What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Americans Hate Politics
In this new edition of his national bestseller, E. J. Dionne brings up to date his influential proposals for a politics that can and must find a balance between rights and obligations, between responsibility and compassion.
All over the United States, Americans are deserting the political process. Why?
In this national bestseller, one of our shrewdest political observers traces thirty years of volatile political history and finds that on point after point, liberals and conservatives are framing issues as a series of "false choices, " making it impossible for politicians to solve problems, and alienating voters in the process.
Now with a new afterword discussing the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and the 1992 presidential election, Dionne explores what has gone wrong with the American system and offers a back-to-basics approach to politics designed to respond to the anger of America's restive majority.
From the New, Updated
"At the heart of Why Americans Hate Politics is the view that ideas shape politics far more than most accounts of public life usually allow. I believe ideas matter not only to elites and intellectuals, but also to rank and file voters. Indeed, I often think that the rank and file see the importance of ideas more clearly than the elites, who often find themselves surprised by the rise of the movements that arise from the bottom up and shape our politics."
All over the United States, Americans are deserting the political process. Why?
In this national bestseller, one of our shrewdest political observers traces thirty years of volatile political history and finds that on point after point, liberals and conservatives are framing issues as a series of "false choices, " making it impossible for politicians to solve problems, and alienating voters in the process.
Now with a new afterword discussing the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and the 1992 presidential election, Dionne explores what has gone wrong with the American system and offers a back-to-basics approach to politics designed to respond to the anger of America's restive majority.
From the New, Updated
"At the heart of Why Americans Hate Politics is the view that ideas shape politics far more than most accounts of public life usually allow. I believe ideas matter not only to elites and intellectuals, but also to rank and file voters. Indeed, I often think that the rank and file see the importance of ideas more clearly than the elites, who often find themselves surprised by the rise of the movements that arise from the bottom up and shape our politics."
432 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1991
19 people are currently reading
434 people want to read
About the author
E.J. Dionne Jr.
29 books123 followersEugene Joseph "E. J." Dionne, Jr. is an American journalist and political commentator, and a long-time op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. He is also a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a University Professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at the McCourt School of Public Policy, a Senior Research Fellow at Saint Anselm College, and an NPR, MSNBC, and PBS commentator.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 19, 2016
Given the political divide in which we live, this book proved irresistible. Written at the advent of the 90s, it looks back at how the fissures in the political landscape formed over the preceding thirty years. Dionne brilliantly lays out how fissures formed between schools of political thought, examining the voices of those who led the changes.
The divide, that caused the disappearance of what Arthur Schlesinger called our "vital center" came about from factions taking insular world views. The result is a political landscape offering voters only "yes-no" choices when we require more nuanced and conciliatory interaction to solve problems.
He offers advice at the conclusion for how we can overcome the stark differences that have marked our politics. Sadly, given where we are now, we haven't heeded it. Things have only worsened.
We, as voters--or non voters, as the case may be--are probably enablers to our political leadership. It is not until we ourselves engage in more thoughtful political discourse that we can demand the same of those we elect. Democracy demands as much. We don't seem much up to the task these days.
The divide, that caused the disappearance of what Arthur Schlesinger called our "vital center" came about from factions taking insular world views. The result is a political landscape offering voters only "yes-no" choices when we require more nuanced and conciliatory interaction to solve problems.
He offers advice at the conclusion for how we can overcome the stark differences that have marked our politics. Sadly, given where we are now, we haven't heeded it. Things have only worsened.
We, as voters--or non voters, as the case may be--are probably enablers to our political leadership. It is not until we ourselves engage in more thoughtful political discourse that we can demand the same of those we elect. Democracy demands as much. We don't seem much up to the task these days.
February 10, 2007
Dionne's intellectual history of the development of U.S. contempory political ideologies. The book is divided, first half left, second half right. The strenghts and weaknesses or each and their evolution until the dawn of the Clintonian era is explored. The book is a little dated, first published in 1991 and only spottily updated, save for the aferword; however, the themes explored remain easily identified and quickly contextualized. If anything, the distance from the bulk of the events Dionne features serves them well as they have become less charged as individual incidents, therefore enhancing the reader's ability to consider them less viscerally than would have been the case were the book newer. "Why American's Hate Politics" would serve as an easy primer on how U.S. political thinking has become so stagnated and why we insist of re-fighting old battles in new guises. Dionne is a PhD, and scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist for The Washington Post, and a regular commentator on NPR's "All Things Considered." Highly and unreservedly recommended.
October 25, 2007
Of course, people who hate politics are the ones who should read books like this, but they never will.
May 20, 2016
This was an interesting history of politics in America, but i felt it overlooked some issues that were factors. Though I thought the synopsis had quite a few good points.
October 31, 2018
Excellent primer of the history of politics from its ideological roots, though a difficult read without feeling the weight of history today and the impact of decades-old policy and ideological choices. A book published in 1991 (new intro in 2004) reminds us that the decline of participatory democracy began in the Sixties as parties shifted to rule by elites and a class system divorced of the values and reform-minded goals of the average voter.
Items of note:
Bankrupt neoconservative ideology founded on cherry-picking government programs they opposed as useless to fixing the problem, that only superficial fixes to the program were possible, and solutions often caused additional, unforeseen, often worse problems; hence, why bother trying? This eventually expanded to attack all government programs as ineffective (ones they opposed or those they could get away with attacking, i.e. not popular programs they yet hated like social security). The underlying problem the program addressed would either fix itself, was not fixable, or the private sector could do so far more effectively and cheaply.
Further reminder that fixing the political problems of today cannot happen overnight and that current behavior can seriously affect tomorrow: “liberals bear nearly as much responsibility for the growth in white backlash as do the conservatives who profited from it politically.”
1972 presidential primary poll in Michigan showed some blue-collar workers claiming support of the racist Wallace as votes cast against the status quo candidates they felt no longer represented their political interests. Sound familiar?
Collapse of liberalism tied to the 1980 defeat of Carter: “it was the inability of liberals to articulate a coherent sense of the national interest that was decisive in creating a politics of false choices.” This reflected the Democrat Party (typically considered the party of liberals by this time) as they shifted to a pro-business agenda while retreating from a platform of pro-worker and social reform.
Referring to the increasing reliance of focus groups as a measure of people’s gut reactions to manipulate voter anxiety but not to explore policy changes: “The approach to politics is not even Machiavellian; it is Pavlovian.”
Speaks for itself. “Since the late 1980s, American politics has been held hostage to conservatism’s impasse and liberalism’s past failures. The result has been immobility in government, an increasing harshness in politics, and a lack of substance in electoral campaigns.”
When was this written, again? “This, then, is the legacy of the last thirty years: a polarized politics that highlights symbolic issues, short-circuits genuine political debate, gives discontent few real outlets, allows money a paramount role in the electoral process, and leaves the country alarmed over whether it can maintain its standard of living.”
Again, pointing out that this book published in 1991 where the author highlights the dangers of big money into politics by this time, warning of increased dangers to come if efforts not taken to instill a stronger sense of civic responsibility, smarter government, and a healthier respect for its necessary accomplishments. So glad all that worked out by 2018.
Items of note:
Bankrupt neoconservative ideology founded on cherry-picking government programs they opposed as useless to fixing the problem, that only superficial fixes to the program were possible, and solutions often caused additional, unforeseen, often worse problems; hence, why bother trying? This eventually expanded to attack all government programs as ineffective (ones they opposed or those they could get away with attacking, i.e. not popular programs they yet hated like social security). The underlying problem the program addressed would either fix itself, was not fixable, or the private sector could do so far more effectively and cheaply.
Further reminder that fixing the political problems of today cannot happen overnight and that current behavior can seriously affect tomorrow: “liberals bear nearly as much responsibility for the growth in white backlash as do the conservatives who profited from it politically.”
1972 presidential primary poll in Michigan showed some blue-collar workers claiming support of the racist Wallace as votes cast against the status quo candidates they felt no longer represented their political interests. Sound familiar?
Collapse of liberalism tied to the 1980 defeat of Carter: “it was the inability of liberals to articulate a coherent sense of the national interest that was decisive in creating a politics of false choices.” This reflected the Democrat Party (typically considered the party of liberals by this time) as they shifted to a pro-business agenda while retreating from a platform of pro-worker and social reform.
Referring to the increasing reliance of focus groups as a measure of people’s gut reactions to manipulate voter anxiety but not to explore policy changes: “The approach to politics is not even Machiavellian; it is Pavlovian.”
Speaks for itself. “Since the late 1980s, American politics has been held hostage to conservatism’s impasse and liberalism’s past failures. The result has been immobility in government, an increasing harshness in politics, and a lack of substance in electoral campaigns.”
When was this written, again? “This, then, is the legacy of the last thirty years: a polarized politics that highlights symbolic issues, short-circuits genuine political debate, gives discontent few real outlets, allows money a paramount role in the electoral process, and leaves the country alarmed over whether it can maintain its standard of living.”
Again, pointing out that this book published in 1991 where the author highlights the dangers of big money into politics by this time, warning of increased dangers to come if efforts not taken to instill a stronger sense of civic responsibility, smarter government, and a healthier respect for its necessary accomplishments. So glad all that worked out by 2018.
April 21, 2016
Dionne's book was published in 1991, with a renewed copyright in 2004. It's a very good history of American politics from the 1950s to the 1990s. Since I am familiar with that time period, I followed the allusions with no problem.
I did have a problem with the title. I am quite tired of hearing about Americans who hate politics. If you have a problem with politics, look in the mirror. If you are not involved in government at all levels, who is to blame for that? I know many dedicated politicians who work hard to help others. They need your support. Deal with your own personal ignorances if you have a problem.
What Dionne does is explain why both the left and the right lost support with the American people. Like I said, they have no one but themselves to blame. But I am going to follow the author's lead and explain my current problems with both the left and the right in contemporary politics.
On the liberal side, I am very tired of the Hate America First crowd. Western culture is in trouble right now. And part of that is coming from the left. And what's the country they hate second? Israel, of course. The undercurrent of anti-Semitism is prevalent everywhere. I used to belong to the New Hampshire Peace Action Committee. They called for the destruction of Israel. Seriously folks? They mouthed everything the PLO said. And I could not get them to talk about any other country except for Israel and the US. It was like the rest of the world was a utopia. I finally dropped out.
On the conservative side, I am far more tired of the scientific ignorance I see there. Climate change is real. It is measurable and verifiable. Nothing is more conservative than science. If you don't believe in science, then you are no damn conservative. So remove that label. And the hatred coming from the Republican party is just too much to handle. The eight year effort to destroy the presidency of Mr Obama has sown hatred that we are now reaping. Enough. Clearly, the pick of the two sides is the liberal Democrat side.
I did have a problem with the title. I am quite tired of hearing about Americans who hate politics. If you have a problem with politics, look in the mirror. If you are not involved in government at all levels, who is to blame for that? I know many dedicated politicians who work hard to help others. They need your support. Deal with your own personal ignorances if you have a problem.
What Dionne does is explain why both the left and the right lost support with the American people. Like I said, they have no one but themselves to blame. But I am going to follow the author's lead and explain my current problems with both the left and the right in contemporary politics.
On the liberal side, I am very tired of the Hate America First crowd. Western culture is in trouble right now. And part of that is coming from the left. And what's the country they hate second? Israel, of course. The undercurrent of anti-Semitism is prevalent everywhere. I used to belong to the New Hampshire Peace Action Committee. They called for the destruction of Israel. Seriously folks? They mouthed everything the PLO said. And I could not get them to talk about any other country except for Israel and the US. It was like the rest of the world was a utopia. I finally dropped out.
On the conservative side, I am far more tired of the scientific ignorance I see there. Climate change is real. It is measurable and verifiable. Nothing is more conservative than science. If you don't believe in science, then you are no damn conservative. So remove that label. And the hatred coming from the Republican party is just too much to handle. The eight year effort to destroy the presidency of Mr Obama has sown hatred that we are now reaping. Enough. Clearly, the pick of the two sides is the liberal Democrat side.
August 26, 2010
Great primer for understanding the stubborn bipartisanship in US politics that preempts any real national debates on vital issues. This book provides valuable insights into why Americans are so skeptical of government and more easily lend their support to corporations and the private sector even while this support diminishes their civic participation. This book is sensitively written and centrist to the core which makes it quite even-handed, even while it makes it difficult to agree with Dionne throughout whether from the Left or the Right. This is a great read for getting a good sense of political history and for understanding why American politics seems so schizophrenic!
May 22, 2018
The trouble with the politics of polarization and sound bites is that it doesn't allow for the complexity and nuances inherent in the issues. Agreed. Unfortunately, after reading this book, I am aware of lots of examples of this, but have no idea what the causes or solutions are. Dionne advocates for a "new political center" but doesn't offer ideas for how to make that happen.
January 27, 2009
I don't entirely (or perhaps at all) agree with Dionne's thesis (that the political right and left present us with a series of false choices, since we are more centrist than anything else, and this is why we are turned off by politics), but this book is well worth reading. You will learn a lot.
April 29, 2017
This is a book that I wish I had read earlier in my life. It is an excellent summary of the history of American political trends up to the end of the Reagan era (this is the 1992 paperback edition). Every senior in high school or freshman in college should read this book.
December 14, 2024
Why Americans Hate Politics, by E.J.Dionne could have the title that it used for Part One of this book, “The Failures of Liberalism.”
Because Dionne is a liberal Democrat, he addresses the failures of liberalism with the concern of a family doctor treating the ailments of a cherished patient whose problems were brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle.
The 1960’s began with liberal optimism about the possibility of liberal reform. Unfortunately, President John Kennedy’s inaugural promise to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty,” led to the War in Vietnam, and America’s first defeat in a war.
Martin Luther King’s “Dream” articulated during his August 1963 speech was followed by the nightmare of five years of black ghetto rioting.
Efforts to achieve a more humane criminal justice system were followed by a doubling of the crime rate. The declaration of a War on Poverty was followed by an ongoing increase in welfare dependency and illegitimacy.
All of this led to the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon, the success of his Southern Strategy, and the end of the New Deal Coalition that had dominated the United States since the 1933 inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt.
The Watergate Scandal, the resignation of President Nixon, and the election in 1976 of Jimmy Carter enabled Democrats to believe that they had second chance to prove that their reforms could work. Unfortunately, the simultaneous increase in unemployment and inflation, that began during the Nixon administration, became worse under Carter.
Dionne does not answer the Republican argument that the stagflation of the second half of the 1970’s was caused by the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes followed during the Roosevelt administration. This is the main shortcoming of his book.
The stagflation was caused by the rise in the world price of petroleum caused by the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Keynesian policies of the New Deal were not designed to respond to a shortage of an essential natural resource. Moreover, during the Great Depression the problem was deflation, not inflation.
Republicans have never liked Keynesian economic policies because they shifted wealth, power, and prestige from the business community to the government. Moreover, they did not want to admit that foreigners they disliked had so much power over the U.S. economy, and that America’s dependence on automobile transportation and fossil fuels in general, is a national problem.
Increases in the world price of petroleum caused by Arabs and Iranians was price fixing. It came to an end in time to give President Reagan undeserved credit for ending stagflation.
Nevertheless, Reagan was unable to honor his 1980 promise to cut taxes (especially for the rich), raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983. During President Carter’s last full year in office in 1980 the national debt was $908 billion. After eight years of Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich this had grown to $2,602 billion. In 2023 this had grown to $34,001 billion
Dionne’s main objection to American politics is that Democrats and Republicans nurture reasons to dislike each other, when they should be cooperating in ways to make life better for most Americans.
I suggest that historical advantages have stopped working for the U.S. economy, and that the easy economic growth Americans enjoyed from the end of the Second World War to 1973 cannot be restored. It is not possible to benefit one part of the American people without lowering the standard of living of another.
The Democrat Party continues to promote social policies most Americans dislike, when they can win on economic policies, like promoting a more progressive tax system.
Because Dionne is a liberal Democrat, he addresses the failures of liberalism with the concern of a family doctor treating the ailments of a cherished patient whose problems were brought on by an unhealthy lifestyle.
The 1960’s began with liberal optimism about the possibility of liberal reform. Unfortunately, President John Kennedy’s inaugural promise to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty,” led to the War in Vietnam, and America’s first defeat in a war.
Martin Luther King’s “Dream” articulated during his August 1963 speech was followed by the nightmare of five years of black ghetto rioting.
Efforts to achieve a more humane criminal justice system were followed by a doubling of the crime rate. The declaration of a War on Poverty was followed by an ongoing increase in welfare dependency and illegitimacy.
All of this led to the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon, the success of his Southern Strategy, and the end of the New Deal Coalition that had dominated the United States since the 1933 inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt.
The Watergate Scandal, the resignation of President Nixon, and the election in 1976 of Jimmy Carter enabled Democrats to believe that they had second chance to prove that their reforms could work. Unfortunately, the simultaneous increase in unemployment and inflation, that began during the Nixon administration, became worse under Carter.
Dionne does not answer the Republican argument that the stagflation of the second half of the 1970’s was caused by the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes followed during the Roosevelt administration. This is the main shortcoming of his book.
The stagflation was caused by the rise in the world price of petroleum caused by the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Keynesian policies of the New Deal were not designed to respond to a shortage of an essential natural resource. Moreover, during the Great Depression the problem was deflation, not inflation.
Republicans have never liked Keynesian economic policies because they shifted wealth, power, and prestige from the business community to the government. Moreover, they did not want to admit that foreigners they disliked had so much power over the U.S. economy, and that America’s dependence on automobile transportation and fossil fuels in general, is a national problem.
Increases in the world price of petroleum caused by Arabs and Iranians was price fixing. It came to an end in time to give President Reagan undeserved credit for ending stagflation.
Nevertheless, Reagan was unable to honor his 1980 promise to cut taxes (especially for the rich), raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983. During President Carter’s last full year in office in 1980 the national debt was $908 billion. After eight years of Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich this had grown to $2,602 billion. In 2023 this had grown to $34,001 billion
Dionne’s main objection to American politics is that Democrats and Republicans nurture reasons to dislike each other, when they should be cooperating in ways to make life better for most Americans.
I suggest that historical advantages have stopped working for the U.S. economy, and that the easy economic growth Americans enjoyed from the end of the Second World War to 1973 cannot be restored. It is not possible to benefit one part of the American people without lowering the standard of living of another.
The Democrat Party continues to promote social policies most Americans dislike, when they can win on economic policies, like promoting a more progressive tax system.
November 14, 2020
读完这本书之后，你会了解美国语境下的“左”和“右”各自代表了什么。更重要的是，你会发觉“左”和“右”不过是两个单词，却由此引发了虚假的两极化辩论。其实，他们并非是必然对立的两种政治智慧。
December 9, 2020
A brilliant book that, while dated, is still full of many fascinating suggestions for politics and policy.
February 1, 2009
as a lit major dabbling in politics, this was invaluable. most of the poli sci stuff i've picked up has been drab, numbers-obsessed, and blind to the concepts of what people are thinking when they vote.
this book wasn't the be-all-end-all (what is?) but i thought it was fundamentally fantastic - plain-spokenly, lucidly informative about what really drives the IDEAS of both sides of the u.s. political debates, and (without being strident) makes a case for the impossibility of that two-way political street accommodating anyone, really and truly, and makes understandable the resulting self-disenfranchisement of people expected to vote within and live under it.
a swan song for the falsely divisive politics of either/or ...
or, at very least, a damn good tune.
this book wasn't the be-all-end-all (what is?) but i thought it was fundamentally fantastic - plain-spokenly, lucidly informative about what really drives the IDEAS of both sides of the u.s. political debates, and (without being strident) makes a case for the impossibility of that two-way political street accommodating anyone, really and truly, and makes understandable the resulting self-disenfranchisement of people expected to vote within and live under it.
a swan song for the falsely divisive politics of either/or ...
or, at very least, a damn good tune.
March 14, 2014
The best modern history of American politics I have read. A comprehensive, detailed, nuanced and accessible description of the rise and fall of the contemporary Left and Right and the consequences that followed said rises and falls. I have been working on a "what the heck happened?" project -- reading theories of American political decline -- and this book is a comprehensive answer to the political culture side of the question. I highly recommend this to all and especially to Milllenials wondering why the American politics we were born into is so twisted and knotty.
December 30, 2009
Good overview of the history of liberal and conservative politics in America in the 20th century. It was written in 1991 or 1992, though, so it doesn't address Clinton and Bush Jr. Still a good read for anyone who wants to know why and how power shifted from liberals to conservatives in the 20th century.
April 27, 2015
I had wanted to re-read this 1992 book for a while. Dionne's argument is that Americans hate politics because they are presented false choices by their leaders instead of solutions. The issues have changed since this was written, but the book contains a good history of both the conservative movement and the Left.
January 28, 2011
Dionne puts together a really interesting history of both major US political parties. His conclusion is somewhat weak and misguided; overall it's a valuable addition to American political history after the Second World War.
Read
November 30, 2009great essays on partisanship and american political history from early 20th century to present.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews