What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy
Radical partisanship among ordinary Americans is rising, and it poses grave risks for the prospects of American democracy.
Political violence is rising in the United States, with Republicans and Democrats divided along racial and ethnic lines that spurred massive bloodshed and democratic collapse earlier in the nation’s history. The January 6, 2021 insurrection and the partisan responses that ensued are a vivid illustration of how deep these currents run. How did American politics become so divided that we cannot agree on how to categorize an attack on our own Capitol?
For over four years, through a series of surveys and experiments, Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason have been studying radicalism among ordinary American partisans. In this groundbreaking book, they draw on new evidence—as well as insights from history, psychology, and political science—to put our present partisan fractiousness in context and to explain broad patterns of political and social change. Early chapters reveal the scope of the problem, who radical partisans are, and trends over time, while later chapters identify the conditions that partisans say justify violence and test how elections, political violence, and messages from leaders enflame or pacify radical views. Kalmoe and Mason find that ordinary partisanship is far more dangerous than pundits and scholars have recognized. However, these findings are not a forecast of inevitable doom; the current climate also brings opportunities to confront democratic threats head-on and to create a more inclusive politics. Timely and thought-provoking, Radical American Partisanship is vital reading for understanding our current political landscape.
Political violence is rising in the United States, with Republicans and Democrats divided along racial and ethnic lines that spurred massive bloodshed and democratic collapse earlier in the nation’s history. The January 6, 2021 insurrection and the partisan responses that ensued are a vivid illustration of how deep these currents run. How did American politics become so divided that we cannot agree on how to categorize an attack on our own Capitol?
For over four years, through a series of surveys and experiments, Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason have been studying radicalism among ordinary American partisans. In this groundbreaking book, they draw on new evidence—as well as insights from history, psychology, and political science—to put our present partisan fractiousness in context and to explain broad patterns of political and social change. Early chapters reveal the scope of the problem, who radical partisans are, and trends over time, while later chapters identify the conditions that partisans say justify violence and test how elections, political violence, and messages from leaders enflame or pacify radical views. Kalmoe and Mason find that ordinary partisanship is far more dangerous than pundits and scholars have recognized. However, these findings are not a forecast of inevitable doom; the current climate also brings opportunities to confront democratic threats head-on and to create a more inclusive politics. Timely and thought-provoking, Radical American Partisanship is vital reading for understanding our current political landscape.
222 pages, Paperback
Published May 6, 2022
29 people are currently reading
320 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 28, 2025
Studying from this spoiled my mood for weeks
August 3, 2022
My main problem with this book is that the authors are unabashedly biased in the partisan conflict and bring their viewpoints to the data collection and analysis process. This puts them in awkward situations when the data does not match simple Democrat preconceptions, with resulting confusion and handwringing, ex: “Why didn’t we find partisan asymmetries - with Republicans endorsing greater radicalism […]? This is a major puzzle that we begin to answer through the rest of the book” (pg 47)
Additionally, they favour conflict, saying that it “is inevitable when advocates for democracy rightly confront governing institutions, parties, and parts of the public that preserve an undemocratic society. If advocating for democracy causes conflict, so be it.” (pg 10). Here, as elsewhere in the book, the authors use the word “democracy” as synonymous with “Democratic party beliefs”.
Together, this creates a narrator who digs for ways to reinforce preconceived liberal ideas. For example, when looking at racial tensions, they analyze negative opinions strictly by whites, and strictly against blacks. When looking at genders, they looked through a feminist lens and wanted to relate sexism with violence, so they labelled a set of questions as “hostile sexist values”, then fixated in a long discussion on one of three surveys which correlated this measure with partisan violence (pg 82-85), while sidelining two others that found no relation (pg 98, 103)
Its general discussion is the book’s weakest point. It’s as if you are reading a book on cat vs dog relations and find it peppered with mentions of that mice are obviously the best food and that animals that are too big and don’t bury their own poop are obviously disgusting. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself whether a book authored by a very biased cat is actually your best source of truth.
Below is a choicy collection of quotes.
The overall summary of Reps vs Dems, ask yourself how many Republicans would find it insulting:
“Republicans increasingly pursue outsize power […] working to undercut government by the people. The party has been overtaken by those who long for the stricter racial hierarchies of the old white South, who envision a Christian theocracy, and who steer government benefits to the rich […]
By contrast, Democrats today are a pluralistic multiracial party increasingly committed to advancing democracy through electoral representation and equal rights and liberties. They are […] attempting to overcome America’s legacy of oppression by race, sex, religion, and class, among other categories.” -pg 2
Casually and without context, on whom to blame for the Civil War:
“Most enslaving states responded […] by abandoning their professed neutrality and joining the rebellion. White Southerners were ultimately responsible for the killing for three-quarters of a million Americans” - pg 16
An aside effectively espousing fascism in the name of democracy:
“The most substantial democratic backsliding occurred when the federal government signalled a loss of will for using state violence to ensure compliance with the Constitution” - pg 21
The main interesting data point was also the most consistent one - that "trait aggression" and "partisan social identity" are the best predictors of violent partisan tendencies, even more so than agreement with the actual party idiology. In other words, if all your friends hate a group and you're kind of into violence anyway you’ll pretty likely want to help your friends by fighting the enemy. Partisan violence is driven by simple tribal instincts at their simplest whereas ideological considerations are secondary and optional.
Putting our cynical hat on, we can therefore conclude that our authors must likely have lots of friends who also want to violently destroy some Republicans.
Additionally, they favour conflict, saying that it “is inevitable when advocates for democracy rightly confront governing institutions, parties, and parts of the public that preserve an undemocratic society. If advocating for democracy causes conflict, so be it.” (pg 10). Here, as elsewhere in the book, the authors use the word “democracy” as synonymous with “Democratic party beliefs”.
Together, this creates a narrator who digs for ways to reinforce preconceived liberal ideas. For example, when looking at racial tensions, they analyze negative opinions strictly by whites, and strictly against blacks. When looking at genders, they looked through a feminist lens and wanted to relate sexism with violence, so they labelled a set of questions as “hostile sexist values”, then fixated in a long discussion on one of three surveys which correlated this measure with partisan violence (pg 82-85), while sidelining two others that found no relation (pg 98, 103)
Its general discussion is the book’s weakest point. It’s as if you are reading a book on cat vs dog relations and find it peppered with mentions of that mice are obviously the best food and that animals that are too big and don’t bury their own poop are obviously disgusting. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself whether a book authored by a very biased cat is actually your best source of truth.
Below is a choicy collection of quotes.
The overall summary of Reps vs Dems, ask yourself how many Republicans would find it insulting:
“Republicans increasingly pursue outsize power […] working to undercut government by the people. The party has been overtaken by those who long for the stricter racial hierarchies of the old white South, who envision a Christian theocracy, and who steer government benefits to the rich […]
By contrast, Democrats today are a pluralistic multiracial party increasingly committed to advancing democracy through electoral representation and equal rights and liberties. They are […] attempting to overcome America’s legacy of oppression by race, sex, religion, and class, among other categories.” -pg 2
Casually and without context, on whom to blame for the Civil War:
“Most enslaving states responded […] by abandoning their professed neutrality and joining the rebellion. White Southerners were ultimately responsible for the killing for three-quarters of a million Americans” - pg 16
An aside effectively espousing fascism in the name of democracy:
“The most substantial democratic backsliding occurred when the federal government signalled a loss of will for using state violence to ensure compliance with the Constitution” - pg 21
The main interesting data point was also the most consistent one - that "trait aggression" and "partisan social identity" are the best predictors of violent partisan tendencies, even more so than agreement with the actual party idiology. In other words, if all your friends hate a group and you're kind of into violence anyway you’ll pretty likely want to help your friends by fighting the enemy. Partisan violence is driven by simple tribal instincts at their simplest whereas ideological considerations are secondary and optional.
Putting our cynical hat on, we can therefore conclude that our authors must likely have lots of friends who also want to violently destroy some Republicans.
January 25, 2024
I was between a 3.5 and a 4 for this book, and I will explain why I gave it a four rather than a 3.5 (in theory). The scope of the book was clearly (and excellently) aimed at a more common audience than an academic one, which sets the tone for the authors must assume that their readers are either less informed or at risk of being driven away due to an academic approach--and given the topic is on radical partisanship in democracy, it is a logical decision. However, at times I did find a bit of tension for myself as someone from the academia, I wanted more depth and context to the statistical results that were given. Yet, it is unfair of me to shift the rank of the book down because of that complaint, and therefore, I think it deserves a 4/5.
It is an increasingly important book. One might have thought its importance's peak was after the January 6th attacks, but it seems ever more important, especially as we approach another US election. It, however, is not a ray of sunshine and may cause a bit of a feeling of dread of what is to come.
It is an increasingly important book. One might have thought its importance's peak was after the January 6th attacks, but it seems ever more important, especially as we approach another US election. It, however, is not a ray of sunshine and may cause a bit of a feeling of dread of what is to come.
November 22, 2024
Pure fantasy
The authors have used only partisan media accounts actual facts in favor of memes that characterize their political opponents as hateful boogeymen. They totally ignore proven facts that the statistics they quote are based only in academic leftist propaganda thus suggesting their virtue and their hate is infantile and only in support of lies and the observations real people see are nearly Totally opposite to their pre held opinions that only they and their fake virtue, however false, and unsupported in reality are somehow truth. Frightening these propagandists believe a narrative built on lies, false statistics and opinion supported only by "feelings".
The authors have used only partisan media accounts actual facts in favor of memes that characterize their political opponents as hateful boogeymen. They totally ignore proven facts that the statistics they quote are based only in academic leftist propaganda thus suggesting their virtue and their hate is infantile and only in support of lies and the observations real people see are nearly Totally opposite to their pre held opinions that only they and their fake virtue, however false, and unsupported in reality are somehow truth. Frightening these propagandists believe a narrative built on lies, false statistics and opinion supported only by "feelings".
January 7, 2024
El libro ofrece algunos apuntes interesantes desde la Psicología Política para entender los procesos de radicalización violenta que están afectando a la política norteamericana, especialmente en el Partido Republicano. Y en ese sentido es brutal lo normalizada que está socialmente la violencia política.
No obstante, no entra en el análisis de las causas estructurales - es decir, de violencia estructural originada por el capitalismo- que posibilita la normalización de la violencia, ni en la cultura de las armas de los EEUU. En definitiva, se aprenden cosas, pero bastante cojo.
No obstante, no entra en el análisis de las causas estructurales - es decir, de violencia estructural originada por el capitalismo- que posibilita la normalización de la violencia, ni en la cultura de las armas de los EEUU. En definitiva, se aprenden cosas, pero bastante cojo.
April 26, 2024
bsjqosoxkt
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews