What do you think?
Rate this book
If We Can Keep It: How the Republic Collapsed and How it Might Be Saved
A game-changing account of the deep roots of political polarization in America, including an audacious fourteen-point agenda for how to fix it. Why has American politics fallen into such a state of horrible dysfunction? Can it ever be fixed? These are the questions that motivate Michael Tomasky’s deeply original examination into the origins of our hopelessly polarized nation. “One of America’s finest political commentators” (Michael J. Sandel), Tomasky ranges across centuries and disciplines to show how America has almost always had two dominant parties that are existentially, and often violently, opposed. When he turns to our current era, he does so with striking insight that will challenge readers to reexamine what they thought they knew. Finally, not content merely to diagnose these problems, Tomasky offers a provocative agenda for how we can help fix our broken political system―from ranked-choice voting and at-large congressional elections to expanding high school civics education nationwide. Combining revelatory data with trenchant analysis, Tomasky tells us how the nation broke apart and points us toward a more hopeful political future. 8 black and white photographs
288 pages, Hardcover
Published February 5, 2019
91 people are currently reading
491 people want to read
About the author
Michael Tomasky
14 books11 followersMichael John Tomasky is an American columnist, commentator, journalist and author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
February 15, 2019
If I told you that America today is deeply polarized, you could remind me that America has always been deeply polarized. You could point out that the current rural/urban divide is not so dissimilar from the Jeffersonian/Hamilton divide at the country’s founding. Or that the racial divide was never greater than during the Civil War, or that class division and conflict between labor and business was never greater than during the first Gilded Age and into the Great Depression. And you’d be right.
But what you’d be missing is the fact that polarization today is very different in a subtle way. As Michael Tomasky points out in his latest book, If We Can Keep It: How the Republic Collapsed and How it Might Be Saved, while we’ve always been a polarized country, our polarization has always consisted of both conflict between political parties and within parties. The fact that you used to have, for example, several liberal Republicans and several conservative Democrats meant that bipartisan coalitions could form to negotiate, compromise, and actually pass worthwhile legislation.
Today is a different story. Both left and right have drifted from the center. Radicalized versions of each party find it increasingly difficult to talk to each other, and, as a result, very little gets accomplished. This is what’s different about today.
In the first part of the book, Tomasky describes how the country arrived at this point, and it’s not pretty. It has a lot to do with the recent concentrated effort of the conservative movement to build a massive media outlet and pump a lot of money into the political process. But it also has more than a little to do with the left’s morphing into its own version of the right, employing some of the same tactics the right is known for, like suppressing speech and inciting violence.
Regardless of how it happened, we are living during a time where two ideologically opposed parties are drifting farther apart with no countervailing forces within each party to reel them back in. So what, if anything, can be done?
That’s where Tomasky’s 14-point agenda to reduce polarization comes in, which is covered in depth in the book’s final chapter. While even Tomasky is unsure whether his plan would actually work, he’s identified the political and social fixes that give us our best shot.
In terms of political fixes, some of his ideas seem to be feasible and could be implemented immediately, and some are, as Tomasky admits, unlikely to be adopted. But the extreme political environment we’re in requires extreme solutions, and a bit of thinking outside of the box is necessary if we’re going to make a serious effort to dig ourselves out of the partisan hole we’ve dug over the last quarter century.
Tomasky’s first idea seems to be a good one, supported by many: eliminating political gerrymandering. Done right, this would both ensure that political parties are not over- or underrepresented in Congress (based on the political composition of each state) and that elections could become more competitive.
His next best idea is the introduction of ranked-choice voting, which, among many other advantages, would produce more moderate politicians and less negative ad campaigns as politicians would now have to worry about appealing to all voters, so as to avoid being ranked last by a significant part of the voter base. This is the suggestion I would most like to see instituted. Of course, every policy has its tradeoffs, and ranked-choice voting can produce some bizarre outcomes mathematically, but it’s worth looking at, and the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Another idea that could be implemented immediately is the elimination of the Senate filibuster, which is not part of the Constitution and is simply a procedural tradition we should probably do away with. Eliminating the filibuster will put an end to the very undemocratic supermajority it requires to pass anything in the Senate.
Finally, getting rid of the Electoral College, or forcing the states to commit their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote (in addition to installing ranked-choice voting) would force presidential candidates to cater to those outside of their own base, incentivizing more moderate and civilized behavior.
As for social fixes, the overarching goal is to get people to talk to each other and work together, since it’s easier to hate someone you don’t know, or to hate the idea of someone you have in your head that may or may not reflect reality. To promote this kind of collaboration, Tomasky is recommending high school and college “foreign exchange” programs within the United States, so that northern liberals can work with southern conservatives and vice versa. He also suggests that college be reduced from four years to three years, with the final year dedicated to civil service. I’m not so sure about that one (sacrificing a full year of class-based learning), but the exchange programs seem to be a workable idea.
Tomaksy also recommends expanding civic education in high schools, recognizing the obvious fact that college exchange programs will have no effect on the 60 to 70 percent of Americans who end their formal education at high school.
The idea is that, rather than focusing on preparing students for the workforce, as merely cogs in a larger economic machine, schools should make more of an effort to prepare citizens for responsible civic participation. This includes an expanded history curriculum, as Tomasky suggests, in addition to an expanded curriculum in critical thinking and philosophy, which Tomasky does not suggest.
This is a crucial oversight; the teaching of critical thinking and philosophy—which is almost completely absent in high school education—is just as, and probably more so, important than expanding the history curriculum. If you are susceptible to manipulation, and lack the requisite skeptical thinking skills, then no amount of factual information will protect you from the people who want to manipulate you.
Finally, Tomasky suggests, in terms of political approach, that the left stop turning into the right (and providing ammunition to the right in the form of political correctness, speech codes, and violent acts) and that business leaders start prioritizing something other than short-term profit.
I can find little to criticize about Tomasky’s suggestions (although I would have added a section on expanding critical and skeptical thinking education in high schools), but the real question is if any of these changes will ever be implemented. In that regard, we should keep one fact in mind. As Tomasky notes, political change always follows social change. That means if we really want less divisive politics, we have to demand it, and start organizing around the changes that will lead to greater cooperation, more dialogue, and eventually less polarized political behavior.
But what you’d be missing is the fact that polarization today is very different in a subtle way. As Michael Tomasky points out in his latest book, If We Can Keep It: How the Republic Collapsed and How it Might Be Saved, while we’ve always been a polarized country, our polarization has always consisted of both conflict between political parties and within parties. The fact that you used to have, for example, several liberal Republicans and several conservative Democrats meant that bipartisan coalitions could form to negotiate, compromise, and actually pass worthwhile legislation.
Today is a different story. Both left and right have drifted from the center. Radicalized versions of each party find it increasingly difficult to talk to each other, and, as a result, very little gets accomplished. This is what’s different about today.
In the first part of the book, Tomasky describes how the country arrived at this point, and it’s not pretty. It has a lot to do with the recent concentrated effort of the conservative movement to build a massive media outlet and pump a lot of money into the political process. But it also has more than a little to do with the left’s morphing into its own version of the right, employing some of the same tactics the right is known for, like suppressing speech and inciting violence.
Regardless of how it happened, we are living during a time where two ideologically opposed parties are drifting farther apart with no countervailing forces within each party to reel them back in. So what, if anything, can be done?
That’s where Tomasky’s 14-point agenda to reduce polarization comes in, which is covered in depth in the book’s final chapter. While even Tomasky is unsure whether his plan would actually work, he’s identified the political and social fixes that give us our best shot.
In terms of political fixes, some of his ideas seem to be feasible and could be implemented immediately, and some are, as Tomasky admits, unlikely to be adopted. But the extreme political environment we’re in requires extreme solutions, and a bit of thinking outside of the box is necessary if we’re going to make a serious effort to dig ourselves out of the partisan hole we’ve dug over the last quarter century.
Tomasky’s first idea seems to be a good one, supported by many: eliminating political gerrymandering. Done right, this would both ensure that political parties are not over- or underrepresented in Congress (based on the political composition of each state) and that elections could become more competitive.
His next best idea is the introduction of ranked-choice voting, which, among many other advantages, would produce more moderate politicians and less negative ad campaigns as politicians would now have to worry about appealing to all voters, so as to avoid being ranked last by a significant part of the voter base. This is the suggestion I would most like to see instituted. Of course, every policy has its tradeoffs, and ranked-choice voting can produce some bizarre outcomes mathematically, but it’s worth looking at, and the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
Another idea that could be implemented immediately is the elimination of the Senate filibuster, which is not part of the Constitution and is simply a procedural tradition we should probably do away with. Eliminating the filibuster will put an end to the very undemocratic supermajority it requires to pass anything in the Senate.
Finally, getting rid of the Electoral College, or forcing the states to commit their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote (in addition to installing ranked-choice voting) would force presidential candidates to cater to those outside of their own base, incentivizing more moderate and civilized behavior.
As for social fixes, the overarching goal is to get people to talk to each other and work together, since it’s easier to hate someone you don’t know, or to hate the idea of someone you have in your head that may or may not reflect reality. To promote this kind of collaboration, Tomasky is recommending high school and college “foreign exchange” programs within the United States, so that northern liberals can work with southern conservatives and vice versa. He also suggests that college be reduced from four years to three years, with the final year dedicated to civil service. I’m not so sure about that one (sacrificing a full year of class-based learning), but the exchange programs seem to be a workable idea.
Tomaksy also recommends expanding civic education in high schools, recognizing the obvious fact that college exchange programs will have no effect on the 60 to 70 percent of Americans who end their formal education at high school.
The idea is that, rather than focusing on preparing students for the workforce, as merely cogs in a larger economic machine, schools should make more of an effort to prepare citizens for responsible civic participation. This includes an expanded history curriculum, as Tomasky suggests, in addition to an expanded curriculum in critical thinking and philosophy, which Tomasky does not suggest.
This is a crucial oversight; the teaching of critical thinking and philosophy—which is almost completely absent in high school education—is just as, and probably more so, important than expanding the history curriculum. If you are susceptible to manipulation, and lack the requisite skeptical thinking skills, then no amount of factual information will protect you from the people who want to manipulate you.
Finally, Tomasky suggests, in terms of political approach, that the left stop turning into the right (and providing ammunition to the right in the form of political correctness, speech codes, and violent acts) and that business leaders start prioritizing something other than short-term profit.
I can find little to criticize about Tomasky’s suggestions (although I would have added a section on expanding critical and skeptical thinking education in high schools), but the real question is if any of these changes will ever be implemented. In that regard, we should keep one fact in mind. As Tomasky notes, political change always follows social change. That means if we really want less divisive politics, we have to demand it, and start organizing around the changes that will lead to greater cooperation, more dialogue, and eventually less polarized political behavior.
March 21, 2019
If you are a Democrat, you will like this book.
If you are a Republican, I doubt that you will like this book.
But if you are a man or woman of the Republic, you will find this book somewhere between a waste of time and an absolute contradiction to the suggestion implicit in its title.
The author clearly does not understand the meaning of a “republic”, or the philosophical assumptions creating and undergirding a republic. The wishful thinking about what he wants the republic to become is the principal issue in the book, namely, a “democracy” with a few novel amendments. The book is a Democratic apologia, wherein Democrat is good, and Republican is evil.
Nowhere in this book does the reader find mention of the natural rights of man given to the individual by "their Creator", and that the business of government is to protect those God-given rights. Nowhere in this book does the reader find any mention of the consent of the governed as a covenantal relationship with a Power not only beyond themselves, but beyond the government they select as well.
The book is salted with interspersed notions of the anti-Trump hate-fest that seems to have a grip on current Democrat political discourse. These lead up to the assertion in Chapter Seven that Trump and the Republicans are the party of “ideology”, while the “liberal” club values the freedom of expression and the more pragmatic views of policy formulation. The Trump-bashing culminates in the final chapter as an excursus regarding Trump in the midst of the presentation of Tomasky's fourteen points.
The author’s style is to present an array of selective historical happenings, some of which he then bends to assert his personal viewpoint. A case in point is from pp. 180-182, wherein he brands Republicans as the "ideologues" and the party of "movements" (of course Democrats are not ideologues... Imagine...), while from pp. 183-187 he finishes his orgasmic denunciation of Trump with a comparative whitewash of the Obama presidency. Selective history?? For example, the corruption during the Obama administration is never mentioned, Lois Lerner and the IRS's bigoted and illegal treatment of conservative groups, the Fast and Furious scandal, Benghazi, and the Operation ChokePoint attempt to cut off access of certain groups to financial services by threatening expensive and unwarranted audits of their bankers and lenders, the Solyndra scandal, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber's video-recorded admission of the premeditated falsehoods associated with the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of others.
His fourteen points offered to "restore" the republic range from a responsible inquiry about more representative voting and replacing the current "winner-take-all-and-represent-only-your-own" notion with a "proportional representation" model, to nonsensical ideas direct from a radical rally. Get rid of the Electoral College or bring it under popular vote sway (which of course nullifies its intent). Compel "foreign" exchange programs and extend these to high school students and the workplace wherein employers could farm out employees to other parts of the country (but only unattached employees whom he regards as somewhat rootless, itself an exercise in discrimination. Hardly a republic. "Greatly expand civics education?" To what? The sort of left-wing brainwashing students receive at their worthless colleges these days that militates against the very "creative thinking" that Tomasky calls for?? And Tomasky had to get in more shots at Trump, notably at the bottom of p. 215 wherein he misconstrued or intentionally misquoted Trump's comments about the "sides" at the Charlottesville incident.
Diligent and independent-minded readers seeking recent, intelligent and unbiased discussions of a true Republic are directed to Os Guinness’ new book, "Last Call for Liberty: How America's Genius for Freedom Has Become Its Greatest Threat," Or James Miller’s, "Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to Our Modern World."
"If We Can Keep It"?? No, for following much of Tomasky's line of thinking it will be lost forever.
If you are a Republican, I doubt that you will like this book.
But if you are a man or woman of the Republic, you will find this book somewhere between a waste of time and an absolute contradiction to the suggestion implicit in its title.
The author clearly does not understand the meaning of a “republic”, or the philosophical assumptions creating and undergirding a republic. The wishful thinking about what he wants the republic to become is the principal issue in the book, namely, a “democracy” with a few novel amendments. The book is a Democratic apologia, wherein Democrat is good, and Republican is evil.
Nowhere in this book does the reader find mention of the natural rights of man given to the individual by "their Creator", and that the business of government is to protect those God-given rights. Nowhere in this book does the reader find any mention of the consent of the governed as a covenantal relationship with a Power not only beyond themselves, but beyond the government they select as well.
The book is salted with interspersed notions of the anti-Trump hate-fest that seems to have a grip on current Democrat political discourse. These lead up to the assertion in Chapter Seven that Trump and the Republicans are the party of “ideology”, while the “liberal” club values the freedom of expression and the more pragmatic views of policy formulation. The Trump-bashing culminates in the final chapter as an excursus regarding Trump in the midst of the presentation of Tomasky's fourteen points.
The author’s style is to present an array of selective historical happenings, some of which he then bends to assert his personal viewpoint. A case in point is from pp. 180-182, wherein he brands Republicans as the "ideologues" and the party of "movements" (of course Democrats are not ideologues... Imagine...), while from pp. 183-187 he finishes his orgasmic denunciation of Trump with a comparative whitewash of the Obama presidency. Selective history?? For example, the corruption during the Obama administration is never mentioned, Lois Lerner and the IRS's bigoted and illegal treatment of conservative groups, the Fast and Furious scandal, Benghazi, and the Operation ChokePoint attempt to cut off access of certain groups to financial services by threatening expensive and unwarranted audits of their bankers and lenders, the Solyndra scandal, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber's video-recorded admission of the premeditated falsehoods associated with the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of others.
His fourteen points offered to "restore" the republic range from a responsible inquiry about more representative voting and replacing the current "winner-take-all-and-represent-only-your-own" notion with a "proportional representation" model, to nonsensical ideas direct from a radical rally. Get rid of the Electoral College or bring it under popular vote sway (which of course nullifies its intent). Compel "foreign" exchange programs and extend these to high school students and the workplace wherein employers could farm out employees to other parts of the country (but only unattached employees whom he regards as somewhat rootless, itself an exercise in discrimination. Hardly a republic. "Greatly expand civics education?" To what? The sort of left-wing brainwashing students receive at their worthless colleges these days that militates against the very "creative thinking" that Tomasky calls for?? And Tomasky had to get in more shots at Trump, notably at the bottom of p. 215 wherein he misconstrued or intentionally misquoted Trump's comments about the "sides" at the Charlottesville incident.
Diligent and independent-minded readers seeking recent, intelligent and unbiased discussions of a true Republic are directed to Os Guinness’ new book, "Last Call for Liberty: How America's Genius for Freedom Has Become Its Greatest Threat," Or James Miller’s, "Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to Our Modern World."
"If We Can Keep It"?? No, for following much of Tomasky's line of thinking it will be lost forever.
April 8, 2021
A good overview over the history of division of the Federal government. I learned a lot. Some I didn’t know before. Where the author list me was mentioning a paper by Clifford Janey about teaching more civics in education written in 2017. I know Janey from being the superintendent of Rochester City School District in the 1990s. He was hired as a union buster because he had done it in previous districts in the South. He succeed in breaking off parts of the union and causing great dissension before he was fired and hired by DC. There he pressed standards based education and attaching teachers’ evaluations based in the scores with Michelle Rhee. It drove many minority teachers out of the profession and didn’t improve education. He was finally fired there. As for the Civics education, the author needed to read his federal and state education laws to see if public schools were teaching civics education rather than believing they’re not. Federal law does require it so state laws do too since they accept federal funds and agree to their requirements. A huge problem now as history is required throughout K-12 is that kids are taught too young before they can understand time. In NYS were teaching about Native Americans and Columbus in Kindergarten when kids barely understand yesterday, today and tomorrow and the weeks and months. History is thought throughout elementary school and a full two years in middle school. Then two years of global and another year of American. Economics and a Civics course Citizens in Action for seniors. A big problem is that it’s taught lecture with some crazy activities like Medieval Day or 20’s Day. Too much information crammed into people for it to be meaningful. But I would expect the author to read education laws before adopting this position of “no civics education“ stereotype and look at the authors of the paper more closely.
June 25, 2019
I've read several books over the past 2-1/2 years about how the U.S. reached our present state of political depravity, and what we can do about it. Most of them have been disappointing. They tend to be anti-Trump jeremiads (which is repetitive and useless), or they are just paeans to the vanished consensus of the mid-20th century, or they scold the American people for not being more public-spirited without any serious analysis of how that happened, or their prescriptions for recovery are slight and vague.
This one was an exception. This book was the best analysis I’ve read so far of where we are, how we got here, and how we can get ourselves out of the mess we’re in. (If you think we’re not in a very serious mess, I respectfully submit that you are wrong.)
First, Tomasky tells us bluntly that the consensus era isn’t coming back, and he explains why by reaching all the way back to the founding era of the republic – which also happens to be the founding era of partisanship – and then moving forward through our mostly-partisan history. He explains the background of the era of consensus, and why it was an anomaly, unlikely to occur again.
Next, he delivers a very thorough analysis of how we got here. Not by whining that people don’t bowl together enough anymore, but describing the changes in our politics that let us to where we are today: the development of the radical right, white male resentment of minority and women’s rights (masterfully and cynically exploited by the Republican party), the decline of labor unions, big money in politics, the end of the Fairness Doctrine. He lifts the curtain on the pledge that Grover Norquist extracted from almost all Republican office holders that they will never, under any circumstances, vote for a tax increase. And he explains in just enough detail how the changes in financial markets and relaxed regulation set the stage for corporate raiders, a culture of consumerism, and the huge and growing gap between executives’ salaries and bonuses and workers’ wages.
Finally, he puts forth 14 concrete suggestions for how to improve our political environment.
The book packs a lot into only 240 pages. It is specific, detailed, and written clearly enough that any intelligent reader can understand it. Highly recommended!
Like my reviews? Check out my blog at http://www.kathrynbashaar.com/blog/
Author of The Saint's Mistress: https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon....
This one was an exception. This book was the best analysis I’ve read so far of where we are, how we got here, and how we can get ourselves out of the mess we’re in. (If you think we’re not in a very serious mess, I respectfully submit that you are wrong.)
First, Tomasky tells us bluntly that the consensus era isn’t coming back, and he explains why by reaching all the way back to the founding era of the republic – which also happens to be the founding era of partisanship – and then moving forward through our mostly-partisan history. He explains the background of the era of consensus, and why it was an anomaly, unlikely to occur again.
Next, he delivers a very thorough analysis of how we got here. Not by whining that people don’t bowl together enough anymore, but describing the changes in our politics that let us to where we are today: the development of the radical right, white male resentment of minority and women’s rights (masterfully and cynically exploited by the Republican party), the decline of labor unions, big money in politics, the end of the Fairness Doctrine. He lifts the curtain on the pledge that Grover Norquist extracted from almost all Republican office holders that they will never, under any circumstances, vote for a tax increase. And he explains in just enough detail how the changes in financial markets and relaxed regulation set the stage for corporate raiders, a culture of consumerism, and the huge and growing gap between executives’ salaries and bonuses and workers’ wages.
Finally, he puts forth 14 concrete suggestions for how to improve our political environment.
The book packs a lot into only 240 pages. It is specific, detailed, and written clearly enough that any intelligent reader can understand it. Highly recommended!
Like my reviews? Check out my blog at http://www.kathrynbashaar.com/blog/
Author of The Saint's Mistress: https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon....
April 10, 2023
Michael Tomasky has had a long career as a writer in publications like the Atlantic, New Republic, and other publications in that vein. He is also a longtime editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Over the course of his career, he's published a handful of books, but that's not his primary vocation. I would describe his as a forerunner to someone like Matthew Ygelsias; a basically liberal guy with some heterodox (or if you want to be more antagonistic, contrarian) tendencies.
This is the third of his books I've read and I will go ahead and say that it's the best. His first book, Left for Dead, has not aged very well. His book about Hillary Clinton's Senate run is a fairly entertaining read, but suffers from the lack of drama that ultimately allowed Clinton to win without facing a serious opponent.
If We Can Keep It, published in 2019, is another in the long line of books interested in the growing polarization of American politics, and whether it is possible to bridge the gulf. The title, of course, is borrowed from the famous Ben Franklin remark. Tomasky's work here is really as a synthesizer, cobbling together a lot of ideas that have been floating around and packaging them together as a plan to reform American politics in such a way as to make our government less polarized.
A lot of the book is taken up by history lessons about the ways America was polarized in the past, and the reminder that polarization has been the rule rather than the exception throughout most of our history. The 1945-1980 stretch with less pronounced polarization is the outlier. The book touches on the changing nature of political parties due to ideological sorting, geographic sorting, and changing political norms. I found most of it to be relatively accurate, though there isn't much here will come as a surprise to anyone that has spent much time studying these issues.
The recommendations for change at the end of the book likewise are a laundry list of items you are likely already familiar with: appointment of independent commissions for redistricting, ranked choice voting, moving away from single member districts and toward some kind of proportional representation, ending the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, abolishing the Senate, and creation of some kind of national service program that would help people from different parts of the country mix with each other.
It's a fine list and I agree with most of the suggestions. But, as Tomasky himself admits in the text, it's a bit pie in the sky. At a time when conservative trogs are overrunning the nation's Capitol, it seems a little quaint to be suggesting ending the Electoral College would be a serious step toward mending our politics. I don't know, though. I guess it would have kept Trump out of office, so I probably shouldn't be so flip about it.
This book has me remembering the tweet that said something like "Democrats are reading from the rulebook and saying 'but a dog can't play basketball!' while the dog dunks on them again and again." Which I guess is to say that this is a book about the rules, written for people who believe in the rules and play by the rules. I'm just not sure we're going to tweak the rules in such a way as the extricate ourselves from what continues to feel like a very precarious political place.
Then again I don't have any great alternatives I'm putting forth, either.
This is the third of his books I've read and I will go ahead and say that it's the best. His first book, Left for Dead, has not aged very well. His book about Hillary Clinton's Senate run is a fairly entertaining read, but suffers from the lack of drama that ultimately allowed Clinton to win without facing a serious opponent.
If We Can Keep It, published in 2019, is another in the long line of books interested in the growing polarization of American politics, and whether it is possible to bridge the gulf. The title, of course, is borrowed from the famous Ben Franklin remark. Tomasky's work here is really as a synthesizer, cobbling together a lot of ideas that have been floating around and packaging them together as a plan to reform American politics in such a way as to make our government less polarized.
A lot of the book is taken up by history lessons about the ways America was polarized in the past, and the reminder that polarization has been the rule rather than the exception throughout most of our history. The 1945-1980 stretch with less pronounced polarization is the outlier. The book touches on the changing nature of political parties due to ideological sorting, geographic sorting, and changing political norms. I found most of it to be relatively accurate, though there isn't much here will come as a surprise to anyone that has spent much time studying these issues.
The recommendations for change at the end of the book likewise are a laundry list of items you are likely already familiar with: appointment of independent commissions for redistricting, ranked choice voting, moving away from single member districts and toward some kind of proportional representation, ending the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, abolishing the Senate, and creation of some kind of national service program that would help people from different parts of the country mix with each other.
It's a fine list and I agree with most of the suggestions. But, as Tomasky himself admits in the text, it's a bit pie in the sky. At a time when conservative trogs are overrunning the nation's Capitol, it seems a little quaint to be suggesting ending the Electoral College would be a serious step toward mending our politics. I don't know, though. I guess it would have kept Trump out of office, so I probably shouldn't be so flip about it.
This book has me remembering the tweet that said something like "Democrats are reading from the rulebook and saying 'but a dog can't play basketball!' while the dog dunks on them again and again." Which I guess is to say that this is a book about the rules, written for people who believe in the rules and play by the rules. I'm just not sure we're going to tweak the rules in such a way as the extricate ourselves from what continues to feel like a very precarious political place.
Then again I don't have any great alternatives I'm putting forth, either.
May 10, 2019
Michael Tomasky, in his If We Can Keep It, significantly contributes to our understanding of our own times, noting that the period many older Americans fondly remember as “normal” – the 50s and 60s – was, in fact, an anomaly in our country’s history, a unique consequence of the combined effect of the Great Depression and the Second World War that forged – for the generation that lived through and fought in those years – a unique sense of solidarity that infused every aspect of society, including the Congress and business.
Of course, differences existed even them, some of them bitter and divisive. It was a period that saw both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the average American was fully aware of the awful potential of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
But, there was general agreement on issues very important domestically, including the imperative of ensuring widespread full employment, providing good-paying jobs with generous benefits, allowing big business to partner with labor unions for the larger general good, and obliging both businesses and the wealthy to meaningfully contribute to the general welfare.
That time, Tomasky argues, is not only clearly over, but it is very unlikely to ever return!
He notes how quickly partisan divisions began even during Washington’s presidency, and traces how it evolved over time. In doing so, he shows how many of the things that most alarm or disgust citizens today – bitter personal attacks, divisively partisan newspapers, and the repeated formulations of “us. vs. them” – have been with us almost from the beginning.
Even so, there is one very disturbing way in which our post-80s politics is unique: historically, the two major parties have wrestled with internal dissent as well as quarreled with each other. In marked contrast, over the past 30 years the Republicans have steadily purged dissenting voices from within, becoming much more ideologically rigid.
He believes the many rifts of the 1960s began the great divide between citizens that has been growing deeper and angrier ever since: the Vietnam war, the ending of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the “solid Democratic South” quickly melting into a solid bloc for Republicans, and the triumph of seeking personal “lifestyles” over the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.
Together, these developments deeply disturbed many citizens who interpreted them as evidence of eroding patriotism, of growing disrespect for many cherished institutions, including the military and churches, and of increasing acceptance of those who made “immoral choices.” Furthermore, the destruction of long-established mechanisms of control by whites over blacks caused a hard to measure but very real sense of loss that continues to underlie many grievances among whites even today.
While the response of political leaders to many of these developments was often incredibly clumsy, there is probably no one who could have successfully managed the turmoil and lowered the social temperature inflamed by these developments. In just a few shorts years, what had been largely accepted as “normal” was either overturned, challenged, or mocked.
Tomaskys note how politicians were quickly pushed to choose “one side or the other,” and how mercilessly they were attacked and voted out of office if they sought to avoid doing so. And then, into this already volatile mess, appeared the explosive issue of the “right” to abortion, a consequence of the 1973 Supreme Court decision!
Inevitably, Tomasky notes, the parties found it to their advantage to eventually take opposing positions on each divisive issue, even though each had previously consisted of members who were divided on them. Today it is hard to believe that civil rights, women’s access to abortion, and environmental protection had all once been strongly supported by Republicans as well as Democrats. By the 1990s, however, this was no longer the case.
At the same time, encouraged by both the rise of an intellectual right that challenged standing economic and political assumptions and by the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the status of money as a “form of free speech,” wealthy individuals separately or in concert began the flood of money that has reached obscene proportions today.
Members of Congress, inundated by the armies of lobbyists unleashed against them as well as by the sophisticated writings emerging from right-wing think tanks, now had to hustle ever harder to raise the massive amounts of money necessary to allow them to be competitive in re-election campaigns.
The result is somewhat akin to James Bond’s preference for a martini: a society shaken, not stirred.
Tomasky very helpfully provides a lengthy list of things that he believes either must, or should, be done if we are to have a chance at restoring the kind of comity that will allow our Republic to survive. Some of them involve the machinery of government, including how we advance and elect candidates. Others focus more on the need to reintroduce the citizens of our vast country to each other through various kinds of educational and work-related “exchange” programs, and the critical need to reintroduce both civics and history courses that in recent years have fallen by the wayside. He also urges the business community and the wealthy to return to the civic-mindedness that marked their conduct 50 years ago.
He candidly admits that he is not at all sure that we can, let alone will, take the necessary steps in time to restore a viable republic. But the cost of not doing so will be great.
While a country can “muddle through” for a time, at some point – when important things no longer get done, when stalemate and refusal to cooperate basically shut the whole damn thing down – then even the people of the United States will force such fundamental changes that once cherished institutions, and even our precious Constitution, may not survive.
Of course, differences existed even them, some of them bitter and divisive. It was a period that saw both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the average American was fully aware of the awful potential of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
But, there was general agreement on issues very important domestically, including the imperative of ensuring widespread full employment, providing good-paying jobs with generous benefits, allowing big business to partner with labor unions for the larger general good, and obliging both businesses and the wealthy to meaningfully contribute to the general welfare.
That time, Tomasky argues, is not only clearly over, but it is very unlikely to ever return!
He notes how quickly partisan divisions began even during Washington’s presidency, and traces how it evolved over time. In doing so, he shows how many of the things that most alarm or disgust citizens today – bitter personal attacks, divisively partisan newspapers, and the repeated formulations of “us. vs. them” – have been with us almost from the beginning.
Even so, there is one very disturbing way in which our post-80s politics is unique: historically, the two major parties have wrestled with internal dissent as well as quarreled with each other. In marked contrast, over the past 30 years the Republicans have steadily purged dissenting voices from within, becoming much more ideologically rigid.
He believes the many rifts of the 1960s began the great divide between citizens that has been growing deeper and angrier ever since: the Vietnam war, the ending of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the “solid Democratic South” quickly melting into a solid bloc for Republicans, and the triumph of seeking personal “lifestyles” over the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.
Together, these developments deeply disturbed many citizens who interpreted them as evidence of eroding patriotism, of growing disrespect for many cherished institutions, including the military and churches, and of increasing acceptance of those who made “immoral choices.” Furthermore, the destruction of long-established mechanisms of control by whites over blacks caused a hard to measure but very real sense of loss that continues to underlie many grievances among whites even today.
While the response of political leaders to many of these developments was often incredibly clumsy, there is probably no one who could have successfully managed the turmoil and lowered the social temperature inflamed by these developments. In just a few shorts years, what had been largely accepted as “normal” was either overturned, challenged, or mocked.
Tomaskys note how politicians were quickly pushed to choose “one side or the other,” and how mercilessly they were attacked and voted out of office if they sought to avoid doing so. And then, into this already volatile mess, appeared the explosive issue of the “right” to abortion, a consequence of the 1973 Supreme Court decision!
Inevitably, Tomasky notes, the parties found it to their advantage to eventually take opposing positions on each divisive issue, even though each had previously consisted of members who were divided on them. Today it is hard to believe that civil rights, women’s access to abortion, and environmental protection had all once been strongly supported by Republicans as well as Democrats. By the 1990s, however, this was no longer the case.
At the same time, encouraged by both the rise of an intellectual right that challenged standing economic and political assumptions and by the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the status of money as a “form of free speech,” wealthy individuals separately or in concert began the flood of money that has reached obscene proportions today.
Members of Congress, inundated by the armies of lobbyists unleashed against them as well as by the sophisticated writings emerging from right-wing think tanks, now had to hustle ever harder to raise the massive amounts of money necessary to allow them to be competitive in re-election campaigns.
The result is somewhat akin to James Bond’s preference for a martini: a society shaken, not stirred.
Tomasky very helpfully provides a lengthy list of things that he believes either must, or should, be done if we are to have a chance at restoring the kind of comity that will allow our Republic to survive. Some of them involve the machinery of government, including how we advance and elect candidates. Others focus more on the need to reintroduce the citizens of our vast country to each other through various kinds of educational and work-related “exchange” programs, and the critical need to reintroduce both civics and history courses that in recent years have fallen by the wayside. He also urges the business community and the wealthy to return to the civic-mindedness that marked their conduct 50 years ago.
He candidly admits that he is not at all sure that we can, let alone will, take the necessary steps in time to restore a viable republic. But the cost of not doing so will be great.
While a country can “muddle through” for a time, at some point – when important things no longer get done, when stalemate and refusal to cooperate basically shut the whole damn thing down – then even the people of the United States will force such fundamental changes that once cherished institutions, and even our precious Constitution, may not survive.
March 2, 2019
I thought the main part of the book was a great history of the political structure and political parties in the US. Very readable with fascinating details about how the parties have formed and mutated.
I was disappointed in the last chapter (recommendations for the future) but overall the book was superb.
I was disappointed in the last chapter (recommendations for the future) but overall the book was superb.
May 23, 2019
I really did enjoy this book overall. Michael Tomasky did a very good job of detailing the history of division in this country, and explaining that it has existed for far longer than people think, or the media portrays. I found myself particularly agreeing with Tomasky's views on the utter impotence of political will. He shows that political reform is a trailing indicator of cultural reform, and I think he has made an excellent case. Additionally, most of his prescribed solutions to the issues he details are well thought out and well stated.
Unfortunately, I've had to bump this boom down a star for two reasons. First, there is no mention of a solution that the complicity of the media shares in our current division. There is a "wouldn't it be nice..." style mention of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, but he dismisses it out of hand as impossible (which is more than a little ironic, considering he states the lack of feasibility of some of his other solutions in the book.) It would have been nice to see some original thinking to find a solution here.
Secondly, I felt that Tomasky was a little too optimistic about the possibility of moderate Republicans once again gaining dominance in the party. There are far too many Republican voters who spend way too much time looking for the farthest right candidate possible for this to occur. Would it be nice? Yeah. It would be nice to have both parties accepting reality, rather than just one. I just don't see how we'll get there, even under the scenario he posits.
Again, this was a really good book, and a must read for those who want to know the true history of political division in this country. It's not perfect, but I don't think there are any perfect solutions to our current crisis, so the ones in this book are as good as any.
Unfortunately, I've had to bump this boom down a star for two reasons. First, there is no mention of a solution that the complicity of the media shares in our current division. There is a "wouldn't it be nice..." style mention of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, but he dismisses it out of hand as impossible (which is more than a little ironic, considering he states the lack of feasibility of some of his other solutions in the book.) It would have been nice to see some original thinking to find a solution here.
Secondly, I felt that Tomasky was a little too optimistic about the possibility of moderate Republicans once again gaining dominance in the party. There are far too many Republican voters who spend way too much time looking for the farthest right candidate possible for this to occur. Would it be nice? Yeah. It would be nice to have both parties accepting reality, rather than just one. I just don't see how we'll get there, even under the scenario he posits.
Again, this was a really good book, and a must read for those who want to know the true history of political division in this country. It's not perfect, but I don't think there are any perfect solutions to our current crisis, so the ones in this book are as good as any.
April 5, 2019
This book starts out well with the idea that the Founding Fathers did not agree on everything but had to argue and come to a consensus about crucial parts of our Constitution. Mr. Tomasky then goes on to discuss various presidencies and eras in American history where there was extreme partisanship, in part, I guess, to show that this is nothing new. Of course, we all know the terrible consequences which led to the "brother against brother" of the Civil War and the terrible misfortune of Lincoln being assassinated leaving the racist Andrew Johnson to preside over Reconstruction. Nothing could have been more disastrous which led to an impeachment attempt. Despite Mr. Tomasky's discussion of history I know about "The Know-Nothing Party" (anti-immigrant) and, later Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, which he formed to prevent an enemy from being elected. Naturally, through out history, most of the population was disenfranshised and had no representation in Congress or in state legislatures. Women have not even had the vote for one hundred years yet! As interesting as this all is, I feel a disconnect from today's dilemmas, even the example of Nixon pales in comparison because Nixon, although a criminal, was a career politician and understood how to govern and did positive things during his administration, such as open up China to the US. Today, we have a a president who does not know the constitution, does not want to understand the separation of powers and is completely a narcissist. He also idolizes dictators such as Putin, Erdogan, Xie and King Jung-Un. This is where Tomasky's book goes wrong. The sharp divisions which exist now between Americans are no longer a Republican/Democrat but intolerant/tolerant. I'm sorry but I won't "compromise" with a racist which is what, sadly, the Republican party has become. I had some issues with George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush but I could have a civil discussion with a Republican of those periods.
Tomasky does admit that the Republican is now "a movement" and not a party. I don't agree with his solutions to repair it, though. He puts forth an idea that high school students spend a half a semester in a completely different state in a place unlike their own. This would not only be disruptive but, at this point in history, is truly unnecessary since with social media, students regularly Skype, use Instagram, Facebook and other social media outlets to get to know and chat with students from all over the world. Secondly, this is an extremely mobile society and people move quite frequently to different states. Hardly any of my high school classmates live anywhere near where we grew up. Additionally, if a college student attends a private college, he or she will be exposed to all different types of people, race, class, gender non-conforming. That was my experience in 1982 and I can only assume it has gotten more diverse. As far as civic engagement programs instead of the final year of college; I disagree with this. I think college should be made more affordable. We could resurrect VISTA and Teach For America for students who wanted to do this but it should not be made mandatory. One cannot legislate "good deeds". Also, the main problem today is the fact that we are splintered, ironically, because of social media and Netflix. The book "Bowling Alone" came out years ago but things have only gotten worse. People don't join service groups like Rotary or the Lions anymore, or bowling leagues or bridge clubs but everyone is atomized in his or her own little world staring at a screen. Religious attendance, once an element of cohesion, has decreased precipitously.
THAT is the problem we have all over the country and a student from New Jersey spending a
half semester in Montana will not solve anything. I think the Electoral College should be abolished. It is an archaic system, which as Tomasky notes, had much to do with the Founding Fathers fear of the average man voting and later, as a way to keep African Americans in their place. I believe in one person, one vote. Although is has only happened three times in US History (twice in my lifetime), it should never happen that the person who does not get the popular vote wins the Presidency. I think it would be a net positive since, currently, only certain states get to see the candidates but if we changed to this system, they would have to campaign nationally. I live in a "blue" state but I know in western New York, the Southern Tier and upstate, there are reliable Republican votes. Long island used to be a Republican machine and now is a Democratic one but there would be reliable Republican votes there as well. I also believe that, eventually, the Senate will have to have fair representation. My friends and I are furious that California with 40 million votes gets the same representation in the "upper" body of the legislature than Vermont with 600,000. Gerrymandering has to stop and states have to be forced to correct their districts. Tomasky fails to name one problem of the unfair Senate and House: a constituent in a populous area has much less access to his or her elected officials than those in a smaller state. Many people would be happy with a viable third party candidate and rating candidates in order preference is interesting. I thought this was a decent book but Tomasky is no Presidential historian such as Michael Beschsloss or Jon Meacham (Meaham's book disappointed me as well). We will soon be a majority minority society; I already live in such a city and it works just fine. I think that THIS is what is behind much of what is going on right now. The fact is, it WILL happen so we have to figure out a way for the people who are resisting it to come along with it. This is the same as coal jobs disappearing, many manufacturing jobs disappearing and other jobs disappearing because of automation. People need to be trained to have good jobs in the new economy and the government could help with this, maybe partnering with community colleges or all state universities giving in-state residents a tuition break for taking online classes. These are what I believe are the two main fears which play into DJT's hands. We need to give people real hope.
Tomasky does admit that the Republican is now "a movement" and not a party. I don't agree with his solutions to repair it, though. He puts forth an idea that high school students spend a half a semester in a completely different state in a place unlike their own. This would not only be disruptive but, at this point in history, is truly unnecessary since with social media, students regularly Skype, use Instagram, Facebook and other social media outlets to get to know and chat with students from all over the world. Secondly, this is an extremely mobile society and people move quite frequently to different states. Hardly any of my high school classmates live anywhere near where we grew up. Additionally, if a college student attends a private college, he or she will be exposed to all different types of people, race, class, gender non-conforming. That was my experience in 1982 and I can only assume it has gotten more diverse. As far as civic engagement programs instead of the final year of college; I disagree with this. I think college should be made more affordable. We could resurrect VISTA and Teach For America for students who wanted to do this but it should not be made mandatory. One cannot legislate "good deeds". Also, the main problem today is the fact that we are splintered, ironically, because of social media and Netflix. The book "Bowling Alone" came out years ago but things have only gotten worse. People don't join service groups like Rotary or the Lions anymore, or bowling leagues or bridge clubs but everyone is atomized in his or her own little world staring at a screen. Religious attendance, once an element of cohesion, has decreased precipitously.
THAT is the problem we have all over the country and a student from New Jersey spending a
half semester in Montana will not solve anything. I think the Electoral College should be abolished. It is an archaic system, which as Tomasky notes, had much to do with the Founding Fathers fear of the average man voting and later, as a way to keep African Americans in their place. I believe in one person, one vote. Although is has only happened three times in US History (twice in my lifetime), it should never happen that the person who does not get the popular vote wins the Presidency. I think it would be a net positive since, currently, only certain states get to see the candidates but if we changed to this system, they would have to campaign nationally. I live in a "blue" state but I know in western New York, the Southern Tier and upstate, there are reliable Republican votes. Long island used to be a Republican machine and now is a Democratic one but there would be reliable Republican votes there as well. I also believe that, eventually, the Senate will have to have fair representation. My friends and I are furious that California with 40 million votes gets the same representation in the "upper" body of the legislature than Vermont with 600,000. Gerrymandering has to stop and states have to be forced to correct their districts. Tomasky fails to name one problem of the unfair Senate and House: a constituent in a populous area has much less access to his or her elected officials than those in a smaller state. Many people would be happy with a viable third party candidate and rating candidates in order preference is interesting. I thought this was a decent book but Tomasky is no Presidential historian such as Michael Beschsloss or Jon Meacham (Meaham's book disappointed me as well). We will soon be a majority minority society; I already live in such a city and it works just fine. I think that THIS is what is behind much of what is going on right now. The fact is, it WILL happen so we have to figure out a way for the people who are resisting it to come along with it. This is the same as coal jobs disappearing, many manufacturing jobs disappearing and other jobs disappearing because of automation. People need to be trained to have good jobs in the new economy and the government could help with this, maybe partnering with community colleges or all state universities giving in-state residents a tuition break for taking online classes. These are what I believe are the two main fears which play into DJT's hands. We need to give people real hope.
August 16, 2020
This book offers a good historical overview of American political history. However I did not learn much more than I already knew. It is easily readable, but short on novel insights about our current political situation and culture.
I was looking for a more nuanced and unbiased analysis of our present political climate. Throughout the book the author continued with diatribes against President Trump and Fox News. He pushes more of a liberal agenda and he is much more critical of Republican presidents that Democratic presidents.
His writing style was also too conversational to be taken seriously at times.
In truth none of his proposed reforms are realistic as so many require Constitutional amendments. The only thing he suggests that is remotely feasible is adding more robust civics education into public schools.
Overall this is a disappointing book with little to substantially offer in our current political climate.
He even calls Trump a “pu..y grabber” toward the very end of the book. At that point the author lost all credibility in my mind.
I was looking for a more nuanced and unbiased analysis of our present political climate. Throughout the book the author continued with diatribes against President Trump and Fox News. He pushes more of a liberal agenda and he is much more critical of Republican presidents that Democratic presidents.
His writing style was also too conversational to be taken seriously at times.
In truth none of his proposed reforms are realistic as so many require Constitutional amendments. The only thing he suggests that is remotely feasible is adding more robust civics education into public schools.
Overall this is a disappointing book with little to substantially offer in our current political climate.
He even calls Trump a “pu..y grabber” toward the very end of the book. At that point the author lost all credibility in my mind.
August 6, 2019
Such a great title and premise for a book, but I never got past the Introduction. "But having Trump in the White House makes these questions...far more urgent." "Because we currently have a president who respects no laws, knows nothing of the Constitution, and is capable of doing anything..." Those are just a couple from the intro that tell you where the book is going. I'm no Trump fan, but dont hide a Trump basher behind such a facade.
January 13, 2020
The author certainly makes a case. While admitting that the solutions to problems are not currently realistic, politically, we see the history of the divide we are facing today. And that makes us an informed electorate. Those of us who read, anyways.
August 1, 2019
For any hope of rectifying today's dysfunctional polarization, this book is a must read. The title says it all, and the author delivers as it promises. Michael Tomasky takes the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin from 1787 and proceeds to answer it at the end, after covering in relevant detail the different ages and stages the US republic has been through. Tomasky highlights the threads and similarities of history to our own time as he traces pivotal events throughout the country's development—we are arguably in the most perilous time of national dissolution since the Civil War. If in reading this book you feel that you've been misled by your history lessons in school, it's because we have all been so misled. Historical players throughout the life of the US were as fully human as any of us are today, complete with both noble and base motives. Today's America has notable similarities to what was chronicled by Alexis de Tocqueville in the Nineteenth Century.
Tomasky shows why the relative political harmony of the 1950s was unique in the country's history, and why the conditions that spawned it no longer exist. The author documents how today's Republican Party is on a war footing—not driven by public opinion but by the wealthy libertarian and theocratic enablers who control them, and the part of the population influenced by the vast network of media and think tanks they've funded at unprecedented levels over the long term. The result has been the creation of gerrymandered districts and conservative judicial packing, crafted to guarantee the imposition of supply side fallacies and irrational hostility toward non-white persons. It's no accident that Trump defends neo-Nazis and other xenophobes, with negligible protest from any Republican who expects to remain in the party.
It's axiomatic that a republic can function only with the active and informed involvement of its citizens. But Tomasky illustrates how too many people are just consumers, and have forsaken their role as citizens. The Democratic Party so far has been an ineffective counter to the war footing of the other side. While debating actual policy issues the Democrats have not pursued a winner take all posture, in spite of the desire of many on the left that they do exactly that. Tomasky (a self declared liberal) postulates that the Democrats do not have enough liberals to form a ruling coalition—and they will need to include moderates under their tent to achieve the number of legislators and other elected officials necessary to govern (as long as Republicans lack any impulse toward bipartisanship).
Even if there were a series of electoral blue waves, Tomasky proffers the sobering thought that saving the republic will be a long term endeavor. And it will necessarily require that Americans in different parts of society get to know one another personally as fellow human beings. The author's list of recommendations is long (and I think reasonable), but he cautions that achieving them will face formidable opposition—even so, we should pursue them nonetheless. For example, one recommendation involves ranked choice at large voting for seats in the House of Representatives. Suppose a hypothetical state has 10 congressional seats, and they are currently gerrymandered to deliver 8 of them to the Republicans when 65% of the total vote statewide goes to Democrats. In ranked choice voting, a candidate must abandon a winner take all campaign approach, as that candidate will need to court support from other voters who might rank that candidate as their second choice—which might make the difference between getting a seat in the House and not. This would result in reduced radicalism and more accommodation of different interests, and actually providing representation for thousands who are currently unrepresented in gerrymandered winner take all single member districts.
One of the most hopeful signs Tomasky observes is a movement among corporate executives on their own toward social responsibility. The concern for only share holder profits and nothing else that was advocated by Milton Friedman is finally wearing thin. Corporate executives are the one group that could have some credibility with conservative voters. Let us wish them well in this endeavor—for the sake of the country, and humanity.
Tomasky shows why the relative political harmony of the 1950s was unique in the country's history, and why the conditions that spawned it no longer exist. The author documents how today's Republican Party is on a war footing—not driven by public opinion but by the wealthy libertarian and theocratic enablers who control them, and the part of the population influenced by the vast network of media and think tanks they've funded at unprecedented levels over the long term. The result has been the creation of gerrymandered districts and conservative judicial packing, crafted to guarantee the imposition of supply side fallacies and irrational hostility toward non-white persons. It's no accident that Trump defends neo-Nazis and other xenophobes, with negligible protest from any Republican who expects to remain in the party.
It's axiomatic that a republic can function only with the active and informed involvement of its citizens. But Tomasky illustrates how too many people are just consumers, and have forsaken their role as citizens. The Democratic Party so far has been an ineffective counter to the war footing of the other side. While debating actual policy issues the Democrats have not pursued a winner take all posture, in spite of the desire of many on the left that they do exactly that. Tomasky (a self declared liberal) postulates that the Democrats do not have enough liberals to form a ruling coalition—and they will need to include moderates under their tent to achieve the number of legislators and other elected officials necessary to govern (as long as Republicans lack any impulse toward bipartisanship).
Even if there were a series of electoral blue waves, Tomasky proffers the sobering thought that saving the republic will be a long term endeavor. And it will necessarily require that Americans in different parts of society get to know one another personally as fellow human beings. The author's list of recommendations is long (and I think reasonable), but he cautions that achieving them will face formidable opposition—even so, we should pursue them nonetheless. For example, one recommendation involves ranked choice at large voting for seats in the House of Representatives. Suppose a hypothetical state has 10 congressional seats, and they are currently gerrymandered to deliver 8 of them to the Republicans when 65% of the total vote statewide goes to Democrats. In ranked choice voting, a candidate must abandon a winner take all campaign approach, as that candidate will need to court support from other voters who might rank that candidate as their second choice—which might make the difference between getting a seat in the House and not. This would result in reduced radicalism and more accommodation of different interests, and actually providing representation for thousands who are currently unrepresented in gerrymandered winner take all single member districts.
One of the most hopeful signs Tomasky observes is a movement among corporate executives on their own toward social responsibility. The concern for only share holder profits and nothing else that was advocated by Milton Friedman is finally wearing thin. Corporate executives are the one group that could have some credibility with conservative voters. Let us wish them well in this endeavor—for the sake of the country, and humanity.
December 27, 2019
I did not respond well to this book, primarily because of the way it is written: Tomasky employs the breezy, avuncular tone of an high school textbook author determined to engage fifteen-year-olds. The majority of it is a blazingly quick overview of American history; the final chapter comprises several suggestions for changes to the political system.
Most of Tomasky's changes are reasonable -- drop the electoral college, use proportional representation instead of winner-take-all systems for the House, implement ranked-choice voting -- although I cannot get behind cutting college to three years. (I fear that would result in a general reduction in common core requirements and, thusly, even more people graduating from college without a good grounding in history, civics, and English. If I were going to make suggestions for improving the political system it would begin with everyone reading the Federalist Papers.) It's mostly very sensible; I just wish Tomasky had written a book fleshing out his fourteen suggestions instead of tacking them on at the end.
Most of Tomasky's changes are reasonable -- drop the electoral college, use proportional representation instead of winner-take-all systems for the House, implement ranked-choice voting -- although I cannot get behind cutting college to three years. (I fear that would result in a general reduction in common core requirements and, thusly, even more people graduating from college without a good grounding in history, civics, and English. If I were going to make suggestions for improving the political system it would begin with everyone reading the Federalist Papers.) It's mostly very sensible; I just wish Tomasky had written a book fleshing out his fourteen suggestions instead of tacking them on at the end.
March 6, 2019
Not the author's fault but I could not get into this book. Recently I have read a number of other books and articles that attempt to diagnose what's wrong with this country and how we can fix it. These books also tried to explain how Donald Trump became president. Tomasky's book reviewed the political, economic and cultural history of the United States for the past 300 years. Lepore's book analyzed the political, economic and cultural history since the 15th century.
I skimmed through mainly the latter parts of the book. The only point of Tomasky's 14 Point Plan to reduce polarization that I liked was to eliminate the electoral college.
Seemed a good book on the 30-40% I read...
I skimmed through mainly the latter parts of the book. The only point of Tomasky's 14 Point Plan to reduce polarization that I liked was to eliminate the electoral college.
Seemed a good book on the 30-40% I read...
December 31, 2019
Tomasky guides the reader through the birth and evolution of the two major political parties with all the precursors and varieties along the way. He brings us a greater and fuller understanding of how we got to the political divide of today. Tomasky is easy to understand. He brings in cultural, societal, and financial causes to the discussion. Finally, he posits a plan to heal our divide. He concedes his plan for fixing our broken republic is not doable in the current environment. Without some sort of triggering event, like a blue wave in 2020, we'll lose our republic as the forces already in place are too powerful and the game is rigged. Must read for political junkies and students of American history. Recommended.
November 12, 2019
This book is a must-read for everyone who cares about the United States of America. Tomasky has done impeccable research and explains it in an up-front, easily understandable style that makes the book hard to put down. His text is political commentary at its finest. Tomasky explains how historical events have dictated the moves that brought us to this current polarization. He then goes further to give some common-sense suggestions that just might help us get out of it. While I don’t agree with everything he says, Tomasky definitely made me think, and his aggressive agenda for change gave me hope.
April 22, 2019
This book explores the history of partisanship in our country. The good news is that the extremely high levels of partisanship that we're currently experiencing are actually the normal state of our political environment. The reason that those of us of a certain age don't think so is that we came of age during a historically anomalous period of bipartisanship that lasted roughly from the Depression/WWII into the Reagan years. The bad news is that the partisanship now is of a different character -- in the past, there was often as much intraparty dissent (think southern democrats vs. big city northern democrats) as there was interparty disagreement. Now, the parties have crystallized, and it's much harder to break out of it. Add in gerrymandering, fear of getting "primaried", and a republican party that is more about ideology than it is about governing, and things are bleak. The author does propose some ways forward, but implementing then will be challenging, to say the least. Still very much worth the read, however, for perspective if nothing else.
April 25, 2021
This book is a significant contribution to explaining America's extreme political polarization, how it fits into the context of American history, and how it is quite different from what we've experienced in the past. The author pulls no punches in assessing the seriousness of this juncture in realizing a vision for our country, nor does he hesitate to put most of the blame on the Republican party. I don't expect conservatives to agree with much of this, but for liberals or centrists, his argument resonates.
June 2, 2022
The best part of this book is the historical background of our messed up government. There is so much information here including court cases, individual politicians, moments in history, and examples of so many things that I will never remember it all. I am glad that it wasn't longer . The proposals to help fix things were good but no person in power will listen so no use reading every single word and trying to understand anything as a reality. This is an interesting look at government .
February 27, 2019
The historical background segments of the book make excellent, informative reading and I would highly recommend them to all as a reasonably solid guide as to how we got here. Some of his solutions make good sense, but others simply do not go far enough and at times the author just throws his hands up and wails that nothing is to be done. Getting out of this current impasse with an intact country seems increasingly unlikely.
Read
October 9, 2019I had no idea that the Freckles on Howdy Doody were numbered...never actually watched it, either, but why in the world would someone even think of doing that? This and other nonsensical tidbits are part of this amazing book on our nation. At times it reminded me of Jane Austen's history of England for it's humor and lighthearted take on power change at the top. But it was a serious book on our most serious problems with actual seriously proposed solutions.
it's a very good read.
it's a very good read.
March 3, 2021
I found the history sections really interesting, even more so than the short section of proposals at the end. I really understand the polarization we suffer from now so much better than I did. I also finally understand how the parties used to be a mix of conservative and liberal, which I’ve been trying to figure out for a long time. A lot of new-to-me ideas and framing that really helped make sense of things. Highly recommended.
June 13, 2019
Reading this book was definitely a somber experience. It's always my hope that US would somehow return to the state of the post-war golden age. After what happened in the aftermath of the Great Recession, I started to seriously doubt about the prospect. Mr. Tomasky fully convinced me that the golden age was just an aberration, a conclusion I probably will reach by myself in the near future.
February 23, 2020
Decent primer on polarization and the historical roots of political dysfunction in the United States. However, not particularly scholarly - author swings wildly in his evidentiary basis. Interesting recommendations at the end - but little case made on why they would work or be feasible. Feels like you could get much of the same information from an Atlantic article.
March 22, 2019
A great read! Definitely took a look at both good and bad things on both sides of the political aisle. One of the things I liked best was the last chapter, the 14 point plan on repair. It offered solutions, even if some are not practical right now.
April 5, 2019
"Our political culture is broken, but it is not broken for the reasons you often read that it's broken- because 'Washington' is 'dysfunctional,' or because politicians have no 'will.' No. It's broken because some people broke it."
Well written, readable and thought provoking.
Well written, readable and thought provoking.
July 28, 2019
I started by reading a couple of chapters that were recommended to me by my husband, who read the entire book. I then continued to the end, but have not yet read the beginning.
Clear, level-headed and worth reading.
Clear, level-headed and worth reading.
May 19, 2021
A must read
At times very colloquial and at times academic, the author stuns and eliminates the arguments of opponents. This is a must read book and one that offers 14 well reasoned potential solutions to our predicament which still remains after the election of Joe Biden.
At times very colloquial and at times academic, the author stuns and eliminates the arguments of opponents. This is a must read book and one that offers 14 well reasoned potential solutions to our predicament which still remains after the election of Joe Biden.
March 20, 2019
Very readable. Tomasky's depiction of the early days of our Republic are well to keep in mind. Also particularly nice to see the 1970s, 80s and 90s in a historical perspective.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews