What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Partisanship
Partisanship is a dirty word in American politics. If there is one issue on which almost everyone in our divided country seems to agree, it’s the belief that the intense loyalty within the electorate toward Democrats and Republicans is the source of our democratic ills—division, dysfunction, distrust, and disinformation. The possibilities that responsible partisanship can offer were at the heart of an important intellectual tradition that flourished in the 1950s and 1960s, one which was institutionalized through a sweeping set of congressional reforms in the 1970s and 1980s.
In Defense of Partisanship reimagines what partisanship might look like going forward from today. A new era of party-oriented reforms has the potential to pay respect the deep differences that divide us while simultaneously creating a more functional path on which two responsible political parties compete to shape policy while still being able to govern.
In Defense of Partisanship reimagines what partisanship might look like going forward from today. A new era of party-oriented reforms has the potential to pay respect the deep differences that divide us while simultaneously creating a more functional path on which two responsible political parties compete to shape policy while still being able to govern.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
208 pages, Paperback
Published January 14, 2025
8 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
About the author
Julian E. Zelizer
37 books61 followersJulian E. Zelizer is the Malcolm Stevenson Forbes, Class of 1941 Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 1, 2025
NOT a defense of our current system!
The current turmoil at all levels of government from local to national seems high and getting higher, and a great deal of this is attributed to partisanship. People yearn for the days when Democrats and Republicans would sit down to try to solve problems together. As a result, this book is likely to attract both interest and skepticism. I could not resist it!
Author Julian Zelizer is a professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton and is in an excellent position to explore the history and effects of partisanship from the earliest days of our nation.
Most people look at partisanship negatively, so Zelizer’s discussion explores what are the alternatives and what their effects might be. He considers five main alternatives. Madisonians, inspired by the founding father, argue that partisanship is inherently destructive. Nonpartisanship advocates stress looking for solutions to our problems rather than dividing into factions. Third-partyism aims to keep parties strong by encouraging new parties to form when the existing parties do not produce good results. Bipartisanship maintains the current structure but encourages cooperation across the aisle. Presidentialists, on the other hand, believe a strong president is key to making our democracy function. The book explores in depth the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches, puts them in context of past events, and finds them all inferior to partisanship.
Zelizer is not concluding that the current situation in American politics is a healthy one. He argues that we confuse hyperpartisanship with responsible partisanship and calls for stable rules to bound competition. Otherwise, he concludes, “the future will be bleak”. In Defense of Partisanship offers a well-grounded exploration but not a roadmap, e.g., he says we need reforms to the presidential process but provides no specifics. The book is a call to action rather than a plan. It does not really give a solution.
The topic and title of this book are likely to appeal to a broad audience. Given the author’s background at both CNN and NPR, many potential readers may expect the writing style to be less academic than it is and may be disappointed. This is a book that both provokes and requires serious attention.
I received an advance review copy of this book from Edelweiss and Columbia Global Reports
The current turmoil at all levels of government from local to national seems high and getting higher, and a great deal of this is attributed to partisanship. People yearn for the days when Democrats and Republicans would sit down to try to solve problems together. As a result, this book is likely to attract both interest and skepticism. I could not resist it!
Author Julian Zelizer is a professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton and is in an excellent position to explore the history and effects of partisanship from the earliest days of our nation.
Most people look at partisanship negatively, so Zelizer’s discussion explores what are the alternatives and what their effects might be. He considers five main alternatives. Madisonians, inspired by the founding father, argue that partisanship is inherently destructive. Nonpartisanship advocates stress looking for solutions to our problems rather than dividing into factions. Third-partyism aims to keep parties strong by encouraging new parties to form when the existing parties do not produce good results. Bipartisanship maintains the current structure but encourages cooperation across the aisle. Presidentialists, on the other hand, believe a strong president is key to making our democracy function. The book explores in depth the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches, puts them in context of past events, and finds them all inferior to partisanship.
Zelizer is not concluding that the current situation in American politics is a healthy one. He argues that we confuse hyperpartisanship with responsible partisanship and calls for stable rules to bound competition. Otherwise, he concludes, “the future will be bleak”. In Defense of Partisanship offers a well-grounded exploration but not a roadmap, e.g., he says we need reforms to the presidential process but provides no specifics. The book is a call to action rather than a plan. It does not really give a solution.
The topic and title of this book are likely to appeal to a broad audience. Given the author’s background at both CNN and NPR, many potential readers may expect the writing style to be less academic than it is and may be disappointed. This is a book that both provokes and requires serious attention.
I received an advance review copy of this book from Edelweiss and Columbia Global Reports
August 25, 2025
This was a spicy attention-grabbing title that had me gearing up for a hate-read of something I was sure I'd disagree with. Instead I got a crash course in the history of the two-party system and some ambitious reform proposals we've all seen before and that I don't expect to see happen in my lifetime.
Not being a political scientist by trade, maybe I'm not the best equipped to deconstruct the arguments made in this book, but the logic follows on a first pass. Basically this book argues in favor of a system similar to what we had between WWII and Nixon where both major parties were strong, top-down apparatuses that engaged with each other directly and often. Whoever was in the minority at a given point could be trusted to play by the rules and feel like they were given a say and that legislation was pass fairly. And a strong centralized party hierarchy would be able to swat down extremists on their fringes before they got too influential (something a weakened post-2008 Republican party was unable to do to the Tea Party).
Obviously when I hear, "partisanship" I think of divisions within the voting population as a whole, but this book really doesn't spend much time on the concept of voters. There's a cursory discussion on demographic trends and a self-sorting electorate in a time where the "All politics is local" maxim is no longer true. But this is by and large about maintaining the two-party status quo and returning to a state where they can respect each other.
Recommendations include the usual suspects: uncap the House, undo the Citizens United ruling, revisit rules around the filibuster. The suggestion to flat-out remove the federal debt ceiling so that it couldn't be used as a tool for dramatic brinkmanship was novel to me though, even if I don't fully understand how that would work or what the economic ramifications of that would be. And while I applaud the author for at least laying out changes that could be made, I don't feel that there was a strong enough incentivization for politicians to undertake them. For that reason the last chapter ended up feeling like an idealistic wishlist more than a set of actionable goals. But maybe that's exactly why these reforms aren't occurring: because no one can convince the parties to come back to the table when the current political environment rewards them for avoiding it.
Not being a political scientist by trade, maybe I'm not the best equipped to deconstruct the arguments made in this book, but the logic follows on a first pass. Basically this book argues in favor of a system similar to what we had between WWII and Nixon where both major parties were strong, top-down apparatuses that engaged with each other directly and often. Whoever was in the minority at a given point could be trusted to play by the rules and feel like they were given a say and that legislation was pass fairly. And a strong centralized party hierarchy would be able to swat down extremists on their fringes before they got too influential (something a weakened post-2008 Republican party was unable to do to the Tea Party).
Obviously when I hear, "partisanship" I think of divisions within the voting population as a whole, but this book really doesn't spend much time on the concept of voters. There's a cursory discussion on demographic trends and a self-sorting electorate in a time where the "All politics is local" maxim is no longer true. But this is by and large about maintaining the two-party status quo and returning to a state where they can respect each other.
Recommendations include the usual suspects: uncap the House, undo the Citizens United ruling, revisit rules around the filibuster. The suggestion to flat-out remove the federal debt ceiling so that it couldn't be used as a tool for dramatic brinkmanship was novel to me though, even if I don't fully understand how that would work or what the economic ramifications of that would be. And while I applaud the author for at least laying out changes that could be made, I don't feel that there was a strong enough incentivization for politicians to undertake them. For that reason the last chapter ended up feeling like an idealistic wishlist more than a set of actionable goals. But maybe that's exactly why these reforms aren't occurring: because no one can convince the parties to come back to the table when the current political environment rewards them for avoiding it.
Read
March 19, 2025“But the major alternatives each pose significant problems of their own. Madisonians ignore the real need for big government interventions, downplaying the dysfunctional elements of our constitutional design. Nonpartisanship imagines a fictitious political world where deep electoral divisions magically disappear and an expert-driven governing structure can design policies that command broad interest and support. Based on American history since the Civil War, third-partyism doesn't have much of a chance of unseating either of the two deeply entrenched parties. The depth of Democratic and Republican strength, combined with the state-by-state challenges posed by the Electoral College, means that third parties are more likely to help elect one of the two mainstream candidates. Bipartisanship has challenges of its own, as the nation learned in the decades between the 1920s and the 1970s, which included its tendency to privilege cabals of leaders operating without transparency. Moreover, given how divided Americans are on core issues, the possibility of bipartisanship would be difficult to achieve as the norm. Presidentialism ignores the long history of abusing power that has resulted from executive-centered government.
The best and most realistic alternative to hyperpartisanship is responsible partisanship.”
I need all of this book plus someone who can address all the outside influences on government. How do we combat mid-information and social media bias, because I don’t see many elected officials stepping up to do the work of this book.
The best and most realistic alternative to hyperpartisanship is responsible partisanship.”
I need all of this book plus someone who can address all the outside influences on government. How do we combat mid-information and social media bias, because I don’t see many elected officials stepping up to do the work of this book.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews