Rating: 
Summary: Must Republicans be deceitful, even on Amazon?
Review: Below, there is a review of this book titled "ABSOULETELY GRATE !!!!, October 16, 2003." The reviewer pretends to be Democrat, then writes a review full of spelling errors. Gee, that isn't obvious to anyone. Here's a clue: when pretending to be someone else, stay in character. You are glad more Democrats are emerging, then credit it to a shoddy education system? What sense would that make if you truly were a Democrat?I think the reviewer has shown me more about the morals and ethics of the Republican party than most of the liberal authors out there. And yes, I will display my contact information, unlike our anonymous "Democart".
Rating: 
Summary: Optimistic or Inevitable?
Review: For a few months now, I've been a fan of Ruy Teixeira's Internet blog, so it was inevitable that I would get around to reading the book that the website is based upon. His Internet writings may seem a little too optimistic at times, but one got the sense that he definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to polling information. THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY is a sober and analytical look at the trends and growing demographics that the authors conclude will result in an era in which Democratic policies will become the view held by most voters. The text gives a potted history of the Republicans and the Democrats during the course of the Twentieth Century, detailing when each party was at its highest and lowest points. Given the trends and the positions of the parties, the authors project the future based on the present and the recent past.
The format (and indeed the research the book consists of) is based upon a well-respected book from the late 60s, THE EMERGING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY. The authors of this book give credit where it's due; that earlier work was correct in its anticipation of what would become known as the Reagan Revolution. But since the 90s, Judis and Teixeira state that we've entered a period of transition, where neither party has been able to forcefully dictate the national conversation. The authors can only make predictions based on the available facts, but they make a very compelling argument. They look at changing demographics, geographical trends (the "blue" states vs. the "red" states), and the political philosophies of the coalitions that currently make up both parties.
The pillars of the Democratic party as it currently exists would seem to be much more in line with the general public than that of the Republicans, who are marginalizing themselves at a fairly fast rate. There's a lot of information contained here, it's displayed clearly, and each argument is backed up with a wealth of statistical data. Exit polling data and opinion polls make up a large part of their case, but an analysis of what ideas different groups of people seem most comfortable with is where the book is strongest. They highlight the growth of "ideopolises", places where ideas and services rather than goods are the main sources of employment and revenue. They see the growth of the "professional" class as the key to the Democrats' future as those people would appear to be much more open to that party's beliefs and much less happy with the direction of the Republican Party (dominated as it is by a weird and fracturing hybrid of neo-conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and anti-regulation economists).
While the model for what the near future will look like is the book's obvious and main selling point, I also found it informative to read the author's interpretation of the last century or so of political polling data. Naturally, their focus is upon the immediate past, but contained here is a nice summary of where both parties have come from. It's also very handy to have contained in one book a complete guide to all the regions of the United States and their current political stances. TV pundits make broad statements about Gore States and Bush States, but as one can see here, it's a little more complicated than that.
The book may be a little more statistic and fact oriented than most political tomes, but I found that refreshing in itself. The authors seem to be very much in favor of the "Progressive Centralism" that they predict will be the key to Democratic success, yet that dry enthusiasm never interferes with the objective facts concerning population and cultural changes. This is recommended to anyone with an interest in where the future of United States politics is moving.
Rating: 
Summary: fantasy of words
Review: i agree with at least one other reviewer in that this book, despite its recent pub date, is painfully outdated. either that, or the authors are engaging in delusional propaganda. probably the latter. this book is unashamedly biased. only problem is that some potential readers, especially the young fresh out of socialist incubation centers (colleges), might actually believe it is factual. a friend of mine recommended this to me, describing it as a primer for democratic political strategy. i found it seriously lacking if that is the standard for which it is to be measured. as a former democrat, i was/am ashamed when books like this are published. they make me yearn for the days that honorable democrats were seated in federal office. that all died with bill clinton. these two "clintonista" authors, one an editor with the socialist "new republic" (i don't want a new republic, i like the one of the founding fathers), the other a senior fellow with another leftist think tank (century foundation), do a poor job in advancing their theories. they are not reporting on a phenomena here, they are trying to CREATE reality. bottom line here is that we need at least a two party system in this country. and contrary to what these authors would have you believe, the democratic machine is broken down. the dem coalition of the poor, minorities, and "fringe" elements can no longer do the job. it is certainly time for both parties to engage in consensus building within the framework of our traditions and unique culture. the current democratic party thrives on division and hate. it prospers when sub-groups are convinced that a democrat is needed to "save" them from the evil conservative empire. typically democratic base groups are starting to see this. they want a real piece of the american dream and conservatives are beginning to convince them that its there for the taking. you might consider reading zell miller's "a national party no more" - although crudely written in anecdotal style, this book actually describes the dying quivers of the once proud democratic party. he encourages what is left of it to direct itself toward inclusion, not exclusion and division for political gain. if you are a democrat, wake up. explore the history of your organization and what true democratic statesman (j. kennedy, truman, etc) have done for this country. don't be misled by the words of extremists such as these authors.
Rating:
Summary: fantasy of words
Review: i agree with at least one other reviewer in that this book, despite its recent pub date, is painfully outdated. either that, or the authors are engaging in delusional propaganda. probably the latter. this book is unashamedly biased. only problem is that some potential readers, especially the young fresh out of socialist incubation centers (colleges), might actually believe it is factual. a friend of mine recommended this to me, describing it as a primer for democratic political strategy. i found it seriously lacking if that is the standard for which it is to be measured. as a former democrat, i was/am ashamed when books like this are published. they make me yearn for the days that honorable democrats were seated in federal office. that all died with bill clinton. these two "clintonista" authors, one an editor with the socialist "new republic" (i don't want a new republic, i like the one of the founding fathers), the other a senior fellow with another leftist think tank (century foundation), do a poor job in advancing their theories. they are not reporting on a phenomena here, they are trying to CREATE reality. bottom line here is that we need at least a two party system in this country. and contrary to what these authors would have you believe, the democratic machine is broken down. the dem coalition of the poor, minorities, and "fringe" elements can no longer do the job. it is certainly time for both parties to engage in consensus building within the framework of our traditions and unique culture. the current democratic party thrives on division and hate. it prospers when sub-groups are convinced that a democrat is needed to "save" them from the evil conservative empire. typically democratic base groups are starting to see this. they want a real piece of the american dream and conservatives are beginning to convince them that its there for the taking. you might consider reading zell miller's "a national party no more" - although crudely written in anecdotal style, this book actually describes the dying quivers of the once proud democratic party. he encourages what is left of it to direct itself toward inclusion, not exclusion and division for political gain. if you are a democrat, wake up. explore the history of your organization and what true democratic statesman (j. kennedy, truman, etc) have done for this country. don't be misled by the words of extremists such as these authors.
Rating: 
Summary: Hope springs eternal...
Review: I read this book the summer before the 2004 elections. I found it an interesting read, there are a lot of statistics that one has to believe. One knows that minorities are a growing segment of the population. One has to believe that cities and their suburbs (So called "Ideolopolises") are growing at a substantial rate. But that is where belief in me ends. This book makes an error in philosophy, the authors buy the idea of identity politics. This idea, this belief, is that a person is most likely to vote based on a few measurable elements of their race, socio-economic status, and location. Unfortunately, as this recent election proves, this is fallacy. And so is the book. Democrats cannot hope for demographics to return to power, they must now turn and examine their ideology, and that always hurts.
Rating: 
Summary: The book that lost the election for John Kerry
Review: Is there anything more destructive to a movement than a sense of historical inevitability? Just ask the Soviets, every time they screwed up they told themselves don't worry, our triumph over capitalism is inevitable, Marx said so. I fear in this last election the Dems had a milder case of the same illness, a conviction that demographic changes would benefit them no matter what they did or said. It didn't work out that way.
I first bought this-- in hardcover, alas-- just before the 2002 elections. It seemed like a bad joke then, but I started reading it again just before this election, which saw the Republicans take control of the White House, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships and everything but the Lake Tehachapi Water Authority, apparently. It proved to be more than a bad joke-- there is a lot of good analysis here, some of which supports their trendlines for the Democratic party gaining ground demographically, but the authors are apparently blind to the fact that every three sentences they are forced to say something like: "Although Reagan did win 84% of the vote in the Democratic stronghold, that was due to the one-time effect of new processed cheese regulations, and the overall trend remains powerfully Democratic." After a couple of chapters you've heard so many apologies and excuses that it's a bit of a joke-- the relentless upward sweep of the Republicans since 1964 is a series of flukes, while the narrow victories of Bill Clinton-- put into office twice only because Ross Perot ran to his opponent's right, splitting the majority right-- are proof of the dominance of the Democratic party.
Underneath all this there may well be some demographic truth. But it will take some serious soul-searching on the part of the Democratic party to take advantage of it, and this book offers excuses, not a roadmap.
Rating:
Summary: Complelling Political Analysis
Review: The Emerging Democratic Majority provides a compelling analysis of how the electorate shifts over time -- and how political parties must change and respond to those shifts or risk losing power
History clearly shows us that American politics are cyclical. As political opinions and social norms change, some poltical parties gain ground while others lose ground. The authors decribe why each party has gained or lost over the last 70 years or so, with a focus on more recent elections. As a bit of a bonus, the authors go into some detail on why the American political system supports only two major parties and the role of third parties in the political process.
Perhaps the most fascinating part of the book is the authors' predictions about how 9/11 would impact the midterm (2002) elections. They also discuss the idea that the shift to a democratic majority will be delayed only as long as American public remains focused on terrorism AND belives that the Republican party is doing a credible job fighting terrorism.
While the author's theories remain to be proven or disproven by history, this last theory becomes particularly interesting, given the Bush administration's preoccupation with waging war. Another reviewer suggested that this book should be required reading by the Bush and Kerry campaigns. It would appear that the Bush administration did read it.
This book is well researched, with the authors' arguments clearly described and substantiated. I highly recommend this for anyone interested in taking a longer term view of American politics.
Rating:
Summary: Fundamentally Flawed
Review: The premise of this book, that because the minorities that tend to vote Democratic are currently growing while the caucasian population is remaning static indicates a rising Democratic majority, is seriously flawed.
If you told a Republican in 1930 that the African-American population would grow, he'd probably say "good." But after FDR, African-Americans stopped voting for "Lincoln's Party." Furthermore, while 89% of African Americans voted Democratic in 2004 (down by 2% since 2000), when polled on certain issues such as school vouchers, gay marriage, etc., they tend to side with Republicans. As for Asian and Latino voters on the rise, yes they did vote for Kerry, but the margin was 18% for the former and 9% for the latter. There is really no way, though, to predict which ways voting blocks will go ten or twenty years down the road (especially if they aren't really voting as a "block" now, which Latinos most certainly are not).
The economic argument is flawed also. While I am no expert on the subject, I have heard numerous economists who have said that small businesses are the 21st century economy. In the 2004 election at least, Republicans tended to focus on, and I would assume, receive, the votes of small business owners and employees, while Democrats focused on the working class.
Women votes were also near-even in 2004.
Rating:
Summary: 2004's Most Politically Useful Book...
Review: The title of the book sets out its thesis pretty clearly, but what it doesn't show is the methodology the authors use in making their claim. After a roughly 30-year cycle of Republican majority (including the Republican Congress of 6 of Clinton's 8 years), Judis and Teixeira predict that we are on the cusp of a perhaps thirty year cycle of Democratic supremacy in Congress and in the White House. To make this claim, they look at voting trends and data of the last 70 years (though they focus on the last four elections). Their argument is that with the growth of postindustrial "ideopolises" across the country (cities and suburbs that are more dependent on the creation of ideas and services than goods) and the end of the backlash against '60s liberalism, its only a matter of time (barring additional incidents like September 11th) before the Democrats reascend to their heights of the '30s to '60s. It's a compelling argument, and their use of statistics and solid voting data helps a lot. If it's not required reading in both the Bush and Kerry camps it should be. It suffers a little for having been written before the 2002 midterms, but the new afterword written in 2003 for the paperback edition helps recitfy that. It could also use a little ethnography to go with its statistics and political science, too. In spite of that, this book should be a must for pundits in this election cycle. Anyone with an interest in how Americans vote (if not always why they vote they way they do) should read it, too. It's vastly more useful than all the exposes, testimonials and pseudohistorical analyses that the average bookstore's "Politics" section is littered with...
Rating:
Summary: 2004's Most Politically Useful Book...
Review: The title of the book sets out its thesis pretty clearly, but what it doesn't show is the methodology the authors use in making their claim. After a roughly 30-year cycle of Republican majority (including the Republican Congress of 6 of Clinton's 8 years), Judis and Teixeira predict that we are on the cusp of a perhaps thirty year cycle of Democratic supremacy in Congress and in the White House. To make this claim, they look at voting trends and data of the last 70 years (though they focus on the last four elections). Their argument is that with the growth of postindustrial "ideopolises" across the country (cities and suburbs that are more dependent on the creation of ideas and services than goods) and the end of the backlash against '60s liberalism, its only a matter of time (barring additional incidents like September 11th) before the Democrats reascend to their heights of the '30s to '60s. It's a compelling argument, and their use of statistics and solid voting data helps a lot. If it's not required reading in both the Bush and Kerry camps it should be. It suffers a little for having been written before the 2002 midterms, but the new afterword written in 2003 for the paperback edition helps recitfy that. It could also use a little ethnography to go with its statistics and political science, too. In spite of that, this book should be a must for pundits in this election cycle. Anyone with an interest in how Americans vote (if not always why they vote they way they do) should read it, too. It's vastly more useful than all the exposes, testimonials and pseudohistorical analyses that the average bookstore's "Politics" section is littered with...
|
