Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics

by Mary D. Edsall, Thomas Byrne Edsall

Three volatile issues―race, rights, and taxes―drive American politics today. They have come to intersect with an entire range of domestic issues, from welfare policy to suburban zoning practices. In an explosive chain reaction, a new conservative voting majority has replaced the once-dominant Democratic presidential coalition, and a new polarization has pitted major segments of society against one another. How did this massive power shift occur? Thomas Byrne Edsall of The Washington Post and Mary D. Edsall provide answers in this compelling analysis, cited by Newsweek as "one of the book[s] that shape[d] the debate" in the 1992 presidential campaign.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Economics, Race, American History, Political Science

356 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thomas Edsall (with the help of his wife - is his intro lovely or condescending? I can't tell), is trying to explain the death of the New Deal coalition and the rise of the Republican Right, and on a superficial level he poses an argument that I think is essentially correct despite this frustrating superficiality: that the New Deal bottom-up coalition has been replaced by a top down coalition formed around issues of race and taxes. Rather than voting for their class interests, blue collar white voters have been voting for their racial interests. I find this very persuasive, however incredibly depressing (though not unexpected I suppose). White flight to the suburbs is one reason for this, allowing the abnegation of all responsibility for the inner cities as well as physical distance -- and this suburban vote has become the one that matters, as a lack of partisan competition for the Black vote is stifling innovation. Edsall sees such 'partisan competition' as 'perhaps the most effective mechanism with which to force an assault on the problems of poverty, of the underclass, of the working poor, and on such long-range issues as the globalization of the economy.' This is definitely one of the places we part ways.

There's a whole lot about backlash in here, but the author doesn't seem much more informed about what is provoking it, nor the violent forms that it has taken, than the new blue-collar Republicans he's writing about. His insinuations about the outcry against the Moynihan report and Julius Wilson's work as simply people unwilling to face the ugly truths is insulting really, as is his unquestioning acceptance that the number of black people put in jail by police forces proven to be racist over and over again reflects a huge increase in black criminality or that it is far higher than white. His characterisations of the anti-war movement or the LBGT movement is not so hot either. Essentially he sees all of these as damaging interest groups breaking up a liberal coalition.

This also points to the problems of liberalism "Black and white liberals were unable to account for the mounting evidence of violence and social decay" because only a well-meaning but not deeply thoughtful liberal could write the following

For those committed to racial equality, the trends in crime, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, drug abuse, and joblessness among the worst-off within the black community-in the aftermath of strong anti-discrimination legislation and of expanded social-service entitlements-represent a complex and seemingly intractable set of problems. If the Democratic party does not become a forum for a tough-minded exploration of issues of individual conduct, family structure, patterns of socialization, and other so-called moral/cultural matters-as well as a forum for exploring how such issues interact with larger structural questions of labor markets, wage ladders, deindustrialization, discrimination, etc.-the Democrats will remain vulnerable to challenge-both moral and economic-from the right.

While acknowledging elsewhere, for example, that there was a wage difference between whites and blacks of 45% in 1963. This dropped to 30% but is since stagnating or even climbing again. This is only one example he gives, it is hard for me to see how this is mostly a moral issue -- which is the only way in which Edsall talks about it, even though he mentions the existence of some structural issues. I suppose reading Sugrue's Origins of the Urban Crisis right before this was unfair as it blows such simple explanations out of the water.

It’s also quite an argument that suburbanzation represents the desire of whites to live and be democratic and soaciable only with each other, wiping their hands and souls clean of all responsibilities to anyone else. He writes

The accelerated growth of suburbs has made it possible for many Americans to fulfill a basic drive toward civic participation-involvement in schools, cooperation in community endeavors, a willingness to support and to pay for public services-within a smaller universe, separate and apart from the consuming failure, crime, welfarism, decay-and blackness- of the older cities.

I suppose what I find most useful about this is the way it seems to be a finger on the pulse of the party machine, the way they analyse votes and calculate their campaigns and angering as it is, I think it does explain some political bahaviour. And of course, the world revolves around the party in such a view, there is no other way to account for this otherwise:

While this debate continues, a debate that exists in far greater sophistication and detail than the foregoing summary suggests, one clear fact remains: that the underclass and the larger problem of the black poor remain the Achilles heel of the liberal movement to achieve racial equality, and that the underclass has, in addition, become the Achilles heel of the Democratic party.

It sure is a bitch being an Achilles heels to something so wonderful as the democratic party.

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the very best analysis of American politics in the last 50 years.

[Sam Newton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nice thesis. Overly simplistic and way too repetitive. Felt like I was being hit over the head with a hammer since they repeat themselves over and over. Could have made the same argument in half the time. The argument is a good one: conservatives used an egalitarian message (get rid of affirmative action and heavy-handed federal government) in the 70s and 80s to get lower class white Democratic votes from people who were upset at Democrats' policies of racial preference.

[Dan Cotter · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in 1991. But it’s message and analysis are spot on for today. Race, rights and taxes are identified as the three items driving politics and explains the right’s rise. Should be required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the current political climate including the massive tax cut just passed in the wee hours this morning.

[Vanessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

A dazzling achievement by Thomas and Mary Edsall. If you want to understand the historical antecedents of this volatile era of politics, read this. A political BIBLE. One of the best books I’ve ever read.

[Wendy · Rating 3 out of 5]

So interesting! I have not read much about the 70s and 80s, but this perspective makes sense to me. I liked it a lot.

[Clay Strong · Rating 4 out of 5]

30 years old now, this is still worth reading to see and better understand some of the factors and events that contributed to today's more overt political and societal ruptures.

[Chad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sophmore year CC

Thomas Edsall’s book, Chain Reaction, gives background and theories into Americas shift to Republican since 1964. Edsall explains that America was fond of Democratic ideas and agreed with helping the needy and controlling major corporations. However, not everyone can possibly be helped by the government which is why the nation saw an emergence of “cross class alliance.” This meant that a rare team of supporters formed, big shot CEO’s were combining with the working class in order to stop the expanding government. Aside from the voters that switched to the Republican side because the government wasn’t helping them, many voters simply stopped voting because they felt left out. The issue that bothered many voters was taxes, but Edsall points out that the unwanted taxes often came from racial reform plans. Society has developed the same self-interest attitude that the founding fathers lead our country with, thus allowing the Republican party to use small government to lead us.

[Meg]

Didn't finish this book. I had to return it to the library and it was a little hard to stay motivated to read about the intricacies of politics. From what I read, I thought the book was well written and thought-provoking. I was keeping an eye out for the authors' agenda/ political leanings and wonder if it would have surfaced if I'd finished the book; the parts I read seemed fairly open-minded.

[Joe Keene · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best political books I have ever read. Very lucid and informative about the strategy of the GOP in the Reagan years and how the GOP turned blue collar whites against urban people and minorities in general.

[Steve Kierstead · Rating 4 out of 5]

How the GOP used race-loaded issues to break up the Democrats' "bottom-up" (economically) presidential coalition and replaced it with their "top-down" one. Rigorous analysis.