America’s two party system is highly stable, but its parties’ issue positions are not. Democrats and Republicans have changed sides on many subjects, including trade, civil rights, defense spending, and fiscal policy, and polarized on newer issues like abortion and gun control. Yet party position change remains poorly understood. In this book David Karol views parties as coalitions of groups with intense preferences on particular issues managed by politicians. He explains important variations in party position change: the speed of shifts, the stability of new positions, and the extent to which change occurs via adaptation by incumbents. Karol shows that the key question is whether parties are reacting to changed preferences of coalition components, incorporating new constituencies, or experimenting on “groupless” issues. He reveals that adaptation by incumbents is a far greater source of change than previously recognized. This study enhances our understanding of parties, interest groups, and representation.
It's rare to read a history of science that is as much about failure and unfulfilled dreams as this work, but it tells the real story of how science has operated in the 20th century. The Carnegie Institution, for which I work, has only occasionally been at the forefront of science, but has always been fully employed in the real work behind the front. With never quite enough money and never quite enough vision, Carnegie's scientists couldn't quite achieve Nobel after Nobel the way a great research university would, but they did OK. Anyone interested in the real history of science should read this book; it talks about the foot soldiers, quartermasters, backwater captains, and, occasionally, true leaders who make science happen. I do wish the book had more details about the physical aspect of the department of plant biology, where I work--what little there is is fascinating ($100 leases and shooting squirrels not least). And the complete absence of the administrative staff is frankly unforgivable, they make it happen. Kind of like ignoring the fact that the great manor house only exists because of its servants. And I wish they'd written it in 2010, not 2001. Even so, very well written and very illuminating.