What do you think?
Rate this book
Red and Blue Nation?: Consequences and Correction of America's Polarized Politics
"
America's polarized politics are largely disconnected from mainstream public preferences. This disconnect poses fundamental dangers for the representativeness and accountability of government, as well as the already withering public trust in it. As the 2008 presidential race kicks into gear, the political climate certainly will not become less polarized. With important issues to address—including immigration policy, health care, and the funding of the Iraq war—it is critical that essential policies not be hostage to partisan political battles. Building upon the findings of the first volume of Red and Blue Nation? (Brookings, 2006), which explored the extent of political polarization and its potential causes, this new volume delves into the consequences of the gulf between ""red states"" and ""blue states."" The authors examine the impact of these political divisions on voter behavior, Congressional law-making, judicial selection, and foreign policy formation. They shed light on hotly debated institutional reform proposals—including changes to the electoral system and the congressional rules of engagement—and ultimately present research-supported policies and reforms for alleviating the underlying causes of political polarization. While most discussion of polarization takes place in separate spheres of journalism and academia, Red and Blue Nation? brings together a unique set of voices with a wide variety of perspectives to enrich our understanding of the issue. Written in a broad, accessible style, it is a resource for anyone interested in the future of electoral politics in America. Contributors include Marc Hetherington and John G. Geer (Vanderbilt University), Deborah Jordan Brooks (Dartmouth College), Martin P. Wattenberg (University of California, Irvine), Barbara Sinclair and Joel D. Aberbach (UCLA), Christopher H. Foreman (University of Maryland), Keith Krehbiel (Stanford University), Sarah A. Binder, Benjamin Wittes, Jonathan Rauch, and William A. Galston (Brookings), Martin Shapiro (University of California–Berkeley), Peter Beinart (Council on Foreign Relations), James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University), John Ferejohn and Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), Laurel Harbridge (Stanford University), Andrea L. Campbell (MIT), and Eric M. Patashnik (University of Virginia).
"
America's polarized politics are largely disconnected from mainstream public preferences. This disconnect poses fundamental dangers for the representativeness and accountability of government, as well as the already withering public trust in it. As the 2008 presidential race kicks into gear, the political climate certainly will not become less polarized. With important issues to address—including immigration policy, health care, and the funding of the Iraq war—it is critical that essential policies not be hostage to partisan political battles. Building upon the findings of the first volume of Red and Blue Nation? (Brookings, 2006), which explored the extent of political polarization and its potential causes, this new volume delves into the consequences of the gulf between ""red states"" and ""blue states."" The authors examine the impact of these political divisions on voter behavior, Congressional law-making, judicial selection, and foreign policy formation. They shed light on hotly debated institutional reform proposals—including changes to the electoral system and the congressional rules of engagement—and ultimately present research-supported policies and reforms for alleviating the underlying causes of political polarization. While most discussion of polarization takes place in separate spheres of journalism and academia, Red and Blue Nation? brings together a unique set of voices with a wide variety of perspectives to enrich our understanding of the issue. Written in a broad, accessible style, it is a resource for anyone interested in the future of electoral politics in America. Contributors include Marc Hetherington and John G. Geer (Vanderbilt University), Deborah Jordan Brooks (Dartmouth College), Martin P. Wattenberg (University of California, Irvine), Barbara Sinclair and Joel D. Aberbach (UCLA), Christopher H. Foreman (University of Maryland), Keith Krehbiel (Stanford University), Sarah A. Binder, Benjamin Wittes, Jonathan Rauch, and William A. Galston (Brookings), Martin Shapiro (University of California–Berkeley), Peter Beinart (Council on Foreign Relations), James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University), John Ferejohn and Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), Laurel Harbridge (Stanford University), Andrea L. Campbell (MIT), and Eric M. Patashnik (University of Virginia).
"
- GenresNonfictionResearch
335 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
November 3, 2025The book is made up of a collection of mostly short (~10-20pg. each) essays written by top academics in political science, with the essays grouped into different sections (ex: on the role of media, gerrymandering, the extent of polarization generally, etc).
Each essay is a response to the previous ones in the section, and the writers occasionally reference prior and even upcoming sections to support or elaborate on their own perspective. It's clear the Brookings and Hoover Institutions had the authors read the essays leading up to their own prior to writing a new section, which has the effect of creating a cumulative sense of causal synthesis as the book goes on. This is maybe my favorite element of the book.
An initial conflict over whether America is even meaningfully more polarized in the first place continually mediates itself in the background as future sections hone in on more detail-oriented, narrow causal factors in polarization. The book matures from a laying-down of (and dispute over) basic terminology, to a conversation over the general scale of polarization, to somewhat simplistic, divergent accounts of polarization, to a many-sided, reciprocal, systems-based causal account of polarization in America grounded in historical perspective.
This book is very true, in the sense that it takes many partial truths and ties them together to create an account that explains much of the topic at hand. Its greatest flaw is also what makes this a good book: it's an interaction of the perspectives of top political scientists. The interaction of perspectives, their synthesizing motions and eventual many-sided causal account, is great, but it all takes place within the expertise of political science, which is not the same thing as the study of the real world. While deeply human and careful at moments, the biggest hole in this account is its lack of outside, especially economic, analysis.
Even if certain writers like Brady and Han, and especially EJ Dionne Jr., nod toward or entertain its importance, a more comprehensive economic analysis is treated as an "alternative view, popular on the left" (pg.192); one that's increasingly outdated as upper-middle class social interests become the 'true' force in politics. Still, Dionne Jr. references economic analysis of political strategy enough that curious readers are provided with later studying materials to better understand that framework of analysis. (The book is a bit better at providing some historical perspective, even if that's also deficient in economic elements.)
This book is also very good at showing how many political 'scientists' are actually mostly interested in telling a story by framing already-flawed data in favor of a tempting thesis. At moments, especially early on, this book is a sophistic competition of appearance where the winner is whoever gets to show the last graph or data table, but this flawed approach to political science is mostly set straight as more writers come in and move on, synthesizing the partial truths the two sides were earlier arguing more simplistically.
This book isn't very entertaining in the popular sense of the word—it's mostly just partial truths interacting with each other—which is probably why it's not very popular or well-regarded, despite ending up a great analysis and rewarding read for those who care.
And even if the political science perspective is incomplete, it is undoubtedly the dominant force in popular debate and media (and the typical perspective among the elite) which makes it a layer above 'incomplete truth', which is itself a layer above pure illusion. The fact that so many people look at it this way, including many politicians, gives it a power that is not entirely unlike truth.
Each essay is a response to the previous ones in the section, and the writers occasionally reference prior and even upcoming sections to support or elaborate on their own perspective. It's clear the Brookings and Hoover Institutions had the authors read the essays leading up to their own prior to writing a new section, which has the effect of creating a cumulative sense of causal synthesis as the book goes on. This is maybe my favorite element of the book.
An initial conflict over whether America is even meaningfully more polarized in the first place continually mediates itself in the background as future sections hone in on more detail-oriented, narrow causal factors in polarization. The book matures from a laying-down of (and dispute over) basic terminology, to a conversation over the general scale of polarization, to somewhat simplistic, divergent accounts of polarization, to a many-sided, reciprocal, systems-based causal account of polarization in America grounded in historical perspective.
This book is very true, in the sense that it takes many partial truths and ties them together to create an account that explains much of the topic at hand. Its greatest flaw is also what makes this a good book: it's an interaction of the perspectives of top political scientists. The interaction of perspectives, their synthesizing motions and eventual many-sided causal account, is great, but it all takes place within the expertise of political science, which is not the same thing as the study of the real world. While deeply human and careful at moments, the biggest hole in this account is its lack of outside, especially economic, analysis.
Even if certain writers like Brady and Han, and especially EJ Dionne Jr., nod toward or entertain its importance, a more comprehensive economic analysis is treated as an "alternative view, popular on the left" (pg.192); one that's increasingly outdated as upper-middle class social interests become the 'true' force in politics. Still, Dionne Jr. references economic analysis of political strategy enough that curious readers are provided with later studying materials to better understand that framework of analysis. (The book is a bit better at providing some historical perspective, even if that's also deficient in economic elements.)
This book is also very good at showing how many political 'scientists' are actually mostly interested in telling a story by framing already-flawed data in favor of a tempting thesis. At moments, especially early on, this book is a sophistic competition of appearance where the winner is whoever gets to show the last graph or data table, but this flawed approach to political science is mostly set straight as more writers come in and move on, synthesizing the partial truths the two sides were earlier arguing more simplistically.
This book isn't very entertaining in the popular sense of the word—it's mostly just partial truths interacting with each other—which is probably why it's not very popular or well-regarded, despite ending up a great analysis and rewarding read for those who care.
And even if the political science perspective is incomplete, it is undoubtedly the dominant force in popular debate and media (and the typical perspective among the elite) which makes it a layer above 'incomplete truth', which is itself a layer above pure illusion. The fact that so many people look at it this way, including many politicians, gives it a power that is not entirely unlike truth.
Displaying 1 of 1 review