lack of sincerity, made it a priority “to appear sincere.” This is Bill Clinton’s gag-inducing “I feel your pain” response to the woman at the Seattle town hall in ’92 and Gephardt’s 2004 candidacy “when spilling intimacies," in Klein's words, "had become a preferred shortcut to ‘authenticity’ in an Oprahfied nation.”
There’s not much new here with what Klein puts forward. The same impulses have been there all along, but in the media age, these have been magnified. Still, there has been one change in our political culture. Until the first Bush and the Willie Horton ad, there were norms that constrained what could be said or done to win. LBJ had bumped into this with his mushroom cloud ad in ’64 but pulled it quickly. The problem now is that advantage lies with those who are willing to go below the belt to win over those who play by the rules. That’s a problem for the Democrats today.
The Democrats have another problem. “Ronald Reagan,” Klein writes, “had given his party the gifts of simplicity and clarity and a coherent belief system that could be explained in sentence fragments: Military Strength. Low Taxes. Traditional Values. The Democrats, by contrast, were the party of the complex, clause-draped sentence: ‘We need to spend money on Head Start Programs in order to….’” This has been said many times before, and Democrats still don’t get it.
Voters respond to authenticity, to a straight-shooter, but the problem is that authenticity becomes “weaponized.” Karl Rove knew “that voters had three basic questions about a candidate: Is he a strong leader? Can I trust him? Does he care about people like me?” Answers to these questions became the second George Bush in 2000 and 2004. This is like Nixon in ’68 who, in “The Selling of the President,” and responding to voters concerns about his lack of sincerity, made it a priority “to appear sincere.” This is Bill Clinton’s gag-inducing “I feel your pain” response to the woman at the Seattle town hall in ’92 and Gephardt’s 2004 candidacy “when spilling intimacies," in Klein's words, "had become a preferred shortcut to ‘authenticity’ in an Oprahfied nation.”
There’s not much new here with what Klein puts forward. The same impulses have been there all along, but in the media age, these have been magnified. Still, there has been one change in our political culture. Until the first Bush and the Willie Horton ad, there were norms that constrained what could be said or done to win. LBJ had bumped into this with his mushroom cloud ad in ’64 but pulled it quickly. The problem now is that advantage lies with those who are willing to go below the belt to win over those who play by the rules. That’s a problem for the Democrats today.
The Democrats have another problem. “Ronald Reagan,” Klein writes, “had given his party the gifts of simplicity and clarity and a coherent belief system that could be explained in sentence fragments: Military Strength. Low Taxes. Traditional Values. The Democrats, by contrast, were the party of the complex, clause-draped sentence: ‘We need to spend money on Head Start Programs in order to….’” This has been said many times before, and Democrats still don’t get it.
October 15, 2020
I didn't think that this particular 411 on American Democracy held muster to some of the classics in the field such as The Federalist Papers or Democracy in America or even America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction but it was an okay read.
It used genuine names to talk about historical events. "Caddell didn't think Carter could actually beat Wallace in places like north Jacksonville, but if he could scrape about ten points off Wallace's margin in redneck precincts, Carter could win Florida." From p36
Ergo I concluded that this book was worthwhile.
It used genuine names to talk about historical events. "Caddell didn't think Carter could actually beat Wallace in places like north Jacksonville, but if he could scrape about ten points off Wallace's margin in redneck precincts, Carter could win Florida." From p36
Ergo I concluded that this book was worthwhile.
February 8, 2020
This was a very interesting read about how political consulting and the rise of television/mass media changed how presidential elections work. Klein gave examples of campaigns from Nixon to Kerry to show what worked and what didn’t. And even though this was written 15 years ago (right before the 2008 election kicked off), there are still so many conclusions he made that can still be applied in today’s political atmosphere. I wonder what Klein has to say about politics now (especially 2016!). Amazing how much has changed...but also how many things have not.
Four stars because the book was dense in a lot of parts and hard to understand if you’re not a political pundit.
Four stars because the book was dense in a lot of parts and hard to understand if you’re not a political pundit.
November 14, 2007
I am surprised at how much I like this book, not being a big fan of Joe Klein - I was even turned off right away at the title, feeling that the "Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid" part was the sensationalist political drivel of the consultant. But the book is much deeper than that and makes sense on so many levels. He profiles politicians of the last 50+ years, centering on how the growing dependence on political consultants and polls has cheapened the process. Mr. Klein has a fondness for the political maverick who shows his "realness" - and despairs how consultancy and polarization has damaged Americans ability to vote for the right leader and see beyond ideology. I'm still surprised - this was a real page turner!
May 5, 2015
Joe Klein takes a shot at the lack of spontaneity in today's political leaders, comparing it to the moral leadership of past heroes like Robert Kennedy. The book covers several of the elections in the last few decades and bemoans how the spotlight of the media (especially television) has ended straight and honest talk by politicians. Most of the events will be common knowledge to anyone following political campaigns, but Klein brings his refreshing perspective and viewpoint as in the case of his observations on Howard Dean.
March 20, 2008
Sometimes fun, but obvious... and a tad hypocritical. Klein criticizes that favorite whipping boy, the mainstream media, for the sterilization and dumbing-down of contemporary politics. But of course, Klein is a member of the mainstream media, and he has certainly been a part of the problem he so vehemently decries.
January 10, 2014
Spare me the Reagan-envy Ds who sowed the seeds of 2008 w/the de-reg 90s. I'm glad I have it in hardback in case I run into Klein in person. The stupidity part of his thesis was ok; if he'd just stuck to that I'd have given 1-2 more stars. Hard to believe he wrote Primary Colors /and/ this dreck. Otoh, appreciate an insider view from the Clinton admin.
August 10, 2021
Great books from a man with Decades of personal experience of a variety of candidates. He is very well-balanced with Democrats and Republicans. As far as his prescriptions they seem to be roughly the same that we need today. Of course, the problem is that the only person who can really break through the political industry was somebody who simply did not do a good job or like Clinton, was so overshadowed by the scandals and tawdry personal behavior that anything good was so far in the background you couldn't really see it or fully appreciated.
February 28, 2021
There are some interesting insights and details in Politics Lost, which are, unfortunately, often buried with statements and restatements of the politically obvious. Still worth a look if you're a political junkie. If you want to read one book by Joe Klein, I recommend his non-fiction book on Bill Clinton, The Natural.
September 29, 2016
Politics Lost by Joe Klein is a book about how political consultants have changed the art of presidential campaigning. Klein references his own time working in Washington and reflects on how the notion of the, "permanent campaign," has had a negative and long lasting effect on American politics. While this book isn't a page turner for everyone, I finished it rather quickly. For anyone that is at all interested in American politics and why things work the way they do, this would be a great book to pick up.
November 17, 2017
This was an interesting enough book but doesn't actually do what it claims to do in its subtitle. It provides a comprehensive history of polling and focus-grouping in American politics but stops short of analysing the cultural causes or implications of these trends. Still, an accessible enough read that didn't take too long to finish.
December 2, 2008
Joe is definitely one of, if not the leading long-time American political journalists. Accordingly, I read this book to take a peek into the inner workings of our political system. This book is a snapshot in time of the American political spectrum and in particular presidential politics as detailed by a man who's had his finger on the pulse for many years.
The reader is offered an insiders view on how political messages are crafted, tested and delivered to the public. In addition, you will find yourself immersed in the details the last 20 years of presidential campaigns and the actors involved.
A good read for political junkies, neophytes or those with insatiable appetite for a deeper understanding of the intricacies and minute forces at play in American presidential campaigns.
The reader is offered an insiders view on how political messages are crafted, tested and delivered to the public. In addition, you will find yourself immersed in the details the last 20 years of presidential campaigns and the actors involved.
A good read for political junkies, neophytes or those with insatiable appetite for a deeper understanding of the intricacies and minute forces at play in American presidential campaigns.
May 10, 2011
Joe Klein is a savvy political writer who tells the story of how politics has been dumbed down since the late 1960's and how the system now works at the presidential campaign level. This book was published in 2006 and the final chapter is amazingly predictive(without trying to be so) of what happened at the end of the Bush years. The perpetual presidential campaign is not good for leading our country, but is how it works at this time. This book is very good and balanced on both major parties. I did find it funny to see what Klein thinks of Bob Strum. I was surprised to see how sharp he wrote of this Democratic consultant. If for no other reason, read the final chapter and remember it was written in the summer of 2006.
Read
January 21, 2011i like the basic thesis, anyway -- that politicians should be more willing to take the positions on issues that they believe in, regardless public opinion. i see some people here are saying that it's a fairly banal point to make, which i sort of agree with, but at the same time, i think most mainstream political commentators tend to frame deviations from public opinion as mistakes, so i do think it's actually pretty refreshing to see somebody like klein, a reporter from as innocuous a publication as time magazine, making the case for ignoring public opinion (since, let's face it, what do we know?)
April 29, 2013
The interesting thing about this book is that near the end, I discovered that it was likely the publisher that added the subtitle "How American Democracy was trivialized...". It must have been, because that bit of info is not to be found. If anything, it should have been "...by people who think [The Candidate] is stupid. That seems to be much more the gist of the book, how candidates have given too much power to their consultants rather than relying on their own hunches. Another example that the subtitle doesn't fit the book is the fact that klein seems impressed at times with the consultants, and argues for their necessity, even.
Good book from my favorite columnist.
Good book from my favorite columnist.
February 14, 2011
This book was interesting as it retraced every presidential campaign from the last 40 years but it made me even more frustrated with our political system and the way it's run. Also, I can't believe George W. Bush got elected twice. That's the best the Republican party could do AND it was better than the democrats could do? Apparently it was. I kind of wish the book had more ideas on how to make things better or at least give me hope that it will. I did learn a lot about how campaigns are run and who really controls them.
September 28, 2007
I will be honest and say I was moved to tears a few times reading this book. I know, I know, I'm a sucker. But some of the Kennedy speeches, those that were given without preparation, without profiling the audience etc. It just made me so sad that we have lost this spirit in our presidential and local races. It's an inspiring book, and it will also leave you longing for what we've lost.
May 8, 2009
It was an interesting backside view of all the presidential campaigns since George Bush Sr. I enjoyed hearing about how campaigns are run and helped me understand some of the decisions that were made that seemed stupid up front. The title isn't very accurate because the author spent very little time on that subject.
August 2, 2016
Insightful and easy-to-digest look into how political consultants have shaped modern-day politics. I'm by no means a political junkie, but I got a lot out of this audiobook. For me the most interesting parts dealt with the Gore and Kerry campaigns in the early 2000s and how the consultants essentially neutered the candidates by forcing them to play everything safe.
April 9, 2008
This is my kinda book. The history of the post war spin doctors in the presidential political races. Very interesting on how they got these guys elected.
If you like politics and the inner workings of a political campaign, then this is an excellent book.
If you like politics and the inner workings of a political campaign, then this is an excellent book.
August 21, 2008
I don't think Klein's thesis is quite clear here. But it is an interesting insider's look at campaign consultancy, and very readable. He'll always have a place in my heart...somewhere behind Paul Krugman.
May 29, 2010
This is much more intelligent and informative and worthwhile than the silly title would suggest. It's an insider history of the American political process in the television age. Not especially ideological or partisan, and not a rant, except maybe in the short final chapter. This is a good book.
August 16, 2016
One of my all-time favorite books, this chronicles the rise of the campaign industry, chronicling how money became so important in politics. To understand the roots of "Citizens United," one must only read this book.
August 28, 2007
an interesting analysis of the evolution of the modern campaign, despite klein's tendency to stray into arrogant and gossipy rants
October 14, 2007
I don't particularly like Joe Klein, but I can't disagree with him about how the politcal process has been hijacked and sanitized. It's bullshit, it's maddening and it's so, so true.
November 18, 2007
Strong prose. Hangs together well. Left-centrist perspective; you don't get the impression that he has a blind spot where the GOP is concerned.
December 15, 2007
Politics Lost is an excellent chronicling of how American Presidential candidacy has come to require such inane posturing and leaves us devoid of anything or anybody with substance.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews