Political Realism: How Hacks, Machines, Big Money, and Back-Room Deals Can Strengthen American Democracy

by Jonathan Rauch

A free eBook that asks hard questions about why politics once worked, and how today’s politics do not.

What if idealistic reform itself is a culprit?

In Political Realism , Jonathan Rauch argues that well-meaning efforts to stem corruption and increase participation have stripped political leaders and organizations of the tools they need to forge compromises and make them stick. Fortunately, he argues, much of the damage can be undone by rediscovering political realism. Instead of trying to
drive private money away out of politics, how about channeling it to strengthen parties and leaders? Instead of doubling down on direct democracy, how about giving political professionals more influence over candidate nominations? Rauch shows how a new generation of realist thinkers is using timetested truths about politics and government to build reforms for our time.

Rich with contrarian insights and fresh thinking, Political Realism is an eye-opening challenge to today’s conventional wisdom about what ails American government and politics.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

55 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2015

Reviews

[Ty Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book sets out to defend a very hard to defend idea: that leaving politics to professionals and strengthening the power of parties and political machines is preferable to increasing the power of the grassroots. Rauch's arguments are well thought out and demonstrate a very deep understanding of the inner workings of transactional politics. Rauch thinks that informal networks and earmarks are what allow for compromise in legislation, and that the practice of "earmarks" in legislation was a positive one. This text seems to prove that flexible career politicians are preferable to ideologically charged independently minded politicians, and that leaving more politics behind closed doors can help remedy the problem of ideological polarization. The only problem with this book is that the logic can sometimes be complicated to follow, and the authors unabashedly establishment friendly standpoint gives little thought to the idea that serious reforms of the type proposed by the "extremists" could be helpful to society. This is a very interesting read which will probably make you reconsider the seemingly unsavoury practices of insider politics.

[Tobias · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked Rauch's argument - I think political machines and patronage are overdue for reconsideration - but I don't think Rauch offers a realistic solution for what machines can look like in a more transparent age. And when Rauch talks about Congress, he's not really talking about machine politics but the importance of institutional norms. In a short pamphlet like this he couldn't really offer more solutions, but I think this points in the right direction.

[Pavol Hardos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, thought provoking essay, worth reading even if you end up disagreeing with the author. The argument deserves serious attention from transparency and participation activists.

[Ste Kitching · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite its provocative title, really this book is a relatively sensible defence of informal political structures and political parties.

Most of the weaknesses come from its length; it is more of a pamphlet than a book, and there’s ideas that need fleshing out. It received a good reception from me, but I’m inherently sympathetic to its (small c) conservative message, and I think it wouldn’t do a great job of convincing someone who was pro-campaign finance reform that removing donation limits was the way to go.

The strongest part of the book is the summary of the differences between insiders and amateurs, whereas it is weak when it takes too much for granted - we can accept that compromises and “getting things done” are good, but why is it positive for political moderates to be elected? Especially when at one point he argues that moderate individuals aren’t needed for compromise, and his final recent example of positive “backroom dealing” involves two groups who aren’t particularly moderate. He also assumes that the executive has better control in parliamentary systems... which isn’t really true.

Overall worth reading though, especially as you can crack through it very quickly, and is a decent alternate view if you’re interested in political reform.

[Casey · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

Starting out by saying I love Constitution of Knowledge and really appreciated Kindly Inquisitors. Jonathan Rauch is a breath of fresh air when it comes to political discourse and takes a strong stance for realism, rather than idealism.

While some of these arguments make me a bit uneasy (open the floodgates of political contributions for persons and parties), he does an excellent job of making you reconsider some deeply held assumptions. Advocating for a stronger political machine and that moderation comes from those strong machines, not from moderates being two that quickly come to mind. I would love to see an expansion on several of this proposals with in depth analysis and data to support.

I am constantly seeking books that challenge my world view, whether political, social, scientific, etc. and this did just that.

[John Tucci · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very fair and objective look at the inner workings of the American political system, and how "back room" deals can benefit all of us. The author's opinion is that we have restricted the Political system so much in the US, that we have opened the door for a radical outsider with no political connections (Trump) to come in and burn the whole thing down. Political connections and deals between the Politicians, according to the author, keep our Politicians accountable to each other which is incredibly important.

It is a short read and I recommend it for those interested in objective Political discussion, not the normal anger filled rhetoric that we Americans seem to love.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought-provoking little book that makes the case that the old-style party machines and logrolling dealmakers were onto something: governance requires the kind of secretive negotiations and ideological compromises that drives purists nuts. Rauch doesn't defend corruption, but he does argue that reformers from the left and right have defined corruption so broadly as to make normal democratic politics nearly impossible. It's worth a read to see if you agree. The book can be downloaded for free using the links here: https://www.brookings.edu/book/politi....

[Omnivorousreader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pragmati approach to governing

This is a book about what actually works in government. Nos as should be in an idealized environment but in the real world. It explains how ideas about expanding democracy, eliminating party machines and even eliminating pork barrel and corruption have adverse unintended consequences. A excellent book to understand what is happening in America and why there is polarization and nothing gets done.

[Ajit · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking thesis about how moderate government representatives never really existed; they were partisans forced to compromise in order to get reelected. The claim is that sunshine laws unintentionally drive power and influence out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of private entities that easily avoid accountability to the public.

[Ian]

Would this book be any different if Rauch had to make sense of the Trump administration?

[Joshua Rosenblum · Rating 5 out of 5]

You say Hack like it's a bad thing...

Outstanding essay that sums up a lot of what I've been saying for years. In my ten years as a GOP hack, I had many a Dem hack for a friend. Dem hacks were only my opponents. The yahoos (of both persuasions) were the *enemy*.

Rausch easily explains that while some of the political reforms undertaken in the past 100 years have tempered the worst excesses of political machines, most have not only not achieved their goals - but have had absolutely perverse effects. The dysfunction of our current government is directly due to a surfeit of democracy and transparency that promotes polarization and extremism.

Campaign finance rules, primaries, the 17th amendment... All bad ideas.

[Terry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought Provoking

I consider myself well informed on government and political issues having studied and taught government for over forty years. This book offers a unique insight into our gridlock and dis -functional government. Many people are superficially aware of the role of extremist groups and the right and the left big money campaign contributions, but the author provides a detailed analysis on their impact on the legislative process and resulting gridlock. In keeping with the title, he offers realistic solutions to the problem.

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author of this book argues that we have reformed politics too well and need to bring back the “smoke fill room”, political machines, closed door meetings, and a little mild corruption. He argues that politicians can’t get anything done without more transactional freedom (log rolling), bosses that have real power over members, and private deal-making without required public meetings. I don’t buy his argument that things would be much better with the changes he proposed.

[Nick Huntington-Klein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A deeply interesting book, and convincing at least in the abstract. Speaks powerfully to both the advantages of compromise and the settings that make it possible - currently at odds with received knowledge about what makes for a good system. The assertions and empirical side of the paper could have used a little more backup, but that may well be the status quo mindset talking.

[Ananda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jonathan Rauch is always worth reading and this book is no exception. I'd have liked to see a little more grappling with the views he previously expressed in Government's End, but there's a lot to engage with in this essay regardless.

[Vinayak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strongest parts were the historical anecdotes. A great list of citations. An interesting argument, but not necessarily well argued.

[Adam Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The phrase "effective governance" bears a lot of the load of the argument, and its desirability treated as a given. I surmise that "effective governance" means (somewhat circularly) "that governance which strong party machines accomplish", but part of what got us into the present anti-institutional moment was the (not unwarranted) belief that parties and machines are effective self-dealers, often at the expense of "just governance". It is a Progressive given that "getting stuff done" is an intrinsic political good; to a Federalist, not so much.