What do you think?
Rate this book
Red State Blues: How the Conservative Revolution Stalled in the States
Over the last quarter century, a nationalized and increasingly conservative Republican Party made unprecedented gains at the state level, winning control of twenty-four new state governments. Liberals and conservatives alike anticipated far-reaching consequences, but what has the Republican revolution in the states achieved? Red State Blues shows that, contrary to liberals' fears, conservative state governments have largely failed to enact policies that advance conservative goals or reverse prior liberal gains. Matt Grossmann tracks policies and socioeconomic outcomes across all 50 states, interviews state insiders, and considers the full issue agenda. Although Republicans have been effective at staying in power, they have not substantially altered the nature or reach of government. Where they have had policy victories, the consequences on the ground have been surprisingly limited. A sober assessment of Republican successes and failures after decades of electoral victories, Red State Blues highlights the stark limits of the conservative ascendancy.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
204 pages, Paperback
Published October 31, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 15, 2019
The basic premise of Matt Grossmann’s Red State Blues is to see if the continuing swing to Republican state governments has led to a transformation of, if not the nation, then at least those states. His important answer is no. In fact, the country is continuing its long-term trend towards more liberal policies overall.
Republicans are better organized and equipped to make their transformation happen. They have a “troika” of organizations to promote their agenda through state legislatures, Grossmann says. It consists of right wing think tanks under the umbrella of State Policy Network, the legislation provider ALEC, and Koch Brothers “grassroots” groups Americans For Prosperity. ALEC in particular has a library of ready-to-pass legislation promoting the right-wing agenda, that state reps simply copy and paste directly. Little or no thought required.
However. The results are not as transforming as planned. “The perennial conservative fiction [is] that government can be transformed by heroic individual action, using private sector formulas to make government run (more efficiently) like a business,” Grossmann says. Between the right-wing factions, the infighting and the simple fact that most Americans don’t share their extreme vision, the legislation gets watered down, stalled, withdrawn, or different than intended. There is often public backlash to cutbacks, and different attitudes in the House compared to the Senate. Increasingly, voters take the state to court to overturn extreme laws. In numerous studies examined or conducted by his own team, Grossmann shows remarkably little rightward movement overall.
There are plenty of exceptions that we see daily, as Republican states try to crush unions, abolish abortion, disenfranchise voters and promote guns. But Grossmann shows clearly that they are not transforming the country the way more liberal legislation is. He points to gay marriage for one. He gives the example of pre-kindergarten programs. At the state level, they have grown by 47% in just the five years since 2012. Only six states provide none. There is a loosening of marijuana strictures. Twenty states have increased minimum wages, six Republican states are trying to end the death penalty and many more are relaxing sentencing. Some are actually closing prisons. Online voter registration is now available for 38 states. These are not usually considered Republican priorities.
His conclusion is that Republican states don’t so much move severely to the right as slow down the moves to the left. Republican states still increase regulations, but at a slower pace than Democrat states. In all of the studies Grossmann reviewed or conducted, the differences are minor, and no conclusions can be drawn. That in itself is newsworthy.
But Red State Blues is not a narrative. It is an academic study, mostly of other studies. That means it is an unfortunately dry read, with everything reinforced by data points and explanations of methodology. So while it is jam packed with facts, the exploration, impact and backstory of them is not there. There are plenty of charts to reinforce what he says, but not a lot of bold type to drive a narrative. Which is too bad, because these insights are of great use to the general — and voting — public.
David Wineberg
Republicans are better organized and equipped to make their transformation happen. They have a “troika” of organizations to promote their agenda through state legislatures, Grossmann says. It consists of right wing think tanks under the umbrella of State Policy Network, the legislation provider ALEC, and Koch Brothers “grassroots” groups Americans For Prosperity. ALEC in particular has a library of ready-to-pass legislation promoting the right-wing agenda, that state reps simply copy and paste directly. Little or no thought required.
However. The results are not as transforming as planned. “The perennial conservative fiction [is] that government can be transformed by heroic individual action, using private sector formulas to make government run (more efficiently) like a business,” Grossmann says. Between the right-wing factions, the infighting and the simple fact that most Americans don’t share their extreme vision, the legislation gets watered down, stalled, withdrawn, or different than intended. There is often public backlash to cutbacks, and different attitudes in the House compared to the Senate. Increasingly, voters take the state to court to overturn extreme laws. In numerous studies examined or conducted by his own team, Grossmann shows remarkably little rightward movement overall.
There are plenty of exceptions that we see daily, as Republican states try to crush unions, abolish abortion, disenfranchise voters and promote guns. But Grossmann shows clearly that they are not transforming the country the way more liberal legislation is. He points to gay marriage for one. He gives the example of pre-kindergarten programs. At the state level, they have grown by 47% in just the five years since 2012. Only six states provide none. There is a loosening of marijuana strictures. Twenty states have increased minimum wages, six Republican states are trying to end the death penalty and many more are relaxing sentencing. Some are actually closing prisons. Online voter registration is now available for 38 states. These are not usually considered Republican priorities.
His conclusion is that Republican states don’t so much move severely to the right as slow down the moves to the left. Republican states still increase regulations, but at a slower pace than Democrat states. In all of the studies Grossmann reviewed or conducted, the differences are minor, and no conclusions can be drawn. That in itself is newsworthy.
But Red State Blues is not a narrative. It is an academic study, mostly of other studies. That means it is an unfortunately dry read, with everything reinforced by data points and explanations of methodology. So while it is jam packed with facts, the exploration, impact and backstory of them is not there. There are plenty of charts to reinforce what he says, but not a lot of bold type to drive a narrative. Which is too bad, because these insights are of great use to the general — and voting — public.
David Wineberg
October 27, 2019
If you are looking to read a dry analysis of the author’s opinion on why he thinks the Republicans are not able to change liberal policies, Matt Grossmann’s “Red State Blues” is for you.
The author’s premise is that even though Republicans have kept the state offices, they have not been able to change/eliminate the social legislation that previous Democratic officials have put in place. Mr. Grossmann insists that Republicans are moving more to the right causing Democrats to move further to the left. He also points out that more liberal than conservative legislation is passed every year. It is hardly mentioned that there has been a movement to the left by both parties over the last 50 years (ponder who is leans more to the left, John F. Kennedy or George W. Bush). Rather than talk about a country-wide shift, it is easier to insist there is a radical move to the right by Republicans.
I was not happy with the method employed by the author to back up his statements. Each chapter would have a note section at the end, mostly listing only the person or persons who he referenced in his writing. Readers are left to look up those names in Notes and then travel to References in the back of the book and search for the name(s). Once there, I was dismayed to find that in many cases, only the books were listed, rather than including the referenced page numbers. This makes it a chore to find the original statement and in what context it was originally written, a task that the great majority of people will never do (me included). Thus, we don’t even learn the original passage’s frame of reference, and are forced to accept whatever the author wrote. While I am going to question the veracity of statements in books written by supporters of either political party, clean and easy-to-follow references might sway me to a different view. Because of the reference methods employed, that didn’t happen with “Red State Blues.”
As is the norm, Mr. Grossmann injects his own political slant and although it appears he tried to stay in the middle of the road, his opinions affected the outcomes. He admits the book is skeptical of Republican achievements and mentions redistricting so many times that one feels forced to agree that this is the only reason Republicans get reelected to state offices. What is assigned as liberal versus conservative legislation deserved more scrutiny, as this appeared to be a black-white decision rather than the reality, that there are countless shades of grey.
In short, I don’t feel the author successfully defended his thesis. In the author’s own words, “…anyone can pick a metric, produce a ranking, and write a blog post.” Or a book. Two hundred pages of dry reading insisting the Republicans are failing because they aren’t shredding Democratic legislation would be more interesting in a short article rather than in book form. Two stars.
My thanks to NetGalley and Cambridge University Press for an advance electronic copy of this book.
The author’s premise is that even though Republicans have kept the state offices, they have not been able to change/eliminate the social legislation that previous Democratic officials have put in place. Mr. Grossmann insists that Republicans are moving more to the right causing Democrats to move further to the left. He also points out that more liberal than conservative legislation is passed every year. It is hardly mentioned that there has been a movement to the left by both parties over the last 50 years (ponder who is leans more to the left, John F. Kennedy or George W. Bush). Rather than talk about a country-wide shift, it is easier to insist there is a radical move to the right by Republicans.
I was not happy with the method employed by the author to back up his statements. Each chapter would have a note section at the end, mostly listing only the person or persons who he referenced in his writing. Readers are left to look up those names in Notes and then travel to References in the back of the book and search for the name(s). Once there, I was dismayed to find that in many cases, only the books were listed, rather than including the referenced page numbers. This makes it a chore to find the original statement and in what context it was originally written, a task that the great majority of people will never do (me included). Thus, we don’t even learn the original passage’s frame of reference, and are forced to accept whatever the author wrote. While I am going to question the veracity of statements in books written by supporters of either political party, clean and easy-to-follow references might sway me to a different view. Because of the reference methods employed, that didn’t happen with “Red State Blues.”
As is the norm, Mr. Grossmann injects his own political slant and although it appears he tried to stay in the middle of the road, his opinions affected the outcomes. He admits the book is skeptical of Republican achievements and mentions redistricting so many times that one feels forced to agree that this is the only reason Republicans get reelected to state offices. What is assigned as liberal versus conservative legislation deserved more scrutiny, as this appeared to be a black-white decision rather than the reality, that there are countless shades of grey.
In short, I don’t feel the author successfully defended his thesis. In the author’s own words, “…anyone can pick a metric, produce a ranking, and write a blog post.” Or a book. Two hundred pages of dry reading insisting the Republicans are failing because they aren’t shredding Democratic legislation would be more interesting in a short article rather than in book form. Two stars.
My thanks to NetGalley and Cambridge University Press for an advance electronic copy of this book.
September 7, 2021
The basic framing of this book is correct. Republicans went from having only 3 (!) states under their control in 1992 to 25 states at the peak in 2016 (compared to just 6 for the Democrats). Yet in that time period, despite much hand-wringing on the left, and triumphalism on the right, little changed in most state policies. The basic reason is that even Republican politicians tended to continue to expand the size of government, and had only some success on social issues. For instance, studies show that budgets are one of the most important aspects of state power, and make up about 40% of the important proposals passed in legislatures. Governors have immense power over this, and about 70% of their budget address requests get enacted. While 65% of Democratic Governor requests are for expanding the size of government, 57% of Republican governor requests want this too. That's why the size of state government has grown from 6% of GDP in 1960 to 12% today, with only a modest plateauing since 2000, and not a large difference between red and blue states.
The other important reason for "red state blues" are that "state effects overwhelm partisan effects." Namely, some states, such as in the South and Plains, are more conservative no matter their party, and others, such as New York and California, are more liberal no matter who is in control. Studies show that while Republican governments spend about 0.3% less of GDP than Democrats, the difference between states can be up to 3% in total, so an order of magnitude. No amount of Republican control, in, for instance, Wisconsin, is going to make it Texas. Year fixed effects also overwhelm partisanship. While a shift in partisan control may make for one less "net liberal policy" for a few years, the shift from 1992 to 2010 led to almost 25 new net liberal policies in the average state. Everything is just moving more left, Republicans just move there more slowly.
The weakest part of the book is chapter 5, where the author attempts in 30 pages to basically review every study on every state-level policy, and then proclaims that most Republican policies have "minor" effects. Of course, the same is true of most Democratic policies, in that he shows that most types of policies seem to have little difference on state outcomes. Yet somehow this is treated as a "failure" of Republicans to live up to their rhetoric. But of course, one can make the same claim for the other side. Both make bigger claims about their policies than is warranted.
In total, this is a solid work that shows how comprehensive political science research can be brought to bear on a much-debated topic. Although it demonstrates a few of the biases of the field, it is also combines journalistic and quantitative insights into a new whole.
The other important reason for "red state blues" are that "state effects overwhelm partisan effects." Namely, some states, such as in the South and Plains, are more conservative no matter their party, and others, such as New York and California, are more liberal no matter who is in control. Studies show that while Republican governments spend about 0.3% less of GDP than Democrats, the difference between states can be up to 3% in total, so an order of magnitude. No amount of Republican control, in, for instance, Wisconsin, is going to make it Texas. Year fixed effects also overwhelm partisanship. While a shift in partisan control may make for one less "net liberal policy" for a few years, the shift from 1992 to 2010 led to almost 25 new net liberal policies in the average state. Everything is just moving more left, Republicans just move there more slowly.
The weakest part of the book is chapter 5, where the author attempts in 30 pages to basically review every study on every state-level policy, and then proclaims that most Republican policies have "minor" effects. Of course, the same is true of most Democratic policies, in that he shows that most types of policies seem to have little difference on state outcomes. Yet somehow this is treated as a "failure" of Republicans to live up to their rhetoric. But of course, one can make the same claim for the other side. Both make bigger claims about their policies than is warranted.
In total, this is a solid work that shows how comprehensive political science research can be brought to bear on a much-debated topic. Although it demonstrates a few of the biases of the field, it is also combines journalistic and quantitative insights into a new whole.
March 30, 2020
DNF. The premise is very interesting, but I found the writing too repetitive and stilted.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews