Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate

by Morris P. Fiorina

America is “currently fighting its second Civil War.” Partisan politics are “ripping this country apart.” The 2016 election “will go down as the most acrimonious presidential campaign of all.” Such statements have become standard fare in American politics. In a time marked by gridlock and incivility, it seems the only thing Americans can agree on is we’re more divided today than we’ve ever been in our history. In Unstable Majorities Morris P. Fiorina surveys American political history to reveal that, in fact, the American public is not experiencing a period of unprecedented polarization. Bypassing the alarmism that defines contemporary punditry, he cites research and historical context that illuminate the forces that shape voting patterns, political parties, and voter behavior. By placing contemporary events in their proper context, he corrects widespread misconceptions and gives reasons to be optimistic about the future of American electoral politics.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science

264 pages, Paperback

Published November 1, 2017

Reviews

[Claire Hunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes this is for a class yes im putting it my goodreads bc yes I did learn something

[Meagan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was worried this book would be a "polarization is bad!" book but it actually investigates a lot of those tired takes about partisanship. As with most political "science" books, it is wise to look at the methodology of the studies, but they seem pretty solid and if anything challenge new thought experiments. I enjoyed, would recommend

[Christopher Benfer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is written by a political scientist addressing the question of polarization in American politics. I'll start right off by saying that while you may be assuming that he discusses the origin of polarization and maybe blames mass media and echo chambers he actually starts off with a pretty surprising headline - the public isn't any more polarized politically than 30 years ago. If that news is surprising and interesting to you (and you can handle something written by an actual political scientist rather than a pundit/talking head) you can skip the rest of my posts and learn more for yourself.
For the rest of you still reading (OK, probably the one person who even started in the first place) the author begins by looking at actual polling data on various issues and basically concludes that the general public has NOT become significantly more polarized in recent times. He then goes on to look at party activists and politicians themselves, and points out that while there is some increase in polarization there is a more significant trend in sorting....
Essentially his argument is that in the past politics was more local than national. In order to compete in various states the parties would nominate appropriate candidates for that state. In MA, for example, a Republican nominee was likely to be pretty liberal, while in SC the Democratic nominees would tend to be conservative. Over time, however, things shifted so that the parties were more clearly defined and nationalized. So, the liberals in the Republican party have left, as well as the conservative Democrats. Even though the overall population is similar, the parties have sorted themselves more "efficiently".
Fiorina then goes on to discuss various ramifications of this change, particularly what he calls "overreach" by both parties, which in his opinion is likely to lead to swings in political control on a regular basis - at least in the short term. I won't review the whole argument here since he says it better than I can, but that's the gist of it.
Overall, I thought this was a very good book. It discussed political science, but with an emphasis on data and science, not scoring political points or choosing sides. The book was a pretty quick read, and he provided various sources for his data, so I think the conclusions have merit. His writing style was more conversational than academic, so it doesn't feel like reading a research paper. It is less accessible than some of the mass-market political books but as long as the reader is willing to put forth some minimal effort it is well worth the time.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was an echo chamber that gave me comfort in someone saying, "You're right, you're right, you're right." It was FoxNews to Donald Trump. The NY Times serenading Barrack Obama.

Admitting that Fiorina's message is one I believed before, during, and after reading this book doesn't diminish the work here at all. Fiorina supports his central premise that the small extremes are loud in the news and politics, while the dominant majority sit silently or don't like those extremes. And that support is a myriad of footnotes and citations that read as a book in themselves.

Fiorina makes the most salient and easy-to-grasp statistic vs politics point towards the middle of the book. The Republican party platform on abortion is more or less no abortions are OK. The Dem platform is abortions are always OK. These are just about polar opposites. It turns out, however, that self-identified Rs and Ds agree with the other party's platform in 25+% of cases. Which means that on an issue that is largely binary (abortion yes/no), the party platform only reflects its members in 3 of 4 instances.

(He makes an almost identical case around firearms rights.)

Imagine how more nuanced questions like social security funding, immigration, and tax reform would pan out. Could a specific party position on issues with so many nuances EVER capture even a majority of the party rank and file?

In breaking down numbers like this, Fiorina supports his premise that we are not red and blue, but almost all of us--except those that are loudest--are grey (or purple on your color wheel). We are in some middle and the person on the "other side" is us.

This is an important work and deserves more discussion and contemplation. It is a book for the *majority* of us in America. The perfect book for "right now."

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fiorina offers a well-reasoned challenge to the common idea that the American electorate is polarized. Instead, he show that the parties' elected officials, donors, and activists have polarized while an important portion of the electorate still remains in the middle. When polarized parties are the only major options on the table, we should not be surprised that people choose polarized options. It doesn't necessarily reveal anything about the polarization of the electorate.

He also challenges the contention that swing voters have become less important, noting that since 1992 no party has been able to gain a lasting majority. In fact, the 21st century has already shown that as the parties have polarized, their victories in one election cycle can easily be wiped away in the next as they lose swing voters.

Like many people, Fiorina is concerned about the political environment, but he offers a more careful analysis of the American political divide than is generally the fashion.

[aisha · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid read — really interesting look into the idea that it’s not the American public, but rather the political class, that has become so polarized. Also a cool analysis of what happened in the 2016 election.

[violet wexler · Rating 4 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Super good book! Helps outline polarization as a much more nuanced topic than we currently think about it as. Definitely helped me rethink political structures and reform. Not always a super easy read but an interesting one. I would recommend!

[am · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book gave me a bit of hope about the future of our society by affirming that people are not as divided as we might think despite the direction that we seem to be steering towards right now

[Maddy Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, but it kind of went in circles and contradicted itself