What do you think?
Rate this book
The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism
From MSNBC correspondent Steve Kornacki, a lively and sweeping history of the birth of political tribalism in the 1990s—one that brings critical new understanding to our current political landscape from Clinton to Trump
In The Red and the Blue, cable news star and acclaimed journalist Steve Kornacki follows the twin paths of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two larger-than-life politicians who exploited the weakened structure of their respective parties to attain the highest offices. For Clinton, that meant contorting himself around the various factions of the Democratic party to win the presidency. Gingrich employed a scorched-earth strategy to upend the permanent Republican minority in the House, making him Speaker.
The Clinton/Gingrich battles were bare-knuckled brawls that brought about massive policy shifts and high-stakes showdowns—their collisions had far-reaching political consequences. But the ’90s were not just about them. Kornacki writes about Mario Cuomo’s stubborn presence around Clinton’s 1992 campaign; Hillary Clinton’s star turn during the 1998 midterms, seeding the idea for her own candidacy; Ross Perot’s wild run in 1992 that inspired him to launch the Reform Party, giving Donald Trump his first taste of electoral politics in 1999; and many others.
With novelistic prose and a clear sense of history, Steve Kornacki masterfully weaves together the various elements of this rambunctious and hugely impactful era in American history, whose effects set the stage for our current political landscape.
In The Red and the Blue, cable news star and acclaimed journalist Steve Kornacki follows the twin paths of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two larger-than-life politicians who exploited the weakened structure of their respective parties to attain the highest offices. For Clinton, that meant contorting himself around the various factions of the Democratic party to win the presidency. Gingrich employed a scorched-earth strategy to upend the permanent Republican minority in the House, making him Speaker.
The Clinton/Gingrich battles were bare-knuckled brawls that brought about massive policy shifts and high-stakes showdowns—their collisions had far-reaching political consequences. But the ’90s were not just about them. Kornacki writes about Mario Cuomo’s stubborn presence around Clinton’s 1992 campaign; Hillary Clinton’s star turn during the 1998 midterms, seeding the idea for her own candidacy; Ross Perot’s wild run in 1992 that inspired him to launch the Reform Party, giving Donald Trump his first taste of electoral politics in 1999; and many others.
With novelistic prose and a clear sense of history, Steve Kornacki masterfully weaves together the various elements of this rambunctious and hugely impactful era in American history, whose effects set the stage for our current political landscape.
500 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 2, 2018
709 people are currently reading
4875 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 384 reviews
March 4, 2020
When it became clear that the special election in my congressional district (OH-12) merited national attention, I said to my wife: “I’m excited! You know why? Because soon we’re going to see our very own district all by itself up on the MSNBC Big Board, and Steve Kornacki will be explaining what it all means!”
Yeah, I know . . . I’m way too much of an election nerd. But you know who's ten times the election nerd I am? Steve Kornacki, that’s who! I mean, just look at what he says in the acknowledgments section of this book:
“This book honors my terrific parents Anne and Steve Kornacki, who must be relieved to know that the troubling amount of time their young son spent watching C-Span ended up being of at least some measurable use.An adolescent boy addicted to C-Span? Now that’s election nerdiness!
Kornacki’s right, though: C-Span has been of “measurable use” to him. For it has helped inform the text of The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism, an absorbing narrative of the decade in our political history when D’s and R’s began to treat each other as enemies until—after the fateful election of 2000—Americans found our map (along with our attitudes) had regionalized and rigidified into a series of “red and blue states.”
The two people who contributed most to this movement, in Kornacki’s opinion, are Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich whose “collision unleashed two historic backlashes that shaped the decade”: first, the hardball politics of the “Republican Revolution” that installed Gingrich as Speaker, and, secondly, “a backlash against Gingrichism itself, an awakening of the white collar professional class that found itself alienated by this new Republican party.” Of course, their were other important players who helped shape the era—Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan, and Hillary Clinton—and Kornacki gives them ample treatment too. And he also chronicles the fall of “H.W.”, the rise of “W.”, and the first stirrings of the politcal Trump.
(Which reminds me . . . one of the things I was particularly struck by while reading The Red and the Blue was that the “spirit” of Donald Trump was a powerful force even in the ‘90’s, only back then he was separated into two parts and called by two different names: Pat Buchanan (the angry build-the-wall nationalist part) and Ross Perot (the celebrity businessman “I can fix things” part). Many Americans found both parts very attractive then, and we—to our grief—found out what could happen when both the Trump-parts got together).
Never fear, though, my fellow political nerds! Although Kornacki concentrates on the major figures, he has time for memorable obscure figures as well: “Sister Soulja” (the rapper Bill Clinton criticized to prove he wasn’t afraid of Jesse Jackson), Margorie Margolies-Mezvinksy (the congresswoman who c cast the deciding vote for Bill Clinton’s 1993 budget, thus ending her congressional career),and Dan Burton (the congressman who fire a gun into a melon to prove Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster’s suicide was actually murder). And—trust me—there are many more where these came from.
I liked this book a lot, but I do have a couple of criticisms. First, I though he spent too many pages covering the political conventions themselves. Lengthy coverage made sense for the ‘88 and ‘92 conventions, particularly with the shadows of Jackson, Buchanan, and Perot lurking in the background, but the conventions of ‘96 and 2000 lacked real drama, and could have been summarized more quickly. Second—and more important—the book says nothing about the ways in which Gingrich altered the culture of congress (discouraging members from moving to Washington, cultivating real friendships with Democrats, etc.), and the very language of opposition (his 1996 GOPAC list of negative words for Democrats, for example.) And I suspect there are aspects of the way Clinton operated that altered the mental landscape as well—the Dick Morris method of “triangulation,” perhaps?—but Kornacki only glances at such things. He concentrates on the facts.
On the other hand, The Red and the Blue is free of all pretension, of posturing of any sort. It is a book that just gives you the facts, expressed straightforwardly and organized with such skill that it is easy to see the overall pattern that emerges. Come to think of it, that also describes Kornacki the TV analyst, grinning, manipulating the MSNBC BigBoard, filled with barely contained enthusiasm, explaining it all to me.
Such a technique is essential to good journalism. And essential to the writing of recent history--indeed, all history--as well.
October 22, 2018
I'm sort of getting sick of books that say they are about an idea, but end up being just a play by play history of events without any analysis. For a play by play, this is a good one and it kept my interest until the end--it's useful if you don't remember the 90s or haven't been reminded with other histories. But there is no theorizing at all about the birth of political tribalism. I actually don't agree at all that Newt Gingrich is the villain in the tribalism story. I think it started much earlier--during Goldwater and Nixon years. Newt just changed tactics, but the tribalism was a pre-existing condition.
May 22, 2020
I love Steve Kornacki. There is nothing better than sitting back and watching him at the board on MSNBC. He is so smart! And his analysis is amazing.
So this book was written by Kornacki and I do agree with most of it. He traces the roots of Political Bias, Tribalism and he does a really good job of taking the read backwards in time, through the Nineties.
I will admit..I did not become really interested and fanatical about Politics until the late Nineties. But it was 2000-2001 that really got me started. Bush/Gore a little while later, really did it for me but by that time we were out of the Nineties.
I do remember sneaking online at work and seeing fighting on message boards between the red people and the blue people with the occasional purple person joining in. ( not very many). We really had reached the point of no return by then and though I thought it was toxic at the time, it was NOTHING like today.
I saw a review or two that say it goes back even further to Nixon. Since I was a mere slip of a girl back then, I do not feel qualified to say. The republicans, during Watergate, were not nearly as bad as today though and I know this because I studied Watergate and I remember watching Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech. So even when I was like, 5 or 6, I still had an interest.
Kornacki has always had a fascination with this topic. You can even see it on Television, in the way he speaks and relates. When I first started following politics seriously, I did not even know what red and blue stood for!
It is really hard though to compare the Nineties in a way to today mainly because we did not have the internet and there were not constant news cycles, altered on line vidoes, Russian Propaganda and all else that comes with the internet . I think social media was really the start of it but it was heading in that general direction anyway.
Kornacki gives us a bit of a history lesson or maybe a better term would be that he reminds us of some things. I had forgot some really dirty tricks like what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina with the Push Polls and Robo calls and then with Gingrich and Rove who are still around today and as nasty as ever. I think that this book is a great read, especially for anyone who is a Kornacki Fan..like me!
So this book was written by Kornacki and I do agree with most of it. He traces the roots of Political Bias, Tribalism and he does a really good job of taking the read backwards in time, through the Nineties.
I will admit..I did not become really interested and fanatical about Politics until the late Nineties. But it was 2000-2001 that really got me started. Bush/Gore a little while later, really did it for me but by that time we were out of the Nineties.
I do remember sneaking online at work and seeing fighting on message boards between the red people and the blue people with the occasional purple person joining in. ( not very many). We really had reached the point of no return by then and though I thought it was toxic at the time, it was NOTHING like today.
I saw a review or two that say it goes back even further to Nixon. Since I was a mere slip of a girl back then, I do not feel qualified to say. The republicans, during Watergate, were not nearly as bad as today though and I know this because I studied Watergate and I remember watching Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech. So even when I was like, 5 or 6, I still had an interest.
Kornacki has always had a fascination with this topic. You can even see it on Television, in the way he speaks and relates. When I first started following politics seriously, I did not even know what red and blue stood for!
It is really hard though to compare the Nineties in a way to today mainly because we did not have the internet and there were not constant news cycles, altered on line vidoes, Russian Propaganda and all else that comes with the internet . I think social media was really the start of it but it was heading in that general direction anyway.
Kornacki gives us a bit of a history lesson or maybe a better term would be that he reminds us of some things. I had forgot some really dirty tricks like what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina with the Push Polls and Robo calls and then with Gingrich and Rove who are still around today and as nasty as ever. I think that this book is a great read, especially for anyone who is a Kornacki Fan..like me!
November 15, 2020
Am I allowed to give five stars to a book that I’m not going to finish but got the value from what I did read?
I absolutely adore Steve Kornacki from MSNBC
This book follows the path of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich
I’ve read more political books... even memoirs this year than past years...( my way of connecting with people - as if sitting down having lunch and sharing their life - with ‘me’ —an opportunity to feel blessed to be connected with the person)....
Between being separated from people I love due to the coronavirus—( The borders are closed between the United States and Canada-and I have a daughter in the ‘chilly’ country)....
I moved a little more into the dark side: reading more political and social justice issue - type books this year ...
A shift to non-fiction just happen naturally....
But as much as I absolutely adore this author… And he’s a great writer and explain things well... I simply had enough.
I’m not sure if I made sense but I’m just ready to read something else — but what I took away from this book was a deeper understanding of when the divide between the red and the blue first started in the United States.
Blessings my friends💙❤️
Jan. 20th can’t come soon enough
I absolutely adore Steve Kornacki from MSNBC
This book follows the path of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich
I’ve read more political books... even memoirs this year than past years...( my way of connecting with people - as if sitting down having lunch and sharing their life - with ‘me’ —an opportunity to feel blessed to be connected with the person)....
Between being separated from people I love due to the coronavirus—( The borders are closed between the United States and Canada-and I have a daughter in the ‘chilly’ country)....
I moved a little more into the dark side: reading more political and social justice issue - type books this year ...
A shift to non-fiction just happen naturally....
But as much as I absolutely adore this author… And he’s a great writer and explain things well... I simply had enough.
I’m not sure if I made sense but I’m just ready to read something else — but what I took away from this book was a deeper understanding of when the divide between the red and the blue first started in the United States.
Blessings my friends💙❤️
Jan. 20th can’t come soon enough
December 13, 2021
The dream of the 90s is alive in The Red and the Blue. Welcome back to the 1990s where flannel is in, Bill Clinton is president, the economy is booming, the budget is balanced, Newt Gingrich has his Contract with America, and the Monica Lewinsky affair is grabbing headlines. Well, not all of that has changed as the Lewinksy affair is still generating movies and podcasts over twenty-five years later. The story here though is the path from the post-Reagan country to the America we know today. Reading this story is like mainlining history. It's narrative history at its most entertaining: it's highly bingable and it will satiate your thirst for 90s nostalgia, although it may not be as edifying as more critical and analytical accounts. Starting off from the rise and fall of the Bush presidency, the book really centers on the Clinton years - often with Clinton facing off against Gingrich as his nemesis and foil. Although it got off to a shaky start, the main political protagonist in this history is the art of triangulation and the politics of Clintonsim. The major narrative arc is the narrow path that Clinton navigated and rode to political and economic success between the political defeats that doomed Dukakis and Bush before him and the political realignments precipitating around him and dimming many of his contemporaries. As the history unfolds, we moved from the politically mixed America of the 60s, 70s, and 80s--where we had liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits and where politics was still characterized by genteel statecraft--to the politically and geographically divided America, where we have red American and blue America and where politics became the art of confrontation. The narrative depicts Gingrich at the center of this shift; the history here underplays the role of other actors in the shift including Rupert Murdoch and other rightwing interests like the Kochs, Scaifes, and Mellons. While the narrative increasingly lauds the politics of Clintonism as the 90s rolled on, Clinton the man comes across as the same flawed character we knew at the time. The book is not particularly critical of the policies driving Clintonism, so if you are looking for a progressive, liberal, libertarian, or conservative critique of Bush or Clinton this is not the place to go. However, if you are looking for a little historical and political entertainment mixed with a big heaping of 1990s nostalgia, then you have found your book. Happy reading.
July 5, 2021
If you love American politics and want to know how we got the rampant tribalism we see today, I recommend reading this book first and then Tim Alberta’s American Carnage. If time or interest is a factor, stick with Alberta.
November 12, 2018
Description: From MSNBC correspondent Steve Kornacki, a lively and sweeping history of the 1990s—one that brings critical new understanding to our current political landscape.
In The Red and the Blue, cable news star and acclaimed journalist Steve Kornacki follows the twin paths of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two larger-than-life politicians who exploited the weakened structure of their respective parties to attain the highest offices. For Clinton, that meant contorting himself around the various factions of the Democratic party to win the presidency. Gingrich employed a scorched-earth strategy to upend the permanent Republican minority in the House, making him Speaker.
The Clinton/Gingrich battles were bare-knuckled brawls that brought about massive policy shifts and high-stakes showdowns—their collisions had far-reaching political consequences. But the ’90s were not just about them. Kornacki writes about Mario Cuomo’s stubborn presence around Clinton’s 1992 campaign; Hillary Clinton’s star turn during the 1998 midterms, seeding the idea for her own candidacy; Ross Perot’s wild run in 1992 that inspired him to launch the Reform Party, giving Donald Trump his first taste of electoral politics in 1999; and many others.
With novelistic prose and a clear sense of history, Steve Kornacki masterfully weaves together the various elements of this rambunctious and hugely impactful era in American history, whose effects set the stage for our current political landscape.
Opening: Bill Clinton came to San Francisco for the Democratic National Convention hungry for attention. It was July 1984, and the second-term Arkansas governor, not yet forty years old, knew where to find opportunity.
The convention itself would be a morose affair, with party regulars dutifully ratifying former vice president Walter Mondale as their nominee. Four years earlier, Mondale had been number two on the Jimmy Carter–led ticket that surrendered forty-four states to Ronald Reagan. For a while, Democrats had believed Reagan’s triumph to be a fluke, especially when a nasty recession pushed unemployment to over 10 percent early in his term. But by the summer of ’84, the economy was resurgent, patriotism was in full bloom (Los Angeles would soon host the Summer Olympics), and America’s grandfatherly president was enjoying some of the best poll numbers of his tenure. Democrats, a survey of delegates revealed, were significantly less optimistic about Mondale’s prospects than they had been about Carter’s back in 1980. Even the truest of true believers knew it: Reagan was going to swamp them—again.
The allure of Neil deGrasse Tyson is his absolute enthusiasm for his subject and it is the same reason why I love watching and reading Kornacki. He is as a scientist studying his field, not caring where it leads or who is upset at the result. The fact that the fascists call him partisan is that they really don't like where Kornacki's investigations conclude.
I will just mention that the swamp-life sounding Newt Gingrich will never be a favourite.
In The Red and the Blue, cable news star and acclaimed journalist Steve Kornacki follows the twin paths of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two larger-than-life politicians who exploited the weakened structure of their respective parties to attain the highest offices. For Clinton, that meant contorting himself around the various factions of the Democratic party to win the presidency. Gingrich employed a scorched-earth strategy to upend the permanent Republican minority in the House, making him Speaker.
The Clinton/Gingrich battles were bare-knuckled brawls that brought about massive policy shifts and high-stakes showdowns—their collisions had far-reaching political consequences. But the ’90s were not just about them. Kornacki writes about Mario Cuomo’s stubborn presence around Clinton’s 1992 campaign; Hillary Clinton’s star turn during the 1998 midterms, seeding the idea for her own candidacy; Ross Perot’s wild run in 1992 that inspired him to launch the Reform Party, giving Donald Trump his first taste of electoral politics in 1999; and many others.
With novelistic prose and a clear sense of history, Steve Kornacki masterfully weaves together the various elements of this rambunctious and hugely impactful era in American history, whose effects set the stage for our current political landscape.
Opening: Bill Clinton came to San Francisco for the Democratic National Convention hungry for attention. It was July 1984, and the second-term Arkansas governor, not yet forty years old, knew where to find opportunity.
The convention itself would be a morose affair, with party regulars dutifully ratifying former vice president Walter Mondale as their nominee. Four years earlier, Mondale had been number two on the Jimmy Carter–led ticket that surrendered forty-four states to Ronald Reagan. For a while, Democrats had believed Reagan’s triumph to be a fluke, especially when a nasty recession pushed unemployment to over 10 percent early in his term. But by the summer of ’84, the economy was resurgent, patriotism was in full bloom (Los Angeles would soon host the Summer Olympics), and America’s grandfatherly president was enjoying some of the best poll numbers of his tenure. Democrats, a survey of delegates revealed, were significantly less optimistic about Mondale’s prospects than they had been about Carter’s back in 1980. Even the truest of true believers knew it: Reagan was going to swamp them—again.
The allure of Neil deGrasse Tyson is his absolute enthusiasm for his subject and it is the same reason why I love watching and reading Kornacki. He is as a scientist studying his field, not caring where it leads or who is upset at the result. The fact that the fascists call him partisan is that they really don't like where Kornacki's investigations conclude.
I will just mention that the swamp-life sounding Newt Gingrich will never be a favourite.
January 26, 2019
A nice little review of recent history and a story that, for liberal Democrats like me, is bittersweet at best and depressing at worst. The decade of the 90s wasn't all that good for us, and it ended in disaster in 2000. What the book makes clear, and really a matter of personal clarity for me, is that the politician who arguably had the most long-lasting effect on American politics and culture from those times was Patrick J. Buchanan.
Buchanan was an also-ran in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000, and yet his impact on our political culture was profound. Consistently rebuked by the Republican Establishment as "too radical," Buchanan ran on cultural values in '88 and economic nationalism in '92. He was a Clinton-hater in '96 and, one might argue, handed Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, thanks to the "Butterfly Ballot" in Broward County. Yet he more than any other person helped shape "Red" political culture. Indeed, the 2000 election, argues Kornacki, was the race that finally gave rise to the whole notion of "Red" and "Blue" states.
Fast-forward to 2016: Donald Trump's campaign wholly embraced Buchanan's philosophy and grabbed the extreme right-wing, arch-conservative, evangelical base first established by Pat in 1988 and 1992. This is more than a bit ironic, because in 1999, Trump lambasted Buchanan as "extreme and outrageous" (p. 410). Yet there can be no doubt of Buchanan's influence on Trump's recent campaign. Buchanan called for an end to NAFTA, imposition of protective tariffs, restrictions on non-white immigration and a Wall on our southern border, curtailment of U.S. forces abroad, an "America-first" foreign policy, and glorification of America's European heritage. When he lost races, Buchanan claimed they were "rigged" by the party Establishment. Right-wingers loved it, and Trump came to understand the power of angry voters even as the Republican Party was ignorant of it or simply intolerant of these challenges to conservative Republican orthodoxy. Charges of racism followed both Buchanan and Trump.
The Republican Party may be called the party of Trump, but it's really the party of Buchanan. The party Establishment has been back-benched, and it is unclear to me how and when traditional, conservative Republicans can regain control. It's unlikely to be 2020, unless Trump is forced out of office. Even then, his base remains and will not tolerate the libertarianism that colored the party Old Guard.
Another worry for me: Even if Trump goes, how do we purge the Russian agents that now permeate the Executive Branch? Big worry.
Buchanan was an also-ran in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000, and yet his impact on our political culture was profound. Consistently rebuked by the Republican Establishment as "too radical," Buchanan ran on cultural values in '88 and economic nationalism in '92. He was a Clinton-hater in '96 and, one might argue, handed Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, thanks to the "Butterfly Ballot" in Broward County. Yet he more than any other person helped shape "Red" political culture. Indeed, the 2000 election, argues Kornacki, was the race that finally gave rise to the whole notion of "Red" and "Blue" states.
Fast-forward to 2016: Donald Trump's campaign wholly embraced Buchanan's philosophy and grabbed the extreme right-wing, arch-conservative, evangelical base first established by Pat in 1988 and 1992. This is more than a bit ironic, because in 1999, Trump lambasted Buchanan as "extreme and outrageous" (p. 410). Yet there can be no doubt of Buchanan's influence on Trump's recent campaign. Buchanan called for an end to NAFTA, imposition of protective tariffs, restrictions on non-white immigration and a Wall on our southern border, curtailment of U.S. forces abroad, an "America-first" foreign policy, and glorification of America's European heritage. When he lost races, Buchanan claimed they were "rigged" by the party Establishment. Right-wingers loved it, and Trump came to understand the power of angry voters even as the Republican Party was ignorant of it or simply intolerant of these challenges to conservative Republican orthodoxy. Charges of racism followed both Buchanan and Trump.
The Republican Party may be called the party of Trump, but it's really the party of Buchanan. The party Establishment has been back-benched, and it is unclear to me how and when traditional, conservative Republicans can regain control. It's unlikely to be 2020, unless Trump is forced out of office. Even then, his base remains and will not tolerate the libertarianism that colored the party Old Guard.
Another worry for me: Even if Trump goes, how do we purge the Russian agents that now permeate the Executive Branch? Big worry.
October 12, 2018
"This was Bill Clinton's approach. He'd praise integration as a 'noble feat' while still decrying 'busing and breaking up neighborhoods.' He'd voice approval for the Equal Rights Amendment 'in principle' but would expend no political capital pursuing it's ratification. Somehow, it seemed, he could convince liberals he shared their goals even as he made conservatives believe that he was protecting them from the excesses of the left."
Quite a contrast. In 1988, Gary Hart's democratic candidacy gets knocked off the rails when the Miami Herald reports on his extramarital affair. Now we have a groping, misogynist as POTUS and half the country doesn't care, including people of supposed religious values. Saw a young male evangelical interviewed during the Kavanaugh debate. He said: "I don't care if he is guilty of sexual assault, as long as he helps overturn Roe v Wade."
There's a kind of sliming effect in reading this book, that is certainly not intended by the author. In addition to the above, we're reminded in an entire chapter about Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, the hardcore attacks on the "bimbos" by the supposed feminist Hillary Clinton (at the time, I thought her political codependency to her husband was made quite clear by this behavior) and the robust defense of Bill by Gloria Steinem.
Where are the core values? We have none. No matter we are in such a mess today.
======
I think this book is going to be TMI for most readers. Too much minutiae to absorb, or that gets in the way, that tends to undercut the most important points. One GR connection I have listened to the audiobook for this. That might be the best way to go and not worry about missing some of the minutiae.
I am not a political junkie and swimming with these scuzz balls in the book was not pleasant.
Quite a contrast. In 1988, Gary Hart's democratic candidacy gets knocked off the rails when the Miami Herald reports on his extramarital affair. Now we have a groping, misogynist as POTUS and half the country doesn't care, including people of supposed religious values. Saw a young male evangelical interviewed during the Kavanaugh debate. He said: "I don't care if he is guilty of sexual assault, as long as he helps overturn Roe v Wade."
There's a kind of sliming effect in reading this book, that is certainly not intended by the author. In addition to the above, we're reminded in an entire chapter about Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, the hardcore attacks on the "bimbos" by the supposed feminist Hillary Clinton (at the time, I thought her political codependency to her husband was made quite clear by this behavior) and the robust defense of Bill by Gloria Steinem.
Where are the core values? We have none. No matter we are in such a mess today.
======
I think this book is going to be TMI for most readers. Too much minutiae to absorb, or that gets in the way, that tends to undercut the most important points. One GR connection I have listened to the audiobook for this. That might be the best way to go and not worry about missing some of the minutiae.
I am not a political junkie and swimming with these scuzz balls in the book was not pleasant.
November 22, 2020
MSNBC’s election chartthrob Steve Kornacki wrote a really interesting book about how US politics evolved to become so incredibly polarized. While the book is mostly just laying out the facts of what happened between different politicians and their political parties I wouldn’t say that it’s all that dry. However, I do wish that there was some editorializing and not just a recounting of information. My favorite sections were the ones about campaigns and elections.
December 11, 2019
The older I get the more I enjoy reading about political history. I have so few administrations in my recent memory so revisiting the climate of my youth is wildly interesting. I found that learning more about Clinton’s two terms especially challenged my previous, ignorant stance on his scandal-ridden elections and presidency. It’s really embarrassing, looking back. This book included much about Reagan and HW Bush and went into the transition from Clinton to the next Bush president as well. We talk to often about how divided our country is now, politically & ideologically but I hadn’t realized just how far back the tribalism goes. This just came out last year, I’m sure many others my age (even older) are interested in seeing how long the major parties have been conniving for each own’s best interests only, the rest of the country be damned. I’m hoping that the particular pain many are feeling now will be able to catalyze some lasting, progressive change that can best benefit the individual not the corporation but also on a broader scale better the health of the planet. I’m hoping hard for it.
October 4, 2018
Mr. Kornacki must have spent untold hours researching and studying this masterful look at the history of the current political party attitudes. I say this as the book was comprehensive and gave a deep understanding of the motivations that had a voter choosing which party to adjoin themselves to.
I was very impressed at the depth of understanding the political climates during the period of Civil War through the ending of the Clinton years.
This is a book that takes serious thinking as you progress through history of the parties.
I was very impressed at the depth of understanding the political climates during the period of Civil War through the ending of the Clinton years.
This is a book that takes serious thinking as you progress through history of the parties.
January 10, 2020
The Red and the Blue
by Steve Kornacki
“When the 1990s began, Democrats seemed incapable of winning the presidency, just as Republicans were seen as a permanent minority party in Congress. The collision of Bill Clinton, the first Democratic president in a dozen years, and a Gingrichized Republican opposition unleashed a series of convulsive events that gave new definition to both parties and compelled Americans to pick sides once and for all.” (Page 422).
I admit I’m a political Junkie. You can have your NBA and NFL, politics is my favorite spectator sport. For a long time I have enjoyed watching politicians beat up each other, accomplish nothing, and call it governing. Many of the events described in this book are examples. I am well aware that it’s “We the People” who get screwed, but I have enjoyed a good life with a good job and felt safe and secure.
That is not the case any longer. The polarization and divisiveness have gotten mean and nasty recently. I have wondered when and how that happened. This book is an attempt to explain that divide.
The main characters in this book are Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. The author introduces these two and described some of the events leading up to the main act. There is a brief description of George Bush the First and then deals with the 1992 election.
Prior to that we are given a description of the combative brand of politics practiced by Gingrich. He realizes the power of scandal to bring down some powerful people including the then Majority Leader, Jim Wright. In describing some of these takedowns the author observes “what Newt Gingrich did this week would have been unthinkable” in a previous era. (Page 112). Also Gingrich “demonstrated not just that scandal could be a mighty political weapon, but that it could be manufactured and intensified by a determined political party.” (Page 250)”
The author also describes the rise of the Republican identification of the Christian Coalition and the NRA.
Bill Clinton is not spared in this account. Following the Republican national landslide in the 1994 mid-term elections, Peter Jennings and Jeff Greenfield of ABC are quoted: “This shift of historical proportions is taking place in a year when there’s no historically explainable reason — no war, no scandal, no recession,” Greenfield said. “It’s happening for reasons we can only speculate. If you don’t mind an early one: they don’t like Bill Clinton.”
“No kidding,” Jennings replied.” (Page 284)
A lengthy section of the book deals with the Monica Lewinsky affair and the subsequent impeachment. This is a timely segment but I don’t think it sheds much light on the current impeachment. It is described as something the public did not approve, but it was old news regarding Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is also dealt with here, but she is mainly is a non-factor. Her “Bravery” in the face of the Lewinsky affair is described as admirable. Her election as a Senator from New York is described, but again as some political force in her own right.
The author also describes the petulance of Ross Perot and teases us with an account of Donald Trump toying with a run as a Reform Party presidential candidate in the 2000 election. He also includes a brief account of the 2000 election, but it doesn’t really add much to this story.
This is an extraordinary book for anyone interested in the politics of this time period; Well researched and in-depth descriptions of the important events marking this period.
In 2016 I remarked to a friend that I wish we had a Theodore H. White to help me make sense of this election. (It’s been 50 years since I have read his books so it might not be an accurate comment at this time.) But I am excited about this author. There is some sense at the end that he might look into future political events someday. I hope so.
So in summary, did this book explain the polarization and divisiveness of our current time. As the quote at the start of this review says it forced Americans to pick a side, but that has happened before. Granted we are divided now and were then, but in the meantime we elected a Black man President and then reelected him 4 years later. This happened in a country still racked with racism.
For me, I am going to go with the statement by Joseph J. Ellis in his book American Dialogue:
The population of the United States according to the first census in 1790 was just shy of 4 million, and the two leading candidates for president the previous year were George Washington and John Adams. The population in 2016 was 315 million, and the two candidates for president were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Page 224)
Enough Said.
by Steve Kornacki
“When the 1990s began, Democrats seemed incapable of winning the presidency, just as Republicans were seen as a permanent minority party in Congress. The collision of Bill Clinton, the first Democratic president in a dozen years, and a Gingrichized Republican opposition unleashed a series of convulsive events that gave new definition to both parties and compelled Americans to pick sides once and for all.” (Page 422).
I admit I’m a political Junkie. You can have your NBA and NFL, politics is my favorite spectator sport. For a long time I have enjoyed watching politicians beat up each other, accomplish nothing, and call it governing. Many of the events described in this book are examples. I am well aware that it’s “We the People” who get screwed, but I have enjoyed a good life with a good job and felt safe and secure.
That is not the case any longer. The polarization and divisiveness have gotten mean and nasty recently. I have wondered when and how that happened. This book is an attempt to explain that divide.
The main characters in this book are Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. The author introduces these two and described some of the events leading up to the main act. There is a brief description of George Bush the First and then deals with the 1992 election.
Prior to that we are given a description of the combative brand of politics practiced by Gingrich. He realizes the power of scandal to bring down some powerful people including the then Majority Leader, Jim Wright. In describing some of these takedowns the author observes “what Newt Gingrich did this week would have been unthinkable” in a previous era. (Page 112). Also Gingrich “demonstrated not just that scandal could be a mighty political weapon, but that it could be manufactured and intensified by a determined political party.” (Page 250)”
The author also describes the rise of the Republican identification of the Christian Coalition and the NRA.
Bill Clinton is not spared in this account. Following the Republican national landslide in the 1994 mid-term elections, Peter Jennings and Jeff Greenfield of ABC are quoted: “This shift of historical proportions is taking place in a year when there’s no historically explainable reason — no war, no scandal, no recession,” Greenfield said. “It’s happening for reasons we can only speculate. If you don’t mind an early one: they don’t like Bill Clinton.”
“No kidding,” Jennings replied.” (Page 284)
A lengthy section of the book deals with the Monica Lewinsky affair and the subsequent impeachment. This is a timely segment but I don’t think it sheds much light on the current impeachment. It is described as something the public did not approve, but it was old news regarding Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is also dealt with here, but she is mainly is a non-factor. Her “Bravery” in the face of the Lewinsky affair is described as admirable. Her election as a Senator from New York is described, but again as some political force in her own right.
The author also describes the petulance of Ross Perot and teases us with an account of Donald Trump toying with a run as a Reform Party presidential candidate in the 2000 election. He also includes a brief account of the 2000 election, but it doesn’t really add much to this story.
This is an extraordinary book for anyone interested in the politics of this time period; Well researched and in-depth descriptions of the important events marking this period.
In 2016 I remarked to a friend that I wish we had a Theodore H. White to help me make sense of this election. (It’s been 50 years since I have read his books so it might not be an accurate comment at this time.) But I am excited about this author. There is some sense at the end that he might look into future political events someday. I hope so.
So in summary, did this book explain the polarization and divisiveness of our current time. As the quote at the start of this review says it forced Americans to pick a side, but that has happened before. Granted we are divided now and were then, but in the meantime we elected a Black man President and then reelected him 4 years later. This happened in a country still racked with racism.
For me, I am going to go with the statement by Joseph J. Ellis in his book American Dialogue:
The population of the United States according to the first census in 1790 was just shy of 4 million, and the two leading candidates for president the previous year were George Washington and John Adams. The population in 2016 was 315 million, and the two candidates for president were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Page 224)
Enough Said.
July 12, 2018
Masterful and informative. Kornacki does an excellent job tying the hyper-partisan atmosphere that exists today to the Gingrich revolution and shows the strong parallels between Pat Buchanon's runs for president and Trump's campaign.
March 23, 2022
I cannot pretend as though I have anything insightful to say about the content of this book. And if you are surprised by that admission, I don't know what to tell you.
I would agree with the assessment that this is a fairly straightforward history of events, some commentary, and a sprinkle of analytics. It's a balanced approach that I didn't think always worked, but on the whole was what made the book as enjoyable as it was.
While clearly a discussion of the 90s political climate the book is bookended by a brief rundown of events that would set in motion Kornacki's main desire to use Gingrich and Clinton as the central focus of the discussion, then at the end we get a brief overview of the lead into the new millennium and the election of W. It really is this central part of the novel, where we're firmly in the nineties discussing the way the Clinton campaign for president in '92 was coming together in contrast to the developments in the Gingrich side of the novel that the book was at its strongest. It was clear that the ending was weak and lead in was mired in setup that was clearly necessary, was also something that could have been a book in its own right.
I will definitely be picking this up again in the future, and as part of my mini kick into political nonfiction this was every bit the delight it would be.
I would agree with the assessment that this is a fairly straightforward history of events, some commentary, and a sprinkle of analytics. It's a balanced approach that I didn't think always worked, but on the whole was what made the book as enjoyable as it was.
While clearly a discussion of the 90s political climate the book is bookended by a brief rundown of events that would set in motion Kornacki's main desire to use Gingrich and Clinton as the central focus of the discussion, then at the end we get a brief overview of the lead into the new millennium and the election of W. It really is this central part of the novel, where we're firmly in the nineties discussing the way the Clinton campaign for president in '92 was coming together in contrast to the developments in the Gingrich side of the novel that the book was at its strongest. It was clear that the ending was weak and lead in was mired in setup that was clearly necessary, was also something that could have been a book in its own right.
I will definitely be picking this up again in the future, and as part of my mini kick into political nonfiction this was every bit the delight it would be.
July 10, 2019
This is a great survey of the political history of the 1990s. Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot are here (seeds of today), and the rise of Newt Gingrich, and how he helped change the operation and philosophy of the Republican Party. It was not about compromise, but it was about divide and attack. The author also chronicles the hatred Republicans had with the Clintons.
I think the polarization goes farther back than the 1990s, but I will refer back to this book often.
I think the polarization goes farther back than the 1990s, but I will refer back to this book often.
did-not-finish
January 11, 2021I started listening to this but I’m not in the mood right now.
May 22, 2019
As a progressive liberal Democrat, this book was pretty eye-opening for me.
What I found most surprising about this book is that Democrats have their share of responsibility for the tribalism that has arisen in the US. Complacent in their control of a "permanent Democratic Congress," their focus became more and more about protecting themselves and retaining office than attempting bold governance and serving their constituencies. Republican politicians used the same playbook, don't make waves, just do a little something here and there so it seems like we're working, but not anything substantive enough to upset the clueless voters. Gadfly Gingrich blew all of that up, starting with his own party, bullying his way to Speaker of the House and turning that guerilla warfare nastiness on Clinton, much to the delight of the newly minted mini-bullies who got elected by emulating him. The Democrats took a walloping in 1994, losing both the House and the Senate, and maybe they deserved to lose. I liked Clinton a lot back in the day, thought he was unfairly persecuted, but ew. He was really kind of a sleazeball.
Things I learned:
1. Clinton cronyism goes way back. Apparently, Hillary Clinton lobbied hard to fire the entire Travel Office staff and appoint 25 year old Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of Bill Clinton who had worked the campaign, as its director. Billy Ray Dale, who had held the position for over 30 years, was summarily fired to make way for the nepotistic change.
2. Bill Clinton is a bigger sleazeball than I knew, dodging and lying to both himself and the world with astonishing ease. He was also the first to pillage the Social Security fund, which was, until that time, sacrosanct.
3. Newt Gingrich is a bigger sleazeball than I knew, ruining long-serving fellow Republicans' careers in order to gain power for himself.
4. Trump stole everything in his campaign from Pat Buchanan. Get this: Buchanan called for a wall all along the southern US border. He wanted to stop all immigration, both legal and illegal. He hated NAFTA and liked protectionism and tariffs. He railed against political correctness. He championed "American culture" (as opposed to brown people culture, whistle, whistle). He reveled in his "outsider" status, noting that party insiders had "rigged the game to protect the party favorites" and essentially claimed that he would drain the swamp.
There's much more, but those are the highlights. Very worthwhile read.
What I found most surprising about this book is that Democrats have their share of responsibility for the tribalism that has arisen in the US. Complacent in their control of a "permanent Democratic Congress," their focus became more and more about protecting themselves and retaining office than attempting bold governance and serving their constituencies. Republican politicians used the same playbook, don't make waves, just do a little something here and there so it seems like we're working, but not anything substantive enough to upset the clueless voters. Gadfly Gingrich blew all of that up, starting with his own party, bullying his way to Speaker of the House and turning that guerilla warfare nastiness on Clinton, much to the delight of the newly minted mini-bullies who got elected by emulating him. The Democrats took a walloping in 1994, losing both the House and the Senate, and maybe they deserved to lose. I liked Clinton a lot back in the day, thought he was unfairly persecuted, but ew. He was really kind of a sleazeball.
Things I learned:
1. Clinton cronyism goes way back. Apparently, Hillary Clinton lobbied hard to fire the entire Travel Office staff and appoint 25 year old Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of Bill Clinton who had worked the campaign, as its director. Billy Ray Dale, who had held the position for over 30 years, was summarily fired to make way for the nepotistic change.
2. Bill Clinton is a bigger sleazeball than I knew, dodging and lying to both himself and the world with astonishing ease. He was also the first to pillage the Social Security fund, which was, until that time, sacrosanct.
3. Newt Gingrich is a bigger sleazeball than I knew, ruining long-serving fellow Republicans' careers in order to gain power for himself.
4. Trump stole everything in his campaign from Pat Buchanan. Get this: Buchanan called for a wall all along the southern US border. He wanted to stop all immigration, both legal and illegal. He hated NAFTA and liked protectionism and tariffs. He railed against political correctness. He championed "American culture" (as opposed to brown people culture, whistle, whistle). He reveled in his "outsider" status, noting that party insiders had "rigged the game to protect the party favorites" and essentially claimed that he would drain the swamp.
There's much more, but those are the highlights. Very worthwhile read.
August 4, 2021
Steve Kornacki's The Red and the Blue positions itself as a recent history of the political trends of the 1990s and asserts they are the origins of our current political tribalism. However, it is a far more narrowly delimited, play-by-play narrative pertaining to major political figures of the 90s (Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Ross Perot). Kornacki's writing is smooth and clear, moving us at lightening speed through a lot political drama and personal biographies with sufficient depth and balance. The writing (unsurprising given Kornacki's background) reads as if it is sports journalism rather than history or even political journalism. However, this is both a strength and a weakness.
Kornacki's neat historical narrative hardly touches on the underlying social, cultural, and economic forces that are the more plausible culprits for the contemporary intensity of hyper-polarization. Instead, he implicitly opts for quasi "great man theory" in chronicling 90s political theater with secondary attention to policy and sociocultural trends. Subsequently, close political observers (even those too young to remember or have participated in the 90s) will likely be well aware of most of the books content (e.g. the Lewinsky affair). Kornacki's fair and honest treatment of these events deserves praise as debate of course continues about much of the book's content, usually revolving around who to assign blame to for various escalations.
Kornacki's neat historical narrative hardly touches on the underlying social, cultural, and economic forces that are the more plausible culprits for the contemporary intensity of hyper-polarization. Instead, he implicitly opts for quasi "great man theory" in chronicling 90s political theater with secondary attention to policy and sociocultural trends. Subsequently, close political observers (even those too young to remember or have participated in the 90s) will likely be well aware of most of the books content (e.g. the Lewinsky affair). Kornacki's fair and honest treatment of these events deserves praise as debate of course continues about much of the book's content, usually revolving around who to assign blame to for various escalations.
April 4, 2019
In THE RED AND THE BLUE, Steve Kornacki tries to explain the state of contemporary politics by looking at the 1990s, specifically, looking at the careers of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. How did we get to this point? Why is the United States so divided politically that we now have separate truths? Obviously, divisions have always existed in American politics (see 1861-1865 for example), but in the context of post-WWII America there is something different about today, something pernicious and dangerous. Despite the political shibboleths, there is also something seemingly hopeless about the current divide.
There are obvious obstacles to the "great man" approach to history, to looking at the creation of our current political culture via the prism of Clinton/Gringrich. Nuance, causal multiplicity, and depth can be negated. For example, the current polarization does indeed have much to do with decisions and actions of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. But, American cynicism was stoked to fever pitches in the 1960s and 1970s by the lies Lyndon Johnson told about the Vietnam War and the moral bankruptcy of the Richard Nixon administration. Ronald Reagan is much revered by many, but his rhetorical disdain for "government" gave cover to many of the dark forces unleashed today.
So, while Kornacki's book should not be considered the sine qua non of explanations for our current political state, it is extraordinarily helpful at setting the table for our understanding. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton took pre-existing conditions and cemented those tendencies into our politics. Compromise becomes a dirty word. It is more important to oppose an plan than to propose a plan.
Vilify the political opponent through constant repetition of easily digestible ideas (taxes are bad, family values, "I feel your pain"). Personality becomes more important than policy. Partisanship is thing one. Over time, Republicans seem to be much better at this new form of in-fighting than Democrats, and our national discussions have become much more conservative as a result. Of course, when those forces of negativity are given voice it is sometimes hard to control the end result, as Republicans discovered in 2016.
There is often a sense of "the more things change the more they remain the same" in Kornacki's book. It is quite clear that the American First ideas Pat Buchanan espoused in his 1992 and 1996 insurgencies have re-emerged full-force in the Trump presidency. The current rhetoric about Israel follows the same script created by Ed Koch and Jesse Jackson in 1988.
Kornacki also touches on significant changes in politicking. In 1988, a 41-year old Bill Clinton, ripe with ambition, put his presidential aspirations on hold following the Gary Hart sex scandal. After all, now that private lives were fair game for the press Clinton had new considerations. No longer would the press simply overlook presidential indiscretions. Kornacki is good on the new realities, whether they are obstacles hindering Clinton, tools in Gingrich's rise to power or, eventually, the cause for Gingrich's downfall. He explores the impact of new technologies to a lesser degree. In the 1990s, the United States sees the rise of the new information age. On a macro level that helps the Clinton administration balance the budget, as new technologies and new appetites begat new start-ups. It also helped lead to Clinton's impeachment, as the Drudge Report and other web-based sites fed the Monica Lewinski scandal. Is there a Trump administration without Twitter?
THE RED AND THE BLUE is the latest of a slew of political histories published by MSNBC hosts and reporters coming out of the 2016 election. Kornacki's writing does not have the panache of Lawrence O'Donnell but this is still a very good book. In alternating chapters he relates the stories of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. Kornacki lays out the timeline in a matter-of-fact style, using largely (East Coast) newspapers and, to a lesser extent, television transcripts from news broadcasts as his primary sources. Interested observers will want to read more in depth about the creation of seemingly inextricably divided red and blue states, about the demise of old standards such as a belief in a loyal opposition, in the value of a free press, in the existence of science and inarguable truths. Kornacki's book, however, is a good place to start and a good reminder of how two selfish and ruthlessly ambitious men can skew a nation.
Looking back at it,
could it be that Bill and Newt
are the South's revenge?
There are obvious obstacles to the "great man" approach to history, to looking at the creation of our current political culture via the prism of Clinton/Gringrich. Nuance, causal multiplicity, and depth can be negated. For example, the current polarization does indeed have much to do with decisions and actions of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. But, American cynicism was stoked to fever pitches in the 1960s and 1970s by the lies Lyndon Johnson told about the Vietnam War and the moral bankruptcy of the Richard Nixon administration. Ronald Reagan is much revered by many, but his rhetorical disdain for "government" gave cover to many of the dark forces unleashed today.
So, while Kornacki's book should not be considered the sine qua non of explanations for our current political state, it is extraordinarily helpful at setting the table for our understanding. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton took pre-existing conditions and cemented those tendencies into our politics. Compromise becomes a dirty word. It is more important to oppose an plan than to propose a plan.
Vilify the political opponent through constant repetition of easily digestible ideas (taxes are bad, family values, "I feel your pain"). Personality becomes more important than policy. Partisanship is thing one. Over time, Republicans seem to be much better at this new form of in-fighting than Democrats, and our national discussions have become much more conservative as a result. Of course, when those forces of negativity are given voice it is sometimes hard to control the end result, as Republicans discovered in 2016.
There is often a sense of "the more things change the more they remain the same" in Kornacki's book. It is quite clear that the American First ideas Pat Buchanan espoused in his 1992 and 1996 insurgencies have re-emerged full-force in the Trump presidency. The current rhetoric about Israel follows the same script created by Ed Koch and Jesse Jackson in 1988.
Kornacki also touches on significant changes in politicking. In 1988, a 41-year old Bill Clinton, ripe with ambition, put his presidential aspirations on hold following the Gary Hart sex scandal. After all, now that private lives were fair game for the press Clinton had new considerations. No longer would the press simply overlook presidential indiscretions. Kornacki is good on the new realities, whether they are obstacles hindering Clinton, tools in Gingrich's rise to power or, eventually, the cause for Gingrich's downfall. He explores the impact of new technologies to a lesser degree. In the 1990s, the United States sees the rise of the new information age. On a macro level that helps the Clinton administration balance the budget, as new technologies and new appetites begat new start-ups. It also helped lead to Clinton's impeachment, as the Drudge Report and other web-based sites fed the Monica Lewinski scandal. Is there a Trump administration without Twitter?
THE RED AND THE BLUE is the latest of a slew of political histories published by MSNBC hosts and reporters coming out of the 2016 election. Kornacki's writing does not have the panache of Lawrence O'Donnell but this is still a very good book. In alternating chapters he relates the stories of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. Kornacki lays out the timeline in a matter-of-fact style, using largely (East Coast) newspapers and, to a lesser extent, television transcripts from news broadcasts as his primary sources. Interested observers will want to read more in depth about the creation of seemingly inextricably divided red and blue states, about the demise of old standards such as a belief in a loyal opposition, in the value of a free press, in the existence of science and inarguable truths. Kornacki's book, however, is a good place to start and a good reminder of how two selfish and ruthlessly ambitious men can skew a nation.
Looking back at it,
could it be that Bill and Newt
are the South's revenge?
October 18, 2018
I devoured this book, and the only regret I have about that is that Steve Kornacki doesn't have more books for me to read.
Why was I so into this?
1. This book chronicles the rise and fall of my political obsession. It starts with 1988, the very first presidential election that I remember and the first election I became obsessed with. As a blue-eyed, blonde-haired child, I spent most of my time with dance and modeling. But any and all free time? Constant studying everything politics. And this wasn't as easy it is now. I had the nightly news and the hometown newspaper. So I would ask anyone that looked like they knew what they were talking about all of the questions they were buzzing around my head.
It became easier as we headed into 1992. My obsession grew to late night television, as I realized this nightly form of entertainment was also another bridge to understanding the political world. I started that season with a firm belief in Tsongas and then moved to Clinton, which made me uncomfortable. After all, I was a pretty moral 11 year old that believed our leaders should be the best of us (oh if I only knew). I had very little in the way of challenging me, as none of my friends had reached my level of knowledge. It was about this time that I forced my mother to register to vote and then started voting for her.
And then 1994 came and my heart broke. My hero, Mario Cuomo, was voted out of office. It was the first race I really had anyone challenge my knowledge, as my kindergarten boyfriend was on the right (and yes, it was as painfully adorable as it sounded). Although we had left any romantic thoughts back in kindergarten, we loved spending time together to argue every point we could. My world was blossoming.
In 1996, I have memories of running around high school telling everyone I knew that we should support Clinton. I also remember that Clinton lost because my competitors harped on school uniforms. I couldn't comprehend why that was such a big deal since the world was oh so much bigger than that.
I left high school with the closing remarks, "I'm going to be George Stephanopoulos," and ran off to Ohio to study politics at a right wing school. Suddenly things started to shift.
1998 brought the downfall of D'Amato, which I cheered for from afar, and I, for the first time, became very aware that people considered me the enemy. To the point that someone said to my face, "I don't know why you're here." I didn't know either, but I stayed anyways.
By 2000, I had founded Young Democrats on my campus and had discovered there was really no bottom to what people would say to me. There was even a chalking incident where I was able to make the Dems look like they were equally represented on campus, which pissed people off. So every place where we chalked, they followed it up with, "Al Gore kills babies," or "Al Gore likes little boys," or something equally vile. Coupled with daily messages of hate thrown at me, the shine had come off. I spent Election Day surrounded by that hate, but I didn't let that dim my light as I cheered loudly when I realized Hillary Clinton was now my senator (despite the fact that I never really lived in NYS again).
Reliving the events in this book really made me remember how happy politics used to make me during all of this. My nerdiness knew no bounds, and I didn't really realize how much I missed this part of my life.
2. Despite the fact that I had studied so hard and lived all of the events, this book challenged my memories. It really demonstrated how different information moved back then versus now. My sources of information started off as just my hometown paper and the nightly news. Being a really active kid meant that I missed the nightly news regularly, which meant I missed my connection to what I loved. Being poor meant that it took me a lot longer to get CNN and C-SPAN, but my God, when I did, I couldn't tear my eyes away. The internet as a source for this information wasn't an option until I got to college and without a computer of my own, it was awhile before it became a true source for me.
In other words, there was a lot that I missed. This book filled in a lot of those holes, and at times made me uncomfortable. I knew these elections. I lived them. Why did so much seem different? As it turns out, the eyes of a teenager are quite different from the eyes of a woman in her mid-30s.
3. Steve Kornacki's writing style is easy and able to infuse all of the excitement I felt while actually living the events. I skimmed through the acknowledgements and realized it was likely because his story with politics was similar to mine: the nerd that couldn't quit it. I read this after the latest Doris Kearns Goodwin, and I had some concerns about reading this after that. My concerns were unfounded. The torch is passing and we have a great author that is very much worthy of it. I am looking forward to devouring what he writes for me next.
Why was I so into this?
1. This book chronicles the rise and fall of my political obsession. It starts with 1988, the very first presidential election that I remember and the first election I became obsessed with. As a blue-eyed, blonde-haired child, I spent most of my time with dance and modeling. But any and all free time? Constant studying everything politics. And this wasn't as easy it is now. I had the nightly news and the hometown newspaper. So I would ask anyone that looked like they knew what they were talking about all of the questions they were buzzing around my head.
It became easier as we headed into 1992. My obsession grew to late night television, as I realized this nightly form of entertainment was also another bridge to understanding the political world. I started that season with a firm belief in Tsongas and then moved to Clinton, which made me uncomfortable. After all, I was a pretty moral 11 year old that believed our leaders should be the best of us (oh if I only knew). I had very little in the way of challenging me, as none of my friends had reached my level of knowledge. It was about this time that I forced my mother to register to vote and then started voting for her.
And then 1994 came and my heart broke. My hero, Mario Cuomo, was voted out of office. It was the first race I really had anyone challenge my knowledge, as my kindergarten boyfriend was on the right (and yes, it was as painfully adorable as it sounded). Although we had left any romantic thoughts back in kindergarten, we loved spending time together to argue every point we could. My world was blossoming.
In 1996, I have memories of running around high school telling everyone I knew that we should support Clinton. I also remember that Clinton lost because my competitors harped on school uniforms. I couldn't comprehend why that was such a big deal since the world was oh so much bigger than that.
I left high school with the closing remarks, "I'm going to be George Stephanopoulos," and ran off to Ohio to study politics at a right wing school. Suddenly things started to shift.
1998 brought the downfall of D'Amato, which I cheered for from afar, and I, for the first time, became very aware that people considered me the enemy. To the point that someone said to my face, "I don't know why you're here." I didn't know either, but I stayed anyways.
By 2000, I had founded Young Democrats on my campus and had discovered there was really no bottom to what people would say to me. There was even a chalking incident where I was able to make the Dems look like they were equally represented on campus, which pissed people off. So every place where we chalked, they followed it up with, "Al Gore kills babies," or "Al Gore likes little boys," or something equally vile. Coupled with daily messages of hate thrown at me, the shine had come off. I spent Election Day surrounded by that hate, but I didn't let that dim my light as I cheered loudly when I realized Hillary Clinton was now my senator (despite the fact that I never really lived in NYS again).
Reliving the events in this book really made me remember how happy politics used to make me during all of this. My nerdiness knew no bounds, and I didn't really realize how much I missed this part of my life.
2. Despite the fact that I had studied so hard and lived all of the events, this book challenged my memories. It really demonstrated how different information moved back then versus now. My sources of information started off as just my hometown paper and the nightly news. Being a really active kid meant that I missed the nightly news regularly, which meant I missed my connection to what I loved. Being poor meant that it took me a lot longer to get CNN and C-SPAN, but my God, when I did, I couldn't tear my eyes away. The internet as a source for this information wasn't an option until I got to college and without a computer of my own, it was awhile before it became a true source for me.
In other words, there was a lot that I missed. This book filled in a lot of those holes, and at times made me uncomfortable. I knew these elections. I lived them. Why did so much seem different? As it turns out, the eyes of a teenager are quite different from the eyes of a woman in her mid-30s.
3. Steve Kornacki's writing style is easy and able to infuse all of the excitement I felt while actually living the events. I skimmed through the acknowledgements and realized it was likely because his story with politics was similar to mine: the nerd that couldn't quit it. I read this after the latest Doris Kearns Goodwin, and I had some concerns about reading this after that. My concerns were unfounded. The torch is passing and we have a great author that is very much worthy of it. I am looking forward to devouring what he writes for me next.
November 21, 2020
To begin, I should confess a girlish truth: I checked out this tome in text and audiobook editions for one reason only--it was penned by MSNBC election wizard Steve Kornacki. When I dug into the content, however, I was filled with a softer mix of fascination and nostalgia as I heard milestones from history that I had lived through but remembered only as "I was alive when" anecdotes. Kornacki manages to gather a giant volume of material and present it not as disconnected happenings but as a narrative, bringing it to the reader's eye with a flow that we don't often get to experience as it occurs in real time on our televisions or smart devices. Today's readers of this book will find names they may have forgotten about, like Newt Gingrich and Ross Perot, and others they'll know very well, including Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In case you've been living under a rock, there's been a huge collection of people in recent years asking how America's political system morphed into what it is today; if you're part of that group, this book sets about the immense task of answering your question.
February 23, 2021
This book taught me so much about the modern American political system. I wasn’t old enough to really grasp what was happening in the 90s politically, and what happened was integral to how American politics works today. I cannot sing this book’s praises enough! It is deeply engaging, extremely interesting, and nonpartisan in its delivery.
Well done, Steve!
Well done, Steve!
November 1, 2021
Absolutely one of the most interesting books I have read on our recent political history! This book focuses on a single decade...the 1990s...which was a pivotal time in the development of the identity of our modern political parties. It's very interesting to read about events that I lived through and vaguely remember but was too young at the time to really understand their significance and impact. So engagingly written I can definitely call this a page-turner. Highly recommend no matter what party you identify with.
December 20, 2020
This book is staggeringly well researched (and has lots of fun factoids) while still remaining fast-paced and engaging. I learned more from this than at least three college classes. Essential reading for How We Got Here.
March 11, 2024
As a 90s kid, I was too young to understand the politics at the time, and I was not definitely interested because my focus was on Pokémon, Gameboy, watching Batman, and being a child. I learned about some of the politics of the 90s and Bill Clinton's Presidency as I got older. However, I wanted to learn more about the politics of my childhood. I wanted to learn more about Clinton, Newt Gingrich, the Contract for America, and the birth of tribalism. Kornacki provides us a play by play of the debates and topics from that time period.
Pros: I learned new things. I understand more of the feud between Gingrich and Clinton. The elections were the strongest parts of the book.
Cons: Kornacki dragged in some parts. I don't agree with his overall thesis. We can go back to the early days of our country's history and argue that is where political tribalism began.
Not a bad book by any means. If you want to learn about the political atmosphere of the 90s this is a good read.
Pros: I learned new things. I understand more of the feud between Gingrich and Clinton. The elections were the strongest parts of the book.
Cons: Kornacki dragged in some parts. I don't agree with his overall thesis. We can go back to the early days of our country's history and argue that is where political tribalism began.
Not a bad book by any means. If you want to learn about the political atmosphere of the 90s this is a good read.
December 7, 2018
One of the best political books I've read in some time. Written in a journalistic manner that is easy to read and isn't bogged down in academic jargon, it tells the modern beginning of our political divide. Highly recommended.
September 30, 2018
Given the politically divided nation that we live in, this book offered a fascinating explanation on the rise of tribalism that accelerated in the 1990s. Engaging and offering key insight into the turbulent decade, The Red and the Blue is an enjoyable, interesting read that offers a better picture for the America we live in today.
September 6, 2024
There are basically not likable people in this entire book... somehow Donald Trump emerges as one of the most reasonable sounding people in the entire text (calling out bigotry, racism & antisemitism)???? Kornacki's analysis does not dig deep and this book will probably make you feel depressed about American politics BUT taken as a mean girls esque soap opera, you can at least revel in the ridiculousness of the people running our nation.
October 9, 2018
Steve Kornacki presents a great rationale for modern politics via George Bush's "read my lips" rollback, the rise of Gingrichism and the politics of clearly parsed talk by Bill Clinton. These resulted in the diminishing of cross-party compromise, the party-based political divides of the 1990s and the angry red/blue tribalism that followed. A great read - one of my few 5-star ratings all year.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 384 reviews