Laboratories against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics

by Jacob Grumbach

As national political fights are waged at the state level, democracy itself pays the price

Over the past generation, the Democratic and Republican parties have each become nationally coordinated political teams. American political institutions, on the other hand, remain highly decentralized. Laboratories against Democracy shows how national political conflicts are increasingly flowing through the subnational institutions of state politics―with profound consequences for public policy and American democracy.

Jacob Grumbach argues that as Congress has become more gridlocked, national partisan and activist groups have shifted their sights to the state level, nationalizing state politics in the process and transforming state governments into the engines of American policymaking. He shows how this has had the ironic consequence of making policy more varied across the states as red and blue party coalitions implement increasingly distinct agendas in areas like health care, reproductive rights, and climate change. The consequences don’t stop there, however. Drawing on a wealth of new data on state policy, public opinion, money in politics, and democratic performance, Grumbach traces how national groups are using state governmental authority to suppress the vote, gerrymander districts, and erode the very foundations of democracy itself.

Required reading for this precarious moment in our politics, Laboratories against Democracy reveals how the pursuit of national partisan agendas at the state level has intensified the challenges facing American democracy, and asks whether today’s state governments are mitigating the political crises of our time―or accelerating them.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

Published July 19, 2022

Reviews

[Bridget · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another book for my American democracy class. I was disappointed because I really enjoyed the lecture from Grumach I attended but didn’t love the way information was presented in this book. I agreed with the thesis but found that it would have worked better as a paper rather than a book.

[Walter Horn · Rating 2 out of 5]

While most of what can be found in this book about the changes in the relationship between national parties and state activism is true, Grumbach's book suffers from a severe lack of historical perspective--and the conviction that such changes are of recent vintage. As Sam Rosenfeld's much deeper and broader narrative (The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era) shows, the current extreme partisanship was a long time coming, actually born in the wake of the New Deal and E.E. Schattschneider's works--including the famous APSA report of 1950 on which he had so great an influence.

One can assume that Grumbach's study reads much like the 2015 dissertation from which it was developed. Again, it doesn't seem to me that he's particularly inaccurate anywhere, except about when and why things have happened as they have. I had considered writing something on this book in my Hornbook of Democracy Book Reviews, but I think it isn't really worth the trouble. Read the Rosenfeld instead!

[Nick]

While too political science-heavy for my tastes and not totally what I was hoping for, I'm not giving a rating because Grumbach is great and I still appreciated much of the book.

The author does a great job at laying out the various widely-accepted theories of why American Federalism is so great and then critiquing each one. So many policy domains are left up to the states--this is due to both constitutional design and to the decentralization of the last 50 years that came from gridlock at the federal level and from a lack of ambitious administrations (Biden is the first since LBJ, in my view, to actually propose any kind of coherent vision, if still obviously insufficient)--and Grumbach clearly demonstrates how bad this state variation is for quality of life and small-d democratic outcomes.

U.S. Federalism has made it so much easier for the [nationalized] right to take over the entire system. The title of the book and its play on that famous Brandeis quote shows how even some of the better figures in American history have been so seemingly blind to how bad of an idea decentralization can be. America is large and diverse, yes--I often do believe its size will inhibit any great governance--but intergovernmental relationships between local-state-federal agencies, etc. are a nightmare and our decentralization does not actually protect a resident of Massachusetts from the authoritarianism of deep-red states or a Trump administration.

[Drew Penrose · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books makes several excellent points that people should understand better about how our federalist system interacts with nationalized politics, creating some truly dysfunctional dynamics. It also raises important points about the inability of politicians to address issues of police corruption/misconduct and failing educational systems. My only issue with it is that every chapter reads a lot like an academic paper, with a "methods" section, a "results" section, and so on. Many of these are quite technical, and those parts of it are pretty inaccessible to untrained readers (like myself).

[Hunter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good stuff! I agree with other reviewers saying the format is a little dull but I appreciate some fact and stats-based analysis of modern politics, especially state-level.

[H J Cho · Rating 3 out of 5]

우러러보던 미국의 연방 구조가 어떻게 배신(?)하고 있는지 배울 수 있음. 다만 책의 문체나 형식이 논문 6편을 묶어놓은 것으로 추정되는데, 약간의 부가설명은 있으나 general public을 위한 책은 확실히 아니다. (방법론 부분에서 로짓, 잠재변수 이런 거 구구절절 설명함^^; 안궁금하고 결과만 알려주소) 미국의 federalism에 관심있는 정책/행정학 대학원생에게는 흥미로운 연구거리를 던져준다.

나 기억하려고 요약:
1. 미국의 두 거대정당이 nationalized되면서, 정책형성이 주(State) 수준에서 정치색이 뚜렷해지고 두드러짐 (그래서 주 간 정책의 variation이 더 커짐)
1-1. 미국 역사상 정책이 반민주적인 경우는 많은 경우 주법으로 형성된 경우였음.

2. 기존문헌에서는 주 수준에서 정책형성은 시민과 물리적으로 가깝기 때문에 더 다양한 소수의 목소리가 반영될 것이라고 보았음 (티부의 vote by feet etc).
2-1. 근데 현실은 특정 정책이슈에 대한 국가 수준에서 활동하는 (또는 그 수준의 institution과 연계되어 있는) 이익단체의 목소리가 더 많이 반영되고 있었음.
2-2. Vote by feet을 하려면 이사갈 돈이 있어야 하는데, 소수계층은 대부분 그럴 경제적 여유가 없음. 결국 주 정부는 엑시트exit의 위협이 현실적으로 받아들여지는 돈 많은 기업이나 부자들 목소리에 더 귀기울임.

[Glenn Harden · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a work of political science with all of its attendant statistical charts and so may not be accessible to the lay reader, but the research is substantial and the argument sound. One of the disturbing conclusions is that, in its current state, the Republican party is anti-democracy coalition of plutocrats and populists which wish to see democratic access restricted in order to preserve their economic or social power.

[Ava Stern · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ughhh i hate qualitative research. Me when i have to read a political science book for my political science major. Anyway tho i appreciate that the book wasn’t blandly bipartisan but grumbach thought he was such a baddie for mentioning the Republican Party by name like ok silent majority!!!!

[Nicole McMillan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for my class

[Rebekah · Rating 2 out of 5]

BORING. Really not helping me get out of my SEVERE reading slump.

[Salem · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great research and insight, but I was expecting more narrative based on the recommendation I received.