What do you think?
Rate this book
Good Reasonable People: The Psychology Behind America's Dangerous Divide
A leading social scientist explains the psychology of our current social divide and how understanding it can help reduce the conflicts it causes. There has been much written about the impact of polarization on elections, political parties, and policy outcomes. But Keith Payne’s goal is more to focus on what our divisions mean for us as individuals, as families, and as communities. This book is about how ordinary people think about politics, why talking about it is so hard, and how we can begin to mend the personal bonds that are fraying for so many of us. Drawing upon his own research and his experience growing up in a working class, conservative Christian family in small town Kentucky, Payne argues that there is a near-universal human tendency to believe that people who are different from us are irrational or foolish. The fundamental source of our division is our need to flexibly rationalize ideas in order to see ourselves as good people. Understanding the psychology behind our political divide provides clues about how we can reduce the damage it is causing. It won’t allow us to undo our polarization overnight, but it can give us the tools to stop going around in circles in frustrating arguments. It can help us make better choices about how we engage in political debates, how policy makers and social media companies deal with misinformation, and how we deal with each other on social media. It can help us separate, if we choose to, our political principles from our personal relationships so that we can nurture both.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published October 1, 2024
184 people are currently reading
5472 people want to read
About the author
Keith Payne
23 books58 followersLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Keith Payne is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an international leader in the psychology of inequality and discrimination. His research has been featured in The Atlantic and The New York Times, and on NPR, and he has written for Scientific American and Psychology Today.
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
Keith Payne is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an international leader in the psychology of inequality and discrimination. His research has been featured in The Atlantic and The New York Times, and on NPR, and he has written for Scientific American and Psychology Today.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
November 4, 2024
For a long time, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt was my favorite book about why people lean politically left or right, and how it’s based on their upbringing. While that book will always hold a special place for me because it was the first book to ever make me empathize and better understand people with different views, this book from Keith Payne is my new favorite. At the time of posting this review, it’s only a day before the election, and books like this are so important.
Payne explains why people believe what they believe when it comes to politics, and it’s interesting because he’s a liberal who grew up in a religious, conservative area. You get to learn how becoming more educated helped change his views on politics and God, but he also has a deep understanding of conservatives. The book has a ton of great studies and insights that will help you get inside the minds of people you disagree with.
I 1000% recommend this book, but something that bothers me about these types of books is they never address one of the most important aspects of all of this. It’s easy to say, “See, here’s why they like conservative policies!” What they don’t address is how leftists like myself are supposed to be friends or be cordial with people who support candidates and policies that are so morally bankrupt.
These “can’t we all just get along” books completely disregard what it means to keep people around who you think have good character. When people are against basic rights of the LGTBQ community, are xenophobic and racist, and support a slew of other policies that hurt people in the real world, they aren't good people I want to hang out with. Like, if someone had a hobby of kicking puppies, am I supposed to simply say, “Well, we just see the world a little differently but we can still hang out.”? That seems insane, yet we’re constantly told to do that with people who support candidates who are arguably fascist.
And some will say, “But they don’t support all the policies,” and that’s kind of ridiculous. If you put something like a tax break for yourself over basic human rights, I still don’t think you’re a good person that I want in my life.
Anywho, sorry for the rant. Excellent book, but I really think these books need to address this massive issue many of us face.
Payne explains why people believe what they believe when it comes to politics, and it’s interesting because he’s a liberal who grew up in a religious, conservative area. You get to learn how becoming more educated helped change his views on politics and God, but he also has a deep understanding of conservatives. The book has a ton of great studies and insights that will help you get inside the minds of people you disagree with.
I 1000% recommend this book, but something that bothers me about these types of books is they never address one of the most important aspects of all of this. It’s easy to say, “See, here’s why they like conservative policies!” What they don’t address is how leftists like myself are supposed to be friends or be cordial with people who support candidates and policies that are so morally bankrupt.
These “can’t we all just get along” books completely disregard what it means to keep people around who you think have good character. When people are against basic rights of the LGTBQ community, are xenophobic and racist, and support a slew of other policies that hurt people in the real world, they aren't good people I want to hang out with. Like, if someone had a hobby of kicking puppies, am I supposed to simply say, “Well, we just see the world a little differently but we can still hang out.”? That seems insane, yet we’re constantly told to do that with people who support candidates who are arguably fascist.
And some will say, “But they don’t support all the policies,” and that’s kind of ridiculous. If you put something like a tax break for yourself over basic human rights, I still don’t think you’re a good person that I want in my life.
Anywho, sorry for the rant. Excellent book, but I really think these books need to address this massive issue many of us face.
January 9, 2025
I have been a lifelong Democrat, though lately I would describe myself as a Disaffected Democrat. I have also been concerned with the extreme partisanship in our country and am seeking ways to unite the country and protect against extremism both on the right and on the left. So it is obvious why I would pick up this book about the psychology behind our national divide.
At first I thought that Payne brought something very valuable to the table about how people first want to preserve their belief in themselves as a good reasonable person and then want to preserve their belief in their group as good and reasonable. I also thought his points about how very few people have actual ideologies but follow their groups very helpful as I have noticed this and been baffled by it. Payne pointed out that facts and arguments often don't matter when talking to people on the other side because people want to preserve their belief in themselves and their political party as good and reasonable. And that this creates blind spots.
After this strong beginning, the book delved into arguments very familiar in liberal circles about systemic racism, though this time explaining Republicans support of Trump through a lens of preserving their belief in themselves as good reasonable people and thus revealing Payne's own blind spot.
For instance, while I do believe systemic racism contributes to current problems in the US, I don’t think he did a good job of addressing how people who are conservative disagree with this and I don’t think that liberals framing it in this manner is helping. Given Trump’s recent re-election (this book came out in October 2024) and given studies that show that well meaning DEI initiatives actually increase tribalism, bias and racism that they claim to be eradicating should cause liberals pause to reflect on whether our well meaning efforts are helping or hurting. I have been a teacher in the past and one philosophy I embraced was that if my students were not learning something then I didn't blame them for not learning it and say they need to try harder, I looked at my methods and made changes accordingly. Such humility is completely absent from the current Democratic party and currently they are the teacher whose methods are so ineffective that they are driving a percentage of kids to drop out of school entirely.
I have spent a lot of time in the past four years getting out of my echo chamber to try and understand how conservatives think. I may not have it right, but from what I’ve seen conservatives will say they aren’t racist for not seeing structural racism because they hold the same views for white people that are on government assistance as they do for black people who are on such assistance and have no problems with black people who are self sufficient. They can remember times when they’ve told a white person to stop being lazy, stop making excuses and to get a job. They may even have a relative who is always asking for large sums of money that they never pay back and who won't get a job or any sort of help and they don't want their tax dollars going to someone like that. If they do live in a place that is more impacted by structural racism where black people have less wealth then it will sustain a lot of those biases unfortunately for various reasons.
This gets into why I think that liberals have made a mistake by turning oppression into a suffering contest with a privilege hierarchy. First because whites who are disadvantaged are going to feel unheard and unseen but second because calling people racist for not acknowledging systemic racism creates an enemy and not an ally. And by insisting that conservatives agree with us about how we got here we are ignoring the more important question of how we make things better. And as Payne pointed out later in the book, conservatives and liberals do often have more common ground than we realize. I fear my fellow liberals, while trying to solve a problem, are creating a bigger one and the fact that BLM and the Woke movement are losing popularity and that more people who are black and brown voted for Trump in 2024 should be a warning sign to re-evaluate whether or not we need to frame things differently.
By dividing things into who has it worse we pit people against each other. By saying "we are all impacted by poverty/low wages/unemployment, etc" we create an environment more conducive to problem solving. And part of problem solving involves humility which is absent in Payne's book which could be summarized as liberals are more accurate in their worldview then conservatives but liberals need to understand that conservatives have good reasons for believing things that are wrong. The thing is liberals aren't right about everything either.
And example of how this could work would be, while I do think more need to be done to support middle class families and people in poverty, I do want to acknowledge that conservatives are right that there is a difference between helping people and enabling them. And as someone who works in mental health and believes that my fellow liberals have embraced policies that are well meaning but have been enabling self destructive behaviors that have worsened our mental health crisis, yes we liberals should not be so dismissive of conservative concerns here. And acknowledging that conservatives are right about some things and wrong about others just like liberals are right about some things and wrong about others might be a good way to lower the political temperature a few degrees.
Without a hint of awareness that he is doing this, Payne is limited by his own desire to be seen as good by people in his social group to really hold liberals accountable for our role in fueling the divide and thus this book failed to be as powerful as it could have been. Basically this is written by liberals for liberals and I am not sure how effective it will be as far as bridging the gap in our nation. Given how Payne had already experienced the loss of one group as he left his conservative, Christian Kentuckian family to be an academic I can see why he might not want to go through that again though.
This book is also very much a snapshot in time of the period right before the 2024 election. It came out barely three months before I read it and already I feel as though the conceptualization of people who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat have changed. And being in spaces with Disaffected Democrats, some of whom were lifelong Democrats who either voted for a third party or Republican for the first time in their lives (I could not bring myself to do that but I am desperately wanting a viable centrist party) I don't think his descriptions of Democratic voters and Republican voters is accurate anymore. He did nothing to address the growing extremism in each party and the impact this has been having on our country and how some people leave parties as a reaction to that. A lot of moderate Republicans had to contend with it in 2016, and now more moderate Democrats are starting to see it in their own party. Given that Payne addresses how quickly people's beliefs change with each election I also feel as though he should have had more awareness that this was a possibility.
This started strong with so much promise and I do think the insight into how everyone is trying to preserve their belief that they are a good and reasonable person is an important one to bear in mind when talking to someone that you disagree with. Unfortunately it wasn't able to maintain that strong start.
At first I thought that Payne brought something very valuable to the table about how people first want to preserve their belief in themselves as a good reasonable person and then want to preserve their belief in their group as good and reasonable. I also thought his points about how very few people have actual ideologies but follow their groups very helpful as I have noticed this and been baffled by it. Payne pointed out that facts and arguments often don't matter when talking to people on the other side because people want to preserve their belief in themselves and their political party as good and reasonable. And that this creates blind spots.
After this strong beginning, the book delved into arguments very familiar in liberal circles about systemic racism, though this time explaining Republicans support of Trump through a lens of preserving their belief in themselves as good reasonable people and thus revealing Payne's own blind spot.
For instance, while I do believe systemic racism contributes to current problems in the US, I don’t think he did a good job of addressing how people who are conservative disagree with this and I don’t think that liberals framing it in this manner is helping. Given Trump’s recent re-election (this book came out in October 2024) and given studies that show that well meaning DEI initiatives actually increase tribalism, bias and racism that they claim to be eradicating should cause liberals pause to reflect on whether our well meaning efforts are helping or hurting. I have been a teacher in the past and one philosophy I embraced was that if my students were not learning something then I didn't blame them for not learning it and say they need to try harder, I looked at my methods and made changes accordingly. Such humility is completely absent from the current Democratic party and currently they are the teacher whose methods are so ineffective that they are driving a percentage of kids to drop out of school entirely.
I have spent a lot of time in the past four years getting out of my echo chamber to try and understand how conservatives think. I may not have it right, but from what I’ve seen conservatives will say they aren’t racist for not seeing structural racism because they hold the same views for white people that are on government assistance as they do for black people who are on such assistance and have no problems with black people who are self sufficient. They can remember times when they’ve told a white person to stop being lazy, stop making excuses and to get a job. They may even have a relative who is always asking for large sums of money that they never pay back and who won't get a job or any sort of help and they don't want their tax dollars going to someone like that. If they do live in a place that is more impacted by structural racism where black people have less wealth then it will sustain a lot of those biases unfortunately for various reasons.
This gets into why I think that liberals have made a mistake by turning oppression into a suffering contest with a privilege hierarchy. First because whites who are disadvantaged are going to feel unheard and unseen but second because calling people racist for not acknowledging systemic racism creates an enemy and not an ally. And by insisting that conservatives agree with us about how we got here we are ignoring the more important question of how we make things better. And as Payne pointed out later in the book, conservatives and liberals do often have more common ground than we realize. I fear my fellow liberals, while trying to solve a problem, are creating a bigger one and the fact that BLM and the Woke movement are losing popularity and that more people who are black and brown voted for Trump in 2024 should be a warning sign to re-evaluate whether or not we need to frame things differently.
By dividing things into who has it worse we pit people against each other. By saying "we are all impacted by poverty/low wages/unemployment, etc" we create an environment more conducive to problem solving. And part of problem solving involves humility which is absent in Payne's book which could be summarized as liberals are more accurate in their worldview then conservatives but liberals need to understand that conservatives have good reasons for believing things that are wrong. The thing is liberals aren't right about everything either.
And example of how this could work would be, while I do think more need to be done to support middle class families and people in poverty, I do want to acknowledge that conservatives are right that there is a difference between helping people and enabling them. And as someone who works in mental health and believes that my fellow liberals have embraced policies that are well meaning but have been enabling self destructive behaviors that have worsened our mental health crisis, yes we liberals should not be so dismissive of conservative concerns here. And acknowledging that conservatives are right about some things and wrong about others just like liberals are right about some things and wrong about others might be a good way to lower the political temperature a few degrees.
Without a hint of awareness that he is doing this, Payne is limited by his own desire to be seen as good by people in his social group to really hold liberals accountable for our role in fueling the divide and thus this book failed to be as powerful as it could have been. Basically this is written by liberals for liberals and I am not sure how effective it will be as far as bridging the gap in our nation. Given how Payne had already experienced the loss of one group as he left his conservative, Christian Kentuckian family to be an academic I can see why he might not want to go through that again though.
This book is also very much a snapshot in time of the period right before the 2024 election. It came out barely three months before I read it and already I feel as though the conceptualization of people who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat have changed. And being in spaces with Disaffected Democrats, some of whom were lifelong Democrats who either voted for a third party or Republican for the first time in their lives (I could not bring myself to do that but I am desperately wanting a viable centrist party) I don't think his descriptions of Democratic voters and Republican voters is accurate anymore. He did nothing to address the growing extremism in each party and the impact this has been having on our country and how some people leave parties as a reaction to that. A lot of moderate Republicans had to contend with it in 2016, and now more moderate Democrats are starting to see it in their own party. Given that Payne addresses how quickly people's beliefs change with each election I also feel as though he should have had more awareness that this was a possibility.
This started strong with so much promise and I do think the insight into how everyone is trying to preserve their belief that they are a good and reasonable person is an important one to bear in mind when talking to someone that you disagree with. Unfortunately it wasn't able to maintain that strong start.
October 18, 2024
I thank you, Keith Payne, for teaching me the simple lesson of listening to people! Good Reasonable People was a joy to read… We are all guilty of assuming our opinions are the correct ones. We need to take a moment to listen and learn what the other person has to say. After all, most of us are trying to be good reasonable people
February 24, 2025
3.5 - deep down, everyone considers themselves and their actions as good and reasonable. That is the psychological bottom line that is used to justify their decisions and opinions in life.
Look, was this the most enlightening book about politics and voter mentality? No. However, I did feel like this book taught me new information and cemented the attitude to be open and try to understand where a person’s opinion comes from. Is it nature? Is it nurture? What is the underlying cause of that belief?
As someone who tries to hold conversations about our current political climate with people who may not agree with my stance, I feel like this book gives everyone a baseline to understanding why/how people develop their political identity and opinions.
There were many assumptions brought up about voters of different political parties. I really appreciated how the author provided historical evidence, psychological descriptions, and/or rationalizations for nonlinear thinking. I ultimately felt like a lot of what was discussed in the book was easy to understand, follow, and digest.
Look, was this the most enlightening book about politics and voter mentality? No. However, I did feel like this book taught me new information and cemented the attitude to be open and try to understand where a person’s opinion comes from. Is it nature? Is it nurture? What is the underlying cause of that belief?
As someone who tries to hold conversations about our current political climate with people who may not agree with my stance, I feel like this book gives everyone a baseline to understanding why/how people develop their political identity and opinions.
There were many assumptions brought up about voters of different political parties. I really appreciated how the author provided historical evidence, psychological descriptions, and/or rationalizations for nonlinear thinking. I ultimately felt like a lot of what was discussed in the book was easy to understand, follow, and digest.
December 28, 2024
Perhaps the least self-aware book I’ve read this year.
Not hard to advocate overlooking idealogical differences when the entirety of your condescending argument is: “I get these people because I grew up with them before I become educationally enlightened.”
If you’re interested in the subject, Monica Guzman’s “I Never Thought Of It That Way,” is excellent.
Not hard to advocate overlooking idealogical differences when the entirety of your condescending argument is: “I get these people because I grew up with them before I become educationally enlightened.”
If you’re interested in the subject, Monica Guzman’s “I Never Thought Of It That Way,” is excellent.
June 5, 2025
4 stars. I felt like this book started out strong, but sort of lost its way in the second half. While I think he makes a decent case for the importance of identity in creating the divide, there isn't much here that is helpful in trying to find a way to close the gap.
In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt makes a case that we all have moral intuitions, acquired both genetically, and through the cultures we were raised in. Instinctively, we move to form groups with people who have similar moral compasses.
Payne expands on this and asserts that the need, the desire, to support the group we identify with dominates our political activities. He cites supporting studies that only about 15% of the population can be considered to have a political ideology. The rest of us are just focused on supporting the group we identify with.
The really disappointing take-away from the book is the thesis that trying to convince folks or sway their minds with facts is a fool's errand. Presenting facts that contradict their world view is emotionally received as an attack on their group and their identity. Since we all believe we are Good Reasonable People, an attack like that has to be perceived as malicious and false.
Some notes below:
==============
p. xi: "I expect all families .... have felt the consternation that comes when two people look at the same thing in broad daylight and cannot agree on what they are looking at."
p. xxiii: "there is something in all of us that desires - maybe even needs - to see them as utterly alien from us. Because if we are not essentially different, and our differences follow from the hands we are given to play in life, then that means that you or I could easily have been on the other side if things had shaken out a little differently."
p. 49: "many of us would do literally anything when acting on behalf of our most important groups. We would die, we would kill, and we would put on uniforms and fight against strangers who did nothing to us personally, because it was demanded by our groups."
Conservative thought - Edmund Burke: People are basically brutish, and the job of government was not to fix problems, but to maintain social order.
p. 96: "economic success or failure is driven by at least three factors: starting advantages, individual hard work and talent, and random chance." ..."Wealth is more heritable than DNA."
p. 103: "The belief that inequality is the fault of Black people rather than past and present discrimination turns out to be the single strongest factor separating Republicans and Democratic voters today."
p. 123: "Higher education creates a chasm that is hard to cross, The highly educated spend years studying history, science, math, literature, and so on. They practice understanding that the way we do things in our particular time and place is nothing special--it is just one moment in history and one culture among thousands. That attitude can be offensive to people who have learned to invest their identity in their particular time and place and culture."
p. 166: "We tend to perceive agency in countless inanimate patterns in the world. We see faces in electrical outlets and the grills of cars. ....We rarely make the opposite mistake of missing agency in a real agent. This hair-trigger perception of agency is functional because it is much more harmful to be oblivious to an agent who is there than to imagine an agent who is not. It is agents, not inanimate objects, that present the most potent opportunities and dangers. .... This tendency to see agency everywhere may predispose us to believing in gods, spirits, and other supernatural agents."
p. 187: "Donald Trump's biggest insight was to realize that there is literally no limit to the lies, scandals, and crimes that partisans will accept as long as they are done in service of us against them identity fights."
In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt makes a case that we all have moral intuitions, acquired both genetically, and through the cultures we were raised in. Instinctively, we move to form groups with people who have similar moral compasses.
Payne expands on this and asserts that the need, the desire, to support the group we identify with dominates our political activities. He cites supporting studies that only about 15% of the population can be considered to have a political ideology. The rest of us are just focused on supporting the group we identify with.
The really disappointing take-away from the book is the thesis that trying to convince folks or sway their minds with facts is a fool's errand. Presenting facts that contradict their world view is emotionally received as an attack on their group and their identity. Since we all believe we are Good Reasonable People, an attack like that has to be perceived as malicious and false.
Some notes below:
==============
p. xi: "I expect all families .... have felt the consternation that comes when two people look at the same thing in broad daylight and cannot agree on what they are looking at."
p. xxiii: "there is something in all of us that desires - maybe even needs - to see them as utterly alien from us. Because if we are not essentially different, and our differences follow from the hands we are given to play in life, then that means that you or I could easily have been on the other side if things had shaken out a little differently."
p. 49: "many of us would do literally anything when acting on behalf of our most important groups. We would die, we would kill, and we would put on uniforms and fight against strangers who did nothing to us personally, because it was demanded by our groups."
Conservative thought - Edmund Burke: People are basically brutish, and the job of government was not to fix problems, but to maintain social order.
p. 96: "economic success or failure is driven by at least three factors: starting advantages, individual hard work and talent, and random chance." ..."Wealth is more heritable than DNA."
p. 103: "The belief that inequality is the fault of Black people rather than past and present discrimination turns out to be the single strongest factor separating Republicans and Democratic voters today."
p. 123: "Higher education creates a chasm that is hard to cross, The highly educated spend years studying history, science, math, literature, and so on. They practice understanding that the way we do things in our particular time and place is nothing special--it is just one moment in history and one culture among thousands. That attitude can be offensive to people who have learned to invest their identity in their particular time and place and culture."
p. 166: "We tend to perceive agency in countless inanimate patterns in the world. We see faces in electrical outlets and the grills of cars. ....We rarely make the opposite mistake of missing agency in a real agent. This hair-trigger perception of agency is functional because it is much more harmful to be oblivious to an agent who is there than to imagine an agent who is not. It is agents, not inanimate objects, that present the most potent opportunities and dangers. .... This tendency to see agency everywhere may predispose us to believing in gods, spirits, and other supernatural agents."
p. 187: "Donald Trump's biggest insight was to realize that there is literally no limit to the lies, scandals, and crimes that partisans will accept as long as they are done in service of us against them identity fights."
February 23, 2025
I’ll be thinking about this book for a while. I think the author does a good job of presenting information from both sides and if you’re able to take off your own parties glasses, I would recommend this book. It took me a few chapters to buy in, but the chapters of education, religion and geographic location were so interesting.
March 12, 2025
This book was recommended to me from a friend who shares the same political views that I have after we were commiserating about the state of our country. How have we become so divided with extreme partisanship? How can friends and family believe the exact opposite of things I feel so deeply about? How can I separate my political principles from personal relationships when the topic of politics comes up? I was really hoping to read this book and all these questions would be answered and our country would live in harmony. Obviously that did not happen. So I am just now trying to take baby steps and make a conscious effort to tell myself that my friends and family are “Good Reasonable People” even though I find them completely misguided and then think of the quote from Abraham Lincoln, “they are just what we would be under similar circumstances.” Is it nature? Nurture? There is no scenario where I will ever believe that Donald Trump is a good person and qualified to lead our country, but I am trying desperately to understand how others can hold a differing political opinion. Overall, I had higher hopes that this book would answer these questions, however it did give me tools to help navigate these incredible hard times.
May 21, 2025
I enjoyed this book, especially as I got to the chapter titled, “Lincoln’s Map” and the following chapters. I found the advice and explanations practical and helpful.
January 13, 2025
This book exemplifies the feeling of moral superiority that caused the Democrats to lose in 2024. It is an interesting read for that reason alone.
February 7, 2025
Audiobook. Loved it. Learnt a lot of stuff that perhaps is obvious and known to Americans, still, would highly recommend.
The primary issue is that people see the same thing with different views.
There’s a theory which claims that liberals have a higher “openness to experience”. While other studies show conservatives score higher on traits like “loyalty”. However all of this is just by single-digit % points. This doesn’t explain the insane divide between two parties. Ultimately, we constantly rationalise that we have the right point of view, while arguing in good faith.
Everyone fundamentally sees themselves as fundamentally good and moral. Especially when compared to a reference group. This opinion of being morally better than, extends to the chosen identity groups of the individual (in this case - democrat / republican). How do you know what group you belong and identify with? The feeling of being attacked and defensive when the group itself is attacked, shows.
Polls and research showed that the general population, both liberals and conservatives, have differing opinions on policy positions even if they’re logically correlated (want lowered taxes but benefits to the poor). Is it a lack of ideology, or one that’s too nuanced? Study found that only around 15% of the study population had a consistent political ideology. Study was done in 1964, and renewed in 2017. The only stable answers were party loyalty and attitudes towards racism. Most people are just winging it.
“They are just what we would be in their situation.” - Lincoln
Learnt a lot about slavery and how systems & laws were created to disenfranchise black people from voting / having rights even after the civil war. Imagine the cumulative effect of being discriminated against, just a little bit, over and over again.
In order to ensure they see themselves as “good reasonable people”, it’s common for white Americans to assume that inequality stems from something being wrong with POCs (not working hard enough, etc)
No other variable comes even close to explaining the partisan gap as strongly as views on the legitimacy of racial inequality.
Going to college doesn’t indoctrinate students with a liberal world view. But, four years of interacting with people of different backgrounds, reading literature of different eras, and having your critical thinking constantly challenged, makes the conservative world view a lot more alien.
Jury is still out if city / rural living causes political leaning, but it’s true that certain environments attract certain individuals and ideologies.
As adolescents and young people start to distance themselves from religion in this stage of life, they start to become politically aware. By the time they return to religion in middle age, they’ve chosen a side in politics.
Conspiracy theories are a talking point used to explain increased polarisation, but people believed in BS at any time period. Book brings up % points of people who believe in JFK conspiracies, govt alien interactions, etc, from pre-2000s and post 2010s. Less than 5% difference. Liberals and conservatives just believe in different misinformation depending on who the bad guy is.
Political ads don’t swing people. Voters use the narratives within ads to justify their already made up minds.
The American population is growing more diverse, educated, urban, and less religious. At the same time, the American political system gives a structural advantage to Republicans. We are at a knife’s edge with the electorate being split (pre-Trump v2), and a few thousand votes in a few states truly do matter. No wonder every election feels like a desperate last chance.
Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than they think. “We are a divided country, but we’re more divided in our minds and in reality.”
At the end of the day, most likely, we are political hobbyists who like to stay informed. How much work are we actually doing as political citizens? Would we even care about the dinner table political argument if we were too busy volunteering, picking and choosing what causes actually matter to us?
The primary issue is that people see the same thing with different views.
There’s a theory which claims that liberals have a higher “openness to experience”. While other studies show conservatives score higher on traits like “loyalty”. However all of this is just by single-digit % points. This doesn’t explain the insane divide between two parties. Ultimately, we constantly rationalise that we have the right point of view, while arguing in good faith.
Everyone fundamentally sees themselves as fundamentally good and moral. Especially when compared to a reference group. This opinion of being morally better than, extends to the chosen identity groups of the individual (in this case - democrat / republican). How do you know what group you belong and identify with? The feeling of being attacked and defensive when the group itself is attacked, shows.
Polls and research showed that the general population, both liberals and conservatives, have differing opinions on policy positions even if they’re logically correlated (want lowered taxes but benefits to the poor). Is it a lack of ideology, or one that’s too nuanced? Study found that only around 15% of the study population had a consistent political ideology. Study was done in 1964, and renewed in 2017. The only stable answers were party loyalty and attitudes towards racism. Most people are just winging it.
“They are just what we would be in their situation.” - Lincoln
Learnt a lot about slavery and how systems & laws were created to disenfranchise black people from voting / having rights even after the civil war. Imagine the cumulative effect of being discriminated against, just a little bit, over and over again.
In order to ensure they see themselves as “good reasonable people”, it’s common for white Americans to assume that inequality stems from something being wrong with POCs (not working hard enough, etc)
No other variable comes even close to explaining the partisan gap as strongly as views on the legitimacy of racial inequality.
Going to college doesn’t indoctrinate students with a liberal world view. But, four years of interacting with people of different backgrounds, reading literature of different eras, and having your critical thinking constantly challenged, makes the conservative world view a lot more alien.
Jury is still out if city / rural living causes political leaning, but it’s true that certain environments attract certain individuals and ideologies.
As adolescents and young people start to distance themselves from religion in this stage of life, they start to become politically aware. By the time they return to religion in middle age, they’ve chosen a side in politics.
Conspiracy theories are a talking point used to explain increased polarisation, but people believed in BS at any time period. Book brings up % points of people who believe in JFK conspiracies, govt alien interactions, etc, from pre-2000s and post 2010s. Less than 5% difference. Liberals and conservatives just believe in different misinformation depending on who the bad guy is.
Political ads don’t swing people. Voters use the narratives within ads to justify their already made up minds.
The American population is growing more diverse, educated, urban, and less religious. At the same time, the American political system gives a structural advantage to Republicans. We are at a knife’s edge with the electorate being split (pre-Trump v2), and a few thousand votes in a few states truly do matter. No wonder every election feels like a desperate last chance.
Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than they think. “We are a divided country, but we’re more divided in our minds and in reality.”
At the end of the day, most likely, we are political hobbyists who like to stay informed. How much work are we actually doing as political citizens? Would we even care about the dinner table political argument if we were too busy volunteering, picking and choosing what causes actually matter to us?
January 20, 2025
I’ve been hoping for someone to write this book for the last four years. I’ve struggled mightily trying to square my own beliefs with the political shifts of the past decade. I’ve struggled to rationalize the beliefs of the right while also not buying into the left’s continual demonization of these same people when I don’t see that when I interact with people.
Payne masterfully covers the sociological perspective on how identity becomes this means of justifying our beliefs so that we can avoid ever believing we aren’t good, reasonable people. This isn’t an effect that permeates all facets of our lives; only those parts where we have strong identity. And with politics, Americans’ identities have increasingly been tied with politics.
His personal story provides a backdrop that I think many Americans faced over the past fifty years: leaving a rural area and feeling a bit alien when they come home. His personal journey helps provide insight into how identity works and what friends and families will do protect their “psychological immune systems” in the face of conflicting information. Rather than correcting our core identity’s beliefs to square with the data, we find other rationalizations to explain the data that keep our identity in tact.
The final takeaway is expected but still important because of how he gets us there: talk to people, connect with them, and understand their context for their beliefs rather than judging them. Personally I’ve been trying to do this in many phases of my life in the past couple years and it feels much better than the path of alienation I was on previously.
My only wish was that he covered WHY our identities are becoming more tied into political groups. I think that’s a bit of a miss on his part but would probably venture into a book unto itself.
Payne masterfully covers the sociological perspective on how identity becomes this means of justifying our beliefs so that we can avoid ever believing we aren’t good, reasonable people. This isn’t an effect that permeates all facets of our lives; only those parts where we have strong identity. And with politics, Americans’ identities have increasingly been tied with politics.
His personal story provides a backdrop that I think many Americans faced over the past fifty years: leaving a rural area and feeling a bit alien when they come home. His personal journey helps provide insight into how identity works and what friends and families will do protect their “psychological immune systems” in the face of conflicting information. Rather than correcting our core identity’s beliefs to square with the data, we find other rationalizations to explain the data that keep our identity in tact.
The final takeaway is expected but still important because of how he gets us there: talk to people, connect with them, and understand their context for their beliefs rather than judging them. Personally I’ve been trying to do this in many phases of my life in the past couple years and it feels much better than the path of alienation I was on previously.
My only wish was that he covered WHY our identities are becoming more tied into political groups. I think that’s a bit of a miss on his part but would probably venture into a book unto itself.
March 25, 2025
The book is a great read for people to develop empathy for the ‘other side’ and appreciate that at the end of the day we are all (or mostly all) good reasonable people. The concept of the psychological immune system helped me appreciate that people will unconsciously defend their political beliefs by rationalizing contradictions and filtering information to preserve a consistent and favourable view of their ‘own side’. Having this type of understanding makes it easier to continue relationships with people who may hold differing beliefs.
Reading as a Canadian gave me a deeper understanding of how the US political divide is so rooted in US history - a history which I knew a little bit about but the authors summary was great.
The book was specific to the political divide in the US but I would’ve appreciated some discussion on the extreme right/left polarization that seems to be happening in all western countries.
Reading as a Canadian gave me a deeper understanding of how the US political divide is so rooted in US history - a history which I knew a little bit about but the authors summary was great.
The book was specific to the political divide in the US but I would’ve appreciated some discussion on the extreme right/left polarization that seems to be happening in all western countries.
September 7, 2025
This covers the divide in the US that has split families/friends. It's amazing how many people believe fake news (ie immigrants are evil, the Democrats are pedophiles, etc). Not surprising that a lot of this comes down to the education one gets during their schooling. If one goes on to higher education (or some sort of secondary education) they are less susceptible to false information.
April 22, 2025
This was really great at telling me why people think differently about politics but not great at telling me what to do with that information - was sort of hoping for more help with political arguments ha
January 21, 2025
Research, personal stories, history, and facts about our “tribes” and why we can’t change each other’s minds.
March 6, 2025
I haven’t read a book like this in awhile that felt this digestible and not overly theoretical. Recommend for anyone
October 21, 2025
They are who we would be under similar circumstances.
November 29, 2024
The bottom line is that everyone believes that they are good and reasonable. They will rationalize their beliefs no matter what.
May 20, 2025
Good book although took me awhile to get through it and got into a few fights with some people in my family who have different political views than me throughout the book. There are some good takeaways. I liked listening to this author on Dax Shepherd’s podcast talk through it. Do recommend giving that a listen
October 22, 2024
While I don’t agree with every perspective presented, I appreciate his open narrative and attempt to fairly portray all sides.
March 27, 2025
This is the book I have been looking for! Ever since November 2016, I have been wondering why/how certain people I love, care about, trust and respect could have voted for a certain candidate. Over time, I have become even more confused watching these loved ones entrench themselves in positions I often cannot comprehend, let alone agree with. Good Reasonable People has answers--answers rooted in psychology, sociology, and history--that make sense.
The main idea is that people want and need to protect their "psychological bottom line": namely, that they are good and reasonable people, and others in their group are good and reasonable people, too. We (yes, ALL of us humans, not just "the other side") will do all kinds of mental gymnastics and make all kinds of rationalizations in defense of that psychological bottom line. This explains so much about why political debates/arguments--especially the online variety--often feel so frustrating and futile. It's not about who's right and who's wrong. It's not about facts or persuasion. It's about defending and protecting that psychological bottom line.
Read this book not just if you want to understand how the "other side" dupes themselves, but also how everyone (including you) dupes themselves in defense of their psychological bottom line. We are all individuals trying to make sense of the world as best we can from our unique point of view, based on our own unique experiences and circumstances. And the end of the book suggests we are probably as not as different as we sometimes seem. We all want to believe we are good and reasonable people, and that those in our group are good and reasonable, too.
The main idea is that people want and need to protect their "psychological bottom line": namely, that they are good and reasonable people, and others in their group are good and reasonable people, too. We (yes, ALL of us humans, not just "the other side") will do all kinds of mental gymnastics and make all kinds of rationalizations in defense of that psychological bottom line. This explains so much about why political debates/arguments--especially the online variety--often feel so frustrating and futile. It's not about who's right and who's wrong. It's not about facts or persuasion. It's about defending and protecting that psychological bottom line.
Read this book not just if you want to understand how the "other side" dupes themselves, but also how everyone (including you) dupes themselves in defense of their psychological bottom line. We are all individuals trying to make sense of the world as best we can from our unique point of view, based on our own unique experiences and circumstances. And the end of the book suggests we are probably as not as different as we sometimes seem. We all want to believe we are good and reasonable people, and that those in our group are good and reasonable, too.
December 8, 2024
Such a good read for our current time. America has a tough time compromising and allowing multiple viewpoints because we all want to protect our "psychological immune system" and believe that we are "good reasonable people." We cannot say that our groups (churches, jobs, families) are bad because we would be bad. We cannot say that our cities, states or past have been bad because we would be bad. People care more to protect their truth than actual facts - because if they facts go against them, they could be bad. It all made sense and I certainly know I have been guilty of what Keith Payne was trying to tell the reader as well.
November 26, 2024
It's probably not fair that I'm writing this review a few weeks after reading this book and more notably, after the election. Before the election, I would have rated this 5 starts. I felt like it gave me important insight I hadn't heard other places. I also felt like it helped me explain reality up to that point. Then the election, and it made less sense.
The author, like me, is from Kentucky, so I especially appreciated the integration of research to explain why people vote against their own best interests. I recommend this to all who work in the policy space.
The author, like me, is from Kentucky, so I especially appreciated the integration of research to explain why people vote against their own best interests. I recommend this to all who work in the policy space.
April 23, 2025
There's something of a litmus test in the title "Good Reasonable People". In consideration of prevailing divide between republicians and democrats - there is a good ground in our defensive tribalism. Everyone sees themselves as "good" and "reasonable". We could probably add more descriptiors that fit the large swath of Americans: patriotic, compassionate, honest, hard-working. Despite the imflammatory nature of poltiical discourse, Payne argues self-protection of in-group tribes is the predictor of our social attitudes. Our loyalties command our outlook. From politics to religion, we have beliefs that are heavily tied to our impressionistic years. We are creatures of narrative, and we compartmentalize the facts accordingly Payne shares his boyhood conservative Kentucky rural years, that both informed and challenged his widening his world post-high school and young adulthood in St. Louis.
A good storyteller for our moment is hard to find, but I think Payne does an excellent job of exploring the various aspects of psychology and demographic data that navigate America in these years. Sometimes we are well above 40,000 feet with the analysis - getting into broad strokes about religious trends, conservative ideology, civil war allusions and racial differences. Nevertheless, Payne makes a difficult subject, especially in today's climate of political rancor, digestable and thoughtful. He gives an understanding of how we came to a entrenched political division.
I thought the chapters on race were particularly insightful. The correlational research he shares between strong conservative beliefs and anti-black sentiment was provocative and depressing. A lightbulb moment occurs when he shares an experience where a conservative decries how the their positioning, eliding structural racism, is seen as inherently racist by a larger liberal contingent of a group. And yes, many do. Even if there is a political disagreement about what racism is (structural or individual will), Payne provides evidence that the adoption of slavery or abolition when mapped by territory predicdts the attitudes toward Black Americans today. Payne ties together the idea that we all have bias toward goodness and reasonableness, but we lack the awareness of our biases.
My biggest gripe is the story left out. I don't think you can describe the political discourse without deeper insights into the influence of social media and algorithmic feedback loops. Payne does highlight the disinformation on social media platforms, but stops short of explaining how our content bubbles constrict our interactions with oppositional ideas. There is a larger way in which politics is discussed and aired through social media that needed to be reckoned with. Certaintly the Joe Rogans and influencers of the world should be discussed. We could review the fortified right-wing media chamber. It has successfully insulated many voters from Trump's "Big Lie" and not reported on his obsequious attitude to Russian overloads. There are active negative influences in politics that have broken our democratic system and political discourse.
The last 5 years have broken the remnants of civil society. The research on theloneliness epidemic and fracturing of community has devastating impacts on our politics. We can tie it to the post-Covid war on science, and misinformation from bots. Medicine and science are under areas for dispute. Finally, the post-election reality of the Trump 2nd term is a full-out assault on any power of accountability. See the cabinet full of lackeys and mindless drones. Personal verdettas on law firms. Retribution campaigns on politicians. Illegeal detentions of citizens. Lack of due process for non-U.S. citizens. Many Americans, myself included, see Trump's rule as a frightening overreach of the executive branch. It's hard to extend good and reasonable to a leader who seems to have little vision beyond on his own acquisition. With the administration's attempt to destroy our country's markets, traditions and goodwill, Payne's book feels a little naive about bad actors wishing to harm our country.
Payne has lived between red and blue America. He has told a story as only he could, about the beauty of the American spirit, our combative nature to win the arguments, and our desire to bridge the chasm felt in every molecule of our society. It's a tribute and challenge to all that's great in America, and all that we can become.
A good storyteller for our moment is hard to find, but I think Payne does an excellent job of exploring the various aspects of psychology and demographic data that navigate America in these years. Sometimes we are well above 40,000 feet with the analysis - getting into broad strokes about religious trends, conservative ideology, civil war allusions and racial differences. Nevertheless, Payne makes a difficult subject, especially in today's climate of political rancor, digestable and thoughtful. He gives an understanding of how we came to a entrenched political division.
I thought the chapters on race were particularly insightful. The correlational research he shares between strong conservative beliefs and anti-black sentiment was provocative and depressing. A lightbulb moment occurs when he shares an experience where a conservative decries how the their positioning, eliding structural racism, is seen as inherently racist by a larger liberal contingent of a group. And yes, many do. Even if there is a political disagreement about what racism is (structural or individual will), Payne provides evidence that the adoption of slavery or abolition when mapped by territory predicdts the attitudes toward Black Americans today. Payne ties together the idea that we all have bias toward goodness and reasonableness, but we lack the awareness of our biases.
My biggest gripe is the story left out. I don't think you can describe the political discourse without deeper insights into the influence of social media and algorithmic feedback loops. Payne does highlight the disinformation on social media platforms, but stops short of explaining how our content bubbles constrict our interactions with oppositional ideas. There is a larger way in which politics is discussed and aired through social media that needed to be reckoned with. Certaintly the Joe Rogans and influencers of the world should be discussed. We could review the fortified right-wing media chamber. It has successfully insulated many voters from Trump's "Big Lie" and not reported on his obsequious attitude to Russian overloads. There are active negative influences in politics that have broken our democratic system and political discourse.
The last 5 years have broken the remnants of civil society. The research on theloneliness epidemic and fracturing of community has devastating impacts on our politics. We can tie it to the post-Covid war on science, and misinformation from bots. Medicine and science are under areas for dispute. Finally, the post-election reality of the Trump 2nd term is a full-out assault on any power of accountability. See the cabinet full of lackeys and mindless drones. Personal verdettas on law firms. Retribution campaigns on politicians. Illegeal detentions of citizens. Lack of due process for non-U.S. citizens. Many Americans, myself included, see Trump's rule as a frightening overreach of the executive branch. It's hard to extend good and reasonable to a leader who seems to have little vision beyond on his own acquisition. With the administration's attempt to destroy our country's markets, traditions and goodwill, Payne's book feels a little naive about bad actors wishing to harm our country.
Payne has lived between red and blue America. He has told a story as only he could, about the beauty of the American spirit, our combative nature to win the arguments, and our desire to bridge the chasm felt in every molecule of our society. It's a tribute and challenge to all that's great in America, and all that we can become.
June 12, 2025
This book aimed to address how people affiliate themselves politically, and it does so in a wonderful mixture of empirical presentation and personal anecdotes that not only makes the point incredibly strongly, but also drives it home.
The book's focus on roots of division in the beginning was incredibly informative and provides an interesting and useful frame about how our environments (and how chalky they are) affect our beliefs. Factual accounts of how our circumstances affect our lives were incredibly compelling. I particularly resonated with Payne's summary of a study (Intergenerational Mobility in the Very Long Run: Florence 1427–2011) that looked at tax records in Florence in 1427 and found that descendants of the richest decile are 12% wealthier than descendants of the poorest decile. This contrasts meaningfully with ideas presented in the book that are prevalent with areas with a lot of inequality, that peoples' circumstances are a function of individual effort. This is obviously just an example, but this section of the book is packed with other rich and compelling examples that demonstrate how our circumstances affect us. Payne then uses more direct evidence to show how our circumstances can have a strong hold over our political affiliations, which is a major contributor to the political divide.
As someone who leans liberal and lives in a populated area, I found Payne's perspective on 'country people' very informative, especially because he was raised in Kentucky. His anecdotes about things like catholic school or witching branches or (especially) honor culture gives an insight into the state of mind of my fellow countrymen that I found to be both grounding and humanizing (see chapter 3). Payne's unique perspective allows him to be far more informative and compelling than someone from the north or from a populated area, and I think the information in this book would be incomplete without such a perspective.
Overall, I found this book to be an intensely grounding experience, and I really resonated with Payne's philosophy about the political divide expressed in chapter nine. I think this book provides a perspective and insight that would be missed by someone who favors purely objective considerations in today's political landscape.
The book's focus on roots of division in the beginning was incredibly informative and provides an interesting and useful frame about how our environments (and how chalky they are) affect our beliefs. Factual accounts of how our circumstances affect our lives were incredibly compelling. I particularly resonated with Payne's summary of a study (Intergenerational Mobility in the Very Long Run: Florence 1427–2011) that looked at tax records in Florence in 1427 and found that descendants of the richest decile are 12% wealthier than descendants of the poorest decile. This contrasts meaningfully with ideas presented in the book that are prevalent with areas with a lot of inequality, that peoples' circumstances are a function of individual effort. This is obviously just an example, but this section of the book is packed with other rich and compelling examples that demonstrate how our circumstances affect us. Payne then uses more direct evidence to show how our circumstances can have a strong hold over our political affiliations, which is a major contributor to the political divide.
As someone who leans liberal and lives in a populated area, I found Payne's perspective on 'country people' very informative, especially because he was raised in Kentucky. His anecdotes about things like catholic school or witching branches or (especially) honor culture gives an insight into the state of mind of my fellow countrymen that I found to be both grounding and humanizing (see chapter 3). Payne's unique perspective allows him to be far more informative and compelling than someone from the north or from a populated area, and I think the information in this book would be incomplete without such a perspective.
Overall, I found this book to be an intensely grounding experience, and I really resonated with Payne's philosophy about the political divide expressed in chapter nine. I think this book provides a perspective and insight that would be missed by someone who favors purely objective considerations in today's political landscape.
Read
October 23, 2025"An eye-opening analysis of why our politics have become so polarized....Keith Payne illuminates one of the biggest problems of our time and lights the way toward some promising solutions." --Adam Grant, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Think Again "Good Reasonable People challenges each of us to drop the weapon of demonization and replace it with something more powerful: a framework for understanding--and for being understood by--people who see the world differently from us." --Margot Lee Shetterly, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Hidden Figures A leading social scientist explains the psychology of our current social divide and how understanding it can help reduce the conflicts it causes There has been much written about the impact of polarization on elections, political parties, and policy outcomes. But Keith Payne's goal is more personal: to focus on what our divisions mean for us as individuals, as families, and as communities. This book is about how ordinary people think about politics, why talking about it is so hard, and how we can begin to mend the personal bonds that are fraying for so many of us. Drawing upon his own research and his experience growing up in a working class, conservative Christian family in small town Kentucky, Payne argues that there is a near-universal human tendency to believe that people who are different from us are irrational or foolish. The fundamental source of our division is our need to flexibly rationalize ideas in order to see ourselves as good people. Understanding the psychology behind our political divide provides clues about how we can reduce the damage it is causing. It won't allow us to undo our polarization overnight, but it can give us the tools to stop going around in circles in frustrating arguments. It can help us make better choices about how we engage in political debates, how policy makers and social media companies deal with misinformation, and how we deal with each other on social media. It can help us separate, if we choose to, our political principles from our personal relationships so that we can nurture both.
December 2, 2025
This is a disappointing book. Payne, a psychology professor at UNC, started the book with an interesting psychological angle trying to explain the political divide in America. Yet, after about a third of the book, Payne abandoned his plan and went on to write much of the remainder of the book as a full-throated defense of what Obama said in 2008 about white working-class Americans "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." There was hardly any attempt to understand the psychology of white working-class Republican voters, let alone that of the other side as the book title suggests. Instead, it was the usual trope of white working-class voters being uneducated, delusional, and paranoid, a conclusion assuringly drawn from Payne's personal experience with his family members, relatives, and high school friends back in Kentucky.
For Payne, our political divide boils down to our psychological habit to defend our social identities. Yet, he didn't bo to answer the obvious question—how people choose their social identities? Worse, his analysis degraded to racial determinism toward the end of the book as he wrote "Those who are born White tend to see today's unequal power structures as legitimate... Those who are born into non-White families tend to see today's inequalities as unfair products of past and present discrimination." These are lines that will make Robin DiAngelo proud.
I finished the book without gaining much insight into the psychology behind our political divide but a vivid psychological profile of someone who desperately tries to sever himself from the community from which he grew up. With claims such as "doubting the power of individual reason, [conservatives gravitate toward 'small government' rather than centrally planned solutions," Payne seems to have succeeded.
I must remind myself again that most so-called “hybrid memoirs” lack a compelling personal narrative. The memoir portion often feels like page filler added to support an idea that doesn’t quite merit a full-length book.
For Payne, our political divide boils down to our psychological habit to defend our social identities. Yet, he didn't bo to answer the obvious question—how people choose their social identities? Worse, his analysis degraded to racial determinism toward the end of the book as he wrote "Those who are born White tend to see today's unequal power structures as legitimate... Those who are born into non-White families tend to see today's inequalities as unfair products of past and present discrimination." These are lines that will make Robin DiAngelo proud.
I finished the book without gaining much insight into the psychology behind our political divide but a vivid psychological profile of someone who desperately tries to sever himself from the community from which he grew up. With claims such as "doubting the power of individual reason, [conservatives gravitate toward 'small government' rather than centrally planned solutions," Payne seems to have succeeded.
I must remind myself again that most so-called “hybrid memoirs” lack a compelling personal narrative. The memoir portion often feels like page filler added to support an idea that doesn’t quite merit a full-length book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews