What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Suppression: Voting Rights, Corporate Cash, and the Conservative Assault on Democracy
A New York Times Book Review Editor's Choice Finalist for the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize
In the wake of Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election, a deeply reported look inside the conservative movement working to undermine American democracy.
Donald Trump is the second Republican this century to triumph in the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. As Zachary Roth reveals in The Great Suppression , this is no coincidence. Over the last decade, Republicans have been rigging the game in their favor. Twenty-two states have passed restrictions on voting. Ruthless gerrymandering has given the GOP a long-term grip on Congress. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has eviscerated campaign finance laws, boosting candidates backed by big money.
It would be worrying enough if these were just schemes for partisan advantage. But the reality is even more disturbing: a growing number of Republicans distrust the very idea of democracy—and they’re doing everything they can to limit it.
In The Great Suppression , Roth unearths the deep historical roots of this anti-egalitarian worldview, and introduces us to its modern-day proponents: The GOP officials pushing to make it harder to cast a ballot; the lawyers looking to scrap all limits on money in politics; the libertarian scholars reclaiming judicial activism to roll back the New Deal; and the corporate lobbyists working to ban local action on everything from the minimum wage to the environment. And he travels from Rust Belt cities to southern towns to show us how these efforts are hurting the most vulnerable Americans and preventing progress on pressing issues.
A sharp, searing polemic in the tradition of Rachel Maddow and Matt Taibbi, The Great Suppression is an urgent wake-up call about a threat to our most cherished values, and a rousing argument for why we need democracy now more than ever.
In the wake of Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election, a deeply reported look inside the conservative movement working to undermine American democracy.
Donald Trump is the second Republican this century to triumph in the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. As Zachary Roth reveals in The Great Suppression , this is no coincidence. Over the last decade, Republicans have been rigging the game in their favor. Twenty-two states have passed restrictions on voting. Ruthless gerrymandering has given the GOP a long-term grip on Congress. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has eviscerated campaign finance laws, boosting candidates backed by big money.
It would be worrying enough if these were just schemes for partisan advantage. But the reality is even more disturbing: a growing number of Republicans distrust the very idea of democracy—and they’re doing everything they can to limit it.
In The Great Suppression , Roth unearths the deep historical roots of this anti-egalitarian worldview, and introduces us to its modern-day proponents: The GOP officials pushing to make it harder to cast a ballot; the lawyers looking to scrap all limits on money in politics; the libertarian scholars reclaiming judicial activism to roll back the New Deal; and the corporate lobbyists working to ban local action on everything from the minimum wage to the environment. And he travels from Rust Belt cities to southern towns to show us how these efforts are hurting the most vulnerable Americans and preventing progress on pressing issues.
A sharp, searing polemic in the tradition of Rachel Maddow and Matt Taibbi, The Great Suppression is an urgent wake-up call about a threat to our most cherished values, and a rousing argument for why we need democracy now more than ever.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published August 2, 2016
20 people are currently reading
852 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
August 8, 2016
3.5 stars. Americans interested in democracy should read The Great Suppression. Roth documents all the different ways in which the right to vote and the value of individual votes have been eroded in recent years. These efforts come from the right, and include laws imposing restrictions on how individual Americans can exercise their right to vote, the erosion of limits on corporate funding for political campaigns and the redrawing of electoral maps. The author's thesis is that the ostensible tacit justification for many of these measures -- which has its roots in a time that predates universal suffrage -- is the paternalistic notion that not everyone can be trusted to vote responsibly. It's a different angle on a lot of the information in Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right -- which is a "must read", as far as I'm concerned. It's a particularly important issue as the US moves toward another election. Interestingly, the book was clearly written before the most recent events involving Trump. Viewed through this most recent lens, it's hard to not agree that not everyone can be trusted to vote responsibly, i.e all Trump supporters. But, of course, education, free and responsible debate, and robust access for everyone to the ballot is a better fix for this concern than the various forms of voter suppression described in The Great Suppression. Thank you to Netgalley and the publisher for access to an advance.
July 1, 2016
Due out in August 2016.
This is a detailed report on the conservative GOP hold on governance across the United States. While their demographics are fading, their methods of retaining control are effective and varied, and, as the book points out, "being outnumbered doesn't mean losing."
The Citizens United decision and the flow of corporate cash driving the process does get good mention, of course. This book's value is in some of the lesser-known, but widespread, methods:
- Gerrymandering, not only in basic districting -- Pennsylvania's GOP, for instance, has 48% of the popular vote but 13 of its 18 House seats -- but in locking in the process, the reapportionment of state legislative districts, which ensures not only GOP statehouse control but, through those statehouses, drawing House district boundaries.
- GOP focus on state legislative elections to guarantee that control, with national committees like the Republican State Leadership Committee targeting state races, and its Redistricting Majority Project, called, appropriately enough, REDMAP.
- A new judicial activism in their favor, hence, Citizens United and corporate money to fund this effort. The trend may be accelerating in the Roberts Court, we're told.
- Voter suppression, notably voter-ID, restricted voting schedules and felon-disenfranchisement laws, again via state legislatures and aided by judicial decisions limiting the Voting Rights Act and such.
- Pre-emption laws, through which state legislatures can limit local government power to set voting rules, or simply to govern -- and in states like Michigan, allowing supersession or removal of local government by state-appointed managers.
Which, among other things, has kept the U.S. House and Senate in GOP hands and allowed it to stymie a Democratic White House's actions and, notably, veto or simply not act on its judicial appointments.
The book is progressive and Democratic in tone, something of a polemic, which might put off conservative readers, although they might be interested to read how extensive and effective the GOP effort has been -- indeed, the author thinks a Democratic resurgence might not come before 2040. Certainly, with the 2016 national elections coming up, and the 2020 Federal census and subsequent reapportionment after that, shows just how pivotal this process is. The book shows a fulcrum over which everything else tilts. Highly recommend.
This is a detailed report on the conservative GOP hold on governance across the United States. While their demographics are fading, their methods of retaining control are effective and varied, and, as the book points out, "being outnumbered doesn't mean losing."
The Citizens United decision and the flow of corporate cash driving the process does get good mention, of course. This book's value is in some of the lesser-known, but widespread, methods:
- Gerrymandering, not only in basic districting -- Pennsylvania's GOP, for instance, has 48% of the popular vote but 13 of its 18 House seats -- but in locking in the process, the reapportionment of state legislative districts, which ensures not only GOP statehouse control but, through those statehouses, drawing House district boundaries.
- GOP focus on state legislative elections to guarantee that control, with national committees like the Republican State Leadership Committee targeting state races, and its Redistricting Majority Project, called, appropriately enough, REDMAP.
- A new judicial activism in their favor, hence, Citizens United and corporate money to fund this effort. The trend may be accelerating in the Roberts Court, we're told.
- Voter suppression, notably voter-ID, restricted voting schedules and felon-disenfranchisement laws, again via state legislatures and aided by judicial decisions limiting the Voting Rights Act and such.
- Pre-emption laws, through which state legislatures can limit local government power to set voting rules, or simply to govern -- and in states like Michigan, allowing supersession or removal of local government by state-appointed managers.
Which, among other things, has kept the U.S. House and Senate in GOP hands and allowed it to stymie a Democratic White House's actions and, notably, veto or simply not act on its judicial appointments.
The book is progressive and Democratic in tone, something of a polemic, which might put off conservative readers, although they might be interested to read how extensive and effective the GOP effort has been -- indeed, the author thinks a Democratic resurgence might not come before 2040. Certainly, with the 2016 national elections coming up, and the 2020 Federal census and subsequent reapportionment after that, shows just how pivotal this process is. The book shows a fulcrum over which everything else tilts. Highly recommend.
September 5, 2016
Fairly short book, quite timely. Reviews the recent challenges to democracy in this country, with a good historical basis. Found myself reading a chapter and then putting the book down to contemplate, and occasionally seethe. While this contains comprehensive notes on research, I wonder if some liberal abuses were missed - e.g. how the Primary process failed Bernie Sanders.
Quick topic summary: Voting (who should have the right?), Spending (does money equal importance of speech?), Local Democracy (how local should laws be?), Gerrymandering (is the popular vote more important than a state-rigged vote?), Judicial Activism (how far should courts interpret the constitution?) and Government (Democracy or a Constitutional Republic?).
Very thought provoking in such a short time, though perhaps not intended for quite that purpose. Definitely recommended for anyone who wants to really think about our form of government instead of just voting their particular party line. 4½ stars.
Quick topic summary: Voting (who should have the right?), Spending (does money equal importance of speech?), Local Democracy (how local should laws be?), Gerrymandering (is the popular vote more important than a state-rigged vote?), Judicial Activism (how far should courts interpret the constitution?) and Government (Democracy or a Constitutional Republic?).
Very thought provoking in such a short time, though perhaps not intended for quite that purpose. Definitely recommended for anyone who wants to really think about our form of government instead of just voting their particular party line. 4½ stars.
December 2, 2016
This is an interesting read post-election for a number of reasons (I'm not feeling so hot about populism right now myself. I can’t stop thinking about Plato's argument that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny because of a popular longing for "freedom." Oh, and those stats from that UPenn study. I’ve been having to exert actual cognitive energy to remind myself that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” And I believe that. I really do. I’m sure I do.), but I couldn't finish it.
While I appreciated Roth’s discussion on gerrymandering (no doubt because it fits my personal biases. I came into this book thinking gerrymandering is the primary structural issue we’re facing right now (assuming you actually support the American form of government as designed by the Founders, which I’m not sure this book does? Maybe that’s the issue? Stick with me.)) and I wasn't disuaded. And I made it through the discussion about Citizen’s United, although I tend to think money in politics is a bit of a red herring since its impact could be rendered more or less irrelevant if the populace bothered to educate itself about how the government works and regularly followed what its politicians do - not to say, of course, that I agree with that ruling or the dismantling of McCain-Feingold. But the most money can do is trick the ignorant, it can’t actually negate the value of a vote (like gerrymandering can) and voters could hold politicians to higher ethical standards (see also: Trump and Sanders).
But Roth’s discussion of the relationship between state governments and local governments is unsophisticated at best and willfully misleading at worst and I was so frustrated throughout the chapter ostensibly on "preemption." I honestly don’t see how you can have a conversation about the topic without even mentioning the Dillon Rule, but he manages it. At one point he complains that states have taken away local government’s right to self-rule, which (and again this is my question about whether Roth actually has a fundamental problem with the design of American democracy) is misleading because localities don’t actually have any right to govern - the 10th Amendment gives power to the states, there is no explicit mention of local governments. All powers given to local governments are delegated by the state, a decision that was settled in 1868 (and reaffirmed in 1902 and 1923, I think?)! Now, some states do provide local governments with more authority, but that’s specifically incorporated into the state’s constitution. Roth talks about issues of preemption like they’re a sinister modern development, but, again, the limited power of localities is just how the government works. It's super constitutional.
This is, again, not to say that you can’t have a problem with it (or the Constitution! It was meant to be a living document and we have amended it. We can amend it again. We can amend it literally any time!), but it brings me to another issue with this book - and my further concern that it may be a misleading read - Roth's examples are incredibly biased towards issues liberals will find sympathetic (i.e. banning fracking or banning smoking in public places). He spends a few lines in the "preemption" chapter paying lip service to the idea that sometimes you want the state (or feds) to prevent local governments from imposing their will, but then moves directly into another detailed, left-friendly example. I wish he’d spent more time, for instance, talking about something like local governments battling their state governments about the siting of affordable housing (see: New Jersey, a home rule state, and the Mount Laurel decisions), since it might challenge his audience to think about what being pro-local control could also mean.
Because you can’t have it both ways. This is what makes democracy hard. You either believe in its principles and are forced to acknowledge that sometimes that means you lose (or worse - compromise?!?). Or you find work arounds when you don’t get your way, get incensed when the other side does the same, and, well, end up where we are today - unable to address major issues because we’ve been slowly dismantling our civic infrastructure (also: most Americans don’t understand how the government works so they can’t even begin to figure out how to vote to solve, like, any problem.)
I thought I was the audience for this book because there is absolutely no question in my mind that Republicans are actively working really, really hard to make it harder/impossible for entire groups of people to vote. Still, and I’m a little reluctant to give a final verdict since the second half of the book might correct these problems? I think this book is ultimately too biased and too undercooked to be useful.
While I appreciated Roth’s discussion on gerrymandering (no doubt because it fits my personal biases. I came into this book thinking gerrymandering is the primary structural issue we’re facing right now (assuming you actually support the American form of government as designed by the Founders, which I’m not sure this book does? Maybe that’s the issue? Stick with me.)) and I wasn't disuaded. And I made it through the discussion about Citizen’s United, although I tend to think money in politics is a bit of a red herring since its impact could be rendered more or less irrelevant if the populace bothered to educate itself about how the government works and regularly followed what its politicians do - not to say, of course, that I agree with that ruling or the dismantling of McCain-Feingold. But the most money can do is trick the ignorant, it can’t actually negate the value of a vote (like gerrymandering can) and voters could hold politicians to higher ethical standards (see also: Trump and Sanders).
But Roth’s discussion of the relationship between state governments and local governments is unsophisticated at best and willfully misleading at worst and I was so frustrated throughout the chapter ostensibly on "preemption." I honestly don’t see how you can have a conversation about the topic without even mentioning the Dillon Rule, but he manages it. At one point he complains that states have taken away local government’s right to self-rule, which (and again this is my question about whether Roth actually has a fundamental problem with the design of American democracy) is misleading because localities don’t actually have any right to govern - the 10th Amendment gives power to the states, there is no explicit mention of local governments. All powers given to local governments are delegated by the state, a decision that was settled in 1868 (and reaffirmed in 1902 and 1923, I think?)! Now, some states do provide local governments with more authority, but that’s specifically incorporated into the state’s constitution. Roth talks about issues of preemption like they’re a sinister modern development, but, again, the limited power of localities is just how the government works. It's super constitutional.
This is, again, not to say that you can’t have a problem with it (or the Constitution! It was meant to be a living document and we have amended it. We can amend it again. We can amend it literally any time!), but it brings me to another issue with this book - and my further concern that it may be a misleading read - Roth's examples are incredibly biased towards issues liberals will find sympathetic (i.e. banning fracking or banning smoking in public places). He spends a few lines in the "preemption" chapter paying lip service to the idea that sometimes you want the state (or feds) to prevent local governments from imposing their will, but then moves directly into another detailed, left-friendly example. I wish he’d spent more time, for instance, talking about something like local governments battling their state governments about the siting of affordable housing (see: New Jersey, a home rule state, and the Mount Laurel decisions), since it might challenge his audience to think about what being pro-local control could also mean.
Because you can’t have it both ways. This is what makes democracy hard. You either believe in its principles and are forced to acknowledge that sometimes that means you lose (or worse - compromise?!?). Or you find work arounds when you don’t get your way, get incensed when the other side does the same, and, well, end up where we are today - unable to address major issues because we’ve been slowly dismantling our civic infrastructure (also: most Americans don’t understand how the government works so they can’t even begin to figure out how to vote to solve, like, any problem.)
I thought I was the audience for this book because there is absolutely no question in my mind that Republicans are actively working really, really hard to make it harder/impossible for entire groups of people to vote. Still, and I’m a little reluctant to give a final verdict since the second half of the book might correct these problems? I think this book is ultimately too biased and too undercooked to be useful.
April 8, 2017
Overview of the ways that voter suppression is, and has been, a part of our country's philosophy and actions from the very beginning. Laws that disenfranchise so many Americans are still being supported and enacted across all levels of our government; multiple levels exist and are expanding even now.
October 23, 2018
There's a lot of information in the book with good examples. It not only covers "voter suppression" (making it more difficult to register to vote, being more limited in voting times and making it harder to be accepted as a valid voter), but also deals with other blocking of majority will (for instance, restricting ballot propositions and local laws.)
I felt the narrative tended to wander from one area of the subject to another. Perhaps, the flow will appeal to readers who like a "storytelling" approach. For me, it would be easier to remember all the various elements if the book was more clearly divided by topic, I'd certainly find it easier to go back and find a passage if it was done that way. It's definitely not written in an academic style, which should appeal to many readers. There are references in the back.
Progressives may find it ironic that conservative "states rights" advocates have been so fond of using state legislation to overturn local laws they don't like. The author discusses this, including noting that progressives do advocate higher level governments stopping lower governments from violating people's rights. In these new cases, conservatives speak of blocking local laws that violate property rights. This reflects a difference in emphasis between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives and libertarians put property rights at a much higher priority than most people do. I see conservative / business talk of preperty rights as hypocritical. When the industrial revolution created factories spewing large amounts of smoke, business owners built smokestacks, which have the function of throwing the soot and noxious gases onto someone else's property. Even after this was well understood, businesses did not take action so that they no longer harmed other people's property. One of the book's first examples of overturning local laws had to do with a local law against fracking within the town. The reason the local law was originally approved wasn't because people were so concerned with what happened inside the fracking company's property, but because of concerns about the impact on other's property. The fracking ban was to protect property and people on other property. To me, the businesses and conservatives have a twisted, inconsistent approach to property rights. It's kind of like, "I have the right to free speech, therefore you have to listen to me and not say sanything."
- - - - - - -
When discussing how conservatives are now using judges to more aggressively overturn majority-backed legislation, Roth portrays it as a U-turn away from opposing "judicial activism" to advocating it. There has been change in conservative tactics, but Roth hasn't fully accepted the true Constitution. The conservative agenda CAN be aided by the archaic, 230-year-old document from when there was no industiral revolution, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no universal education, etc. The Constitution was enacted when only 6% were allowed to vote - and the 1% wrote the Constitution so the 6% couldn't directly elect presidents and Senators, and were otherwise limited in influence. It was designed to protect the intersts of slaveholders and other wealthy elites. ALL the founding states limited voting to those who owned property or otherwise showed affluence; NONE of them required a level of education or other indication of relevant knowledge. By owning a plantation, a slaveholder had the right to vote - although that only indicated knowledge of oppressive autocracy, not any other form. (Roth acknowledges aspects of this origin, but seems to expect the Constitution to be majority-oriented today.) It's no accident if conservatives find Constitutional text that supports their pro-wealthy agenda. Some amendments have changed voting and selection of Senators, but rules blocking majority will over the rich generally remain - and this Constitutional bias is very hard to change. So, conservative judges have a basis for overturning majority-backed legislation. Roth doesn't offer a credible or timely path for majority rule within this Constitutuion. Supporters of majority rule need to build a movement that will change society one way or another.
I felt the narrative tended to wander from one area of the subject to another. Perhaps, the flow will appeal to readers who like a "storytelling" approach. For me, it would be easier to remember all the various elements if the book was more clearly divided by topic, I'd certainly find it easier to go back and find a passage if it was done that way. It's definitely not written in an academic style, which should appeal to many readers. There are references in the back.
Progressives may find it ironic that conservative "states rights" advocates have been so fond of using state legislation to overturn local laws they don't like. The author discusses this, including noting that progressives do advocate higher level governments stopping lower governments from violating people's rights. In these new cases, conservatives speak of blocking local laws that violate property rights. This reflects a difference in emphasis between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives and libertarians put property rights at a much higher priority than most people do. I see conservative / business talk of preperty rights as hypocritical. When the industrial revolution created factories spewing large amounts of smoke, business owners built smokestacks, which have the function of throwing the soot and noxious gases onto someone else's property. Even after this was well understood, businesses did not take action so that they no longer harmed other people's property. One of the book's first examples of overturning local laws had to do with a local law against fracking within the town. The reason the local law was originally approved wasn't because people were so concerned with what happened inside the fracking company's property, but because of concerns about the impact on other's property. The fracking ban was to protect property and people on other property. To me, the businesses and conservatives have a twisted, inconsistent approach to property rights. It's kind of like, "I have the right to free speech, therefore you have to listen to me and not say sanything."
- - - - - - -
When discussing how conservatives are now using judges to more aggressively overturn majority-backed legislation, Roth portrays it as a U-turn away from opposing "judicial activism" to advocating it. There has been change in conservative tactics, but Roth hasn't fully accepted the true Constitution. The conservative agenda CAN be aided by the archaic, 230-year-old document from when there was no industiral revolution, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no universal education, etc. The Constitution was enacted when only 6% were allowed to vote - and the 1% wrote the Constitution so the 6% couldn't directly elect presidents and Senators, and were otherwise limited in influence. It was designed to protect the intersts of slaveholders and other wealthy elites. ALL the founding states limited voting to those who owned property or otherwise showed affluence; NONE of them required a level of education or other indication of relevant knowledge. By owning a plantation, a slaveholder had the right to vote - although that only indicated knowledge of oppressive autocracy, not any other form. (Roth acknowledges aspects of this origin, but seems to expect the Constitution to be majority-oriented today.) It's no accident if conservatives find Constitutional text that supports their pro-wealthy agenda. Some amendments have changed voting and selection of Senators, but rules blocking majority will over the rich generally remain - and this Constitutional bias is very hard to change. So, conservative judges have a basis for overturning majority-backed legislation. Roth doesn't offer a credible or timely path for majority rule within this Constitutuion. Supporters of majority rule need to build a movement that will change society one way or another.
February 26, 2018
I have so many thoughts about this book. Firstly, I'm glad it exists. It tackles two issues which are absolutely vital for people to understand today: the influence of corporate money on our elections, and gerrymandering, which is currently a huge issue going on in our battleground states. The author does a great job in explaining them, the philosophy behind what's going on, how it affects our democracy, and how the two are inevitably tied together.
Corporate election financing will never, ever act in the benefit of our democracy. Period.
This is a quick, easy read for anyone looking to understand the conservative perspective on democracy: how, ultimately, many on that side of the aisle fear it as being a quick run into mob rule (which, by the way, the Founders were fearful of as well). He also explains how this wariness is affecting our ability to interact with government.
My issue with this book, why it lost two stars was in its problem with rambling, particularly on topics which were only adjacent to the point the author was trying to make and which were, in my opinion, harmful to the overall argument of the book. For example, the author has a chapter on the anti-democratic nature of the Senate and how conservatives long to return the institution to it's more insulated roots. He rambles for pages, though, complaining about how the Senate was created to be a safeguard against majority rule. I don't think this does the book any favors, as while readers might be able to easily get on board with the idea that conservatives wishing to take away our ability to vote for senators is a bad thing, I don't think many are going to back him on his argument against the equal representation for states that the body provides.
Solid book, must read. 3.5 stars.
Corporate election financing will never, ever act in the benefit of our democracy. Period.
This is a quick, easy read for anyone looking to understand the conservative perspective on democracy: how, ultimately, many on that side of the aisle fear it as being a quick run into mob rule (which, by the way, the Founders were fearful of as well). He also explains how this wariness is affecting our ability to interact with government.
My issue with this book, why it lost two stars was in its problem with rambling, particularly on topics which were only adjacent to the point the author was trying to make and which were, in my opinion, harmful to the overall argument of the book. For example, the author has a chapter on the anti-democratic nature of the Senate and how conservatives long to return the institution to it's more insulated roots. He rambles for pages, though, complaining about how the Senate was created to be a safeguard against majority rule. I don't think this does the book any favors, as while readers might be able to easily get on board with the idea that conservatives wishing to take away our ability to vote for senators is a bad thing, I don't think many are going to back him on his argument against the equal representation for states that the body provides.
Solid book, must read. 3.5 stars.
May 8, 2017
Interesting. Make no mistake, this book clearly favors one side over the other. That's rather obvious just from the title of the book. I think that the book does a decent job in describing the various ways that the right employs tactics that are...democratically questionable to say the least. However, I think this book could have benefited from being longer, giving itself space to dive deeper into tactics from the elite on not just the conservative side but the liberal side too that seek to undermine the will and desires of the mass public. (With that being said, I find it necessary to personally note that this book did into my own biases. If you were to ask me, I would say that I definitely agree with the author in his argument that the right actively seeks to undermine the democratic process or at the very least, radically redefine what is considered the democratic process. Just throwing that out there).
This book is quite short. Although the book is listed as 288 pages, it's actually around 180 pages if you disregard the 100~ pages of notes.
This book is quite short. Although the book is listed as 288 pages, it's actually around 180 pages if you disregard the 100~ pages of notes.
May 16, 2016
How many ways is our democracy flawed? We've seen how the Electoral College makes the popular vote almost irrelevant, how the primary and caucus votes make a mockery of giving people a say in the choice of nominee, and how many people are shut out of the system altogether by restrictive "voters' rights" laws. In this short but jam-packed book, Roth describes how there is even a growing philosophy that questions the "right" to vote at all. Maybe, some say, voting should be harder, not easier. Maybe people should have to pass a test or somehow prove that they are worthy of voting. It's not all bad news -- there are movements to encourage people to vote, to help them register, to lower the voting age. Good thoughtful book that'll get you thinking about what's wrong and right about our system and how we can make it better.
August 11, 2016
First, 4 hours of enjoyable, comfortable reading is all this book asked of me. So easy.
In return, I got a historical understanding that the constitution itself has never been for popular democracy. Conservatives are now outspoken that popular democracy is not social good, but rather that for the good of the country, voting needs to be difficult and restricted to people of higher sophistication and social standing. Crazy talk.
This movement is very well funded, legally sophisticated, and on the brink of dramatic gains. Perhaps the Dems have finally caught on and just now have started pushing back effectively. So much will ride on the Supreme Court and reductions in House gerimandering in this decade, which all starts with more voters participating this fall and each election cycle.
Excellent explanations in a powerful, very timely, short book. read it.
In return, I got a historical understanding that the constitution itself has never been for popular democracy. Conservatives are now outspoken that popular democracy is not social good, but rather that for the good of the country, voting needs to be difficult and restricted to people of higher sophistication and social standing. Crazy talk.
This movement is very well funded, legally sophisticated, and on the brink of dramatic gains. Perhaps the Dems have finally caught on and just now have started pushing back effectively. So much will ride on the Supreme Court and reductions in House gerimandering in this decade, which all starts with more voters participating this fall and each election cycle.
Excellent explanations in a powerful, very timely, short book. read it.
November 7, 2016
Interesting book which illustrates the clash between the Democratic left which would democratize America by enfranchising voters and the Republican right which fears such democratization. The right's efforts to tilt governmental processes in their favor from the Supreme Court to efforts of state governments to suppress initiatives of local government are well documented. Agree with author's liberal thesis or disagree, well worth reading to understand the battle.
August 6, 2017
Copy received from June 2016 LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
I finally recently finished this book on voter suppression and democracy. It's a quick tome and summary of a few related issues. Nothing terribly new here as someone who follows news and politics. Writing at times was a bit sloppy, so I can't say I loved it or thought it a great book on US politics. That said, it would be a good quick summary of attacks on US democracy for someone unfamiliar with the issues.
I finally recently finished this book on voter suppression and democracy. It's a quick tome and summary of a few related issues. Nothing terribly new here as someone who follows news and politics. Writing at times was a bit sloppy, so I can't say I loved it or thought it a great book on US politics. That said, it would be a good quick summary of attacks on US democracy for someone unfamiliar with the issues.
January 4, 2017
In reading The Great Suppression by Zachary Roth, it was hard to believe that the novel was only written in eight months. The research and references were thorough, and the writing was not just for an academic audience. Some experience in researching redistricting, voting rights, and the political culture in the U.S. is a bonus but is not needed to read this book. Roth's journalism background shows through in the accessibility of the information he is presenting.
For a while, I wasn't sure what to write after reading Roth's book. It outlined a lot of information that I have known through my coursework and through following the news, but laid it out in a far more digestible manner than I ever could have written. I had to put the book down at times, not because I didn't like it but because I felt so angry after reading the tactics used to skew the political system in the U.S. More and more I am glad that authors like Roth are putting this information out in to the public sphere. It makes me want to take action and begin being politically active at the local level. Roth may paint a grim picture, but he gives options and hope as to what actions can be taken to bring about change in the communities we live in.
After reading this book, I actually told a friend about it. She brought the thesis of the book to her book club and it is now the book they will discuss next month. I may just join her book club so I can continue to discuss this book!
I received this novel in exchange for a fair review through Blogging for Books.
For a while, I wasn't sure what to write after reading Roth's book. It outlined a lot of information that I have known through my coursework and through following the news, but laid it out in a far more digestible manner than I ever could have written. I had to put the book down at times, not because I didn't like it but because I felt so angry after reading the tactics used to skew the political system in the U.S. More and more I am glad that authors like Roth are putting this information out in to the public sphere. It makes me want to take action and begin being politically active at the local level. Roth may paint a grim picture, but he gives options and hope as to what actions can be taken to bring about change in the communities we live in.
After reading this book, I actually told a friend about it. She brought the thesis of the book to her book club and it is now the book they will discuss next month. I may just join her book club so I can continue to discuss this book!
I received this novel in exchange for a fair review through Blogging for Books.
December 25, 2022
Oh my, the things you learn reading this book are astounding. It's hard to imagine a country where democracy is at its core also has racism at its core. How we have gotten to the point where our right to vote gets harder & harder instead of easier is just shocking & yet also stupid. I mean that are so many issues & things wrong w/ our voting system is simply infuriating. How the author lays out the history of our voting system as well as how it came to be what it is today is super important. It makes me sad that there are people out there who have been elected no less, to essentially block every good voting measure possible. Certain states now have voter ID laws which is ridiculous & just another barrier to add to make it harder for folks to vote. I think the push for some groups to have automatic voter registration should be the norm but it just keeps getting push back from the right, as per usual. As long as people keep fighting the injustice, our voting laws should hopefully get better instead of worse. So yes, read this book, give to folks since w/out the knowledge people won't understand the importance of voting.
March 30, 2018
The more I learn about the right wing's voter suppression efforts, the more I get anxious about the future of our democracy - particularly given the stolen Supreme Court seat that Gorsuch took after this book was published. It's very interesting to see how Roth frames fundamental democracy and voting rights as an issue that separates the left and the right - and the more I think about it, the more that I believe this is an issue becoming more and more partisan (I even seem to recall Fox News hosts saying women don't know enough to vote during the last election cycle). While I still think Dark Money covers a lot of the topics in this book much more in depth (such as the Federalist Society, ALEC's dominance at the state legislature level, and the REDMAP effort in North Carolina), Roth still brings an interesting perspective on this topic, by examining how local governments' efforts are frequently overruled by large-moneyed interests that can only compete at the state level and up.
January 22, 2019
A powerful look into the Republicans parties current tactics from voter suppression to gerrymandering to discriminatory voter id laws designed to guarantee Republican power and sideline the opposition. The author does an excellent job of exploring exactly how Conservatives have subverted Democracy, and the undemocratic rationale behind those decisions.
The hopeful parts of the book are the Awakening of many on the Left to the new tactics and their efforts to restore American Democracy in the face of many obstacles. Stories of everyday Americans organizing at the local level to fight against fracking, to fight for paid said leave, and higher minimum wage laws gives one hope for the future.
The hopeful parts of the book are the Awakening of many on the Left to the new tactics and their efforts to restore American Democracy in the face of many obstacles. Stories of everyday Americans organizing at the local level to fight against fracking, to fight for paid said leave, and higher minimum wage laws gives one hope for the future.
January 30, 2025
This book was a great insight into much of American politics we can see bubbling today. However, this book was written in 2016 so it is crazy to see just how much worse everything has gotten! I still have hope though
March 8, 2017
A good summary of all the the various means being used to change the way decisions are made and who is in power.
June 7, 2017
Pretty biased but interesting to think about.
July 26, 2017
Glad this ended on a somewhat hopeful note because crikey. So disheartening.
September 21, 2018
Learned so much about the insidious efforts to subvert democracy in the U..S. Required reading in the lead-up to midterms.
May 3, 2019
This was somewhat informative (mostly collecting information from other places) and only somewhat cohesive structure. It was also obviously biased in the selection of information, but it was definitely written in authoritative, believable, non-dogmatic tone that I could read without frustration.
September 25, 2020
This book is a bummer but important to read
January 8, 2017
I received the book as a Goodreads Giveaway and was asked to provide an honest review. In addition to being well-documented and well-organized the book backs up the presented information with pages and pages of references and footnotes. A lot of effort has gone into the presentation and, as we all know, we live a polarized country. This book explains how we got that way in a factual and non-hysterical manner. I wish everyone would read it.
August 14, 2016
Good overview of the various ways GOP operatives are trying to put their finger on the scale (or their entire damn hand in some cases) to influence elections. Some of this I'd heard of; others I had not.
There is the post-2008 freakout caused by demographics tilted badly against them. This is helped undermine the commitment to democracy itself by some in order to maintain their influence. The best chapter is on attempts to roll back voting rights outright after the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision. There is also reports on an overall sense of anti-egalitarianism - the belief that government is better when popular influence is muted. This goes with greater efforts to undo all campaign financing regulations. The chapter that was the most new to me was one on states passing preemption laws, which are designed to strike down the ability of local towns and cities to pass their own laws and regulations. That idea began with Big Tobacco - and though it blew out on them, it's now being used wholesale in some states, not just over one issue.
The book also discusses the use of filibuster and gerrymandering to frustrate the will of the people even when they do vote against the GOP. The Feeralist Society wants to use the courts for a new kind of judicial activism - "judicial engagement" they call it. There is even a movement for the Article V Constitution, which would use state legislatures to up-end the power of the federal government outright.
There is a chapter on the end about people fighting against this; how the movement away from democracy has led to a backlash in favor of it. This movement includes desires to let all ex-cons vote, to make voter registration easier, and other things. It even notes one interesting idea: while the Constitution says all age 18-older can vote, it never says those younger can't. Some towns are flirting with letting 16/17 year olds vote. NYC is considering letting non-citizens vote - hey, they pay taxes.
It's well done, but it's sometimes hard to get a perspective on how serious some of the challenges are. For instance, the Article V talk scared me - but how serious is this movement?
Mostly the book reinforced a general belief I had: we're in a cultural Cold War where numbers are slightly on the sides of the Democratic Party, and those numbers get a hair better each year. I get the feeling it'll stay that way until enough of the current GOP base dies of old age. But this book shows ways the GOP are trying to hold on in the mean time.
There is the post-2008 freakout caused by demographics tilted badly against them. This is helped undermine the commitment to democracy itself by some in order to maintain their influence. The best chapter is on attempts to roll back voting rights outright after the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision. There is also reports on an overall sense of anti-egalitarianism - the belief that government is better when popular influence is muted. This goes with greater efforts to undo all campaign financing regulations. The chapter that was the most new to me was one on states passing preemption laws, which are designed to strike down the ability of local towns and cities to pass their own laws and regulations. That idea began with Big Tobacco - and though it blew out on them, it's now being used wholesale in some states, not just over one issue.
The book also discusses the use of filibuster and gerrymandering to frustrate the will of the people even when they do vote against the GOP. The Feeralist Society wants to use the courts for a new kind of judicial activism - "judicial engagement" they call it. There is even a movement for the Article V Constitution, which would use state legislatures to up-end the power of the federal government outright.
There is a chapter on the end about people fighting against this; how the movement away from democracy has led to a backlash in favor of it. This movement includes desires to let all ex-cons vote, to make voter registration easier, and other things. It even notes one interesting idea: while the Constitution says all age 18-older can vote, it never says those younger can't. Some towns are flirting with letting 16/17 year olds vote. NYC is considering letting non-citizens vote - hey, they pay taxes.
It's well done, but it's sometimes hard to get a perspective on how serious some of the challenges are. For instance, the Article V talk scared me - but how serious is this movement?
Mostly the book reinforced a general belief I had: we're in a cultural Cold War where numbers are slightly on the sides of the Democratic Party, and those numbers get a hair better each year. I get the feeling it'll stay that way until enough of the current GOP base dies of old age. But this book shows ways the GOP are trying to hold on in the mean time.
August 7, 2016
I had a terrible time reading this book. My problems had nothing to do with the quality of the book. Indeed, it was very well-written. The narrative style was good and the book had excellent access points which made it easy to cross-reference and ease my way into the content. There was an introduction; table of contents; acknowledgements; exhaustive notes and an index. (My copy which was an uncorrected proof/not for sale publication did not contain an index - only the pages where it would be in the published copy. It is a shame because I would have used it extensively. I received this copy as part of Library Thing’s early review program.) I checked many of the notes and they were correct. I extended my reading because of the notes and bibliographical references. They were compelling.
What is my problem, you may ask? My problem was the subject matter. I spent many minutes (too many to count) violently cursing, gagging, shouting, snarling and just plain furious.
THE GREAT SUPPRESSION: VOTING RIGHTS, CORPORATE CASH, AND THE CONSERVATIVE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY by Zachary Roth (national reporter for MSNBC) exposes the roots of the Republican Party’s premeditated, deliberate, unethical, outrageous, disgusting, devious, calculating assault on the democratic principles and laws of the United States. The Republican super-rich and corporate interests control the GOP and mandate adherence to certain policies which cast aside average citizens as unimportant non-beings who do not deserve the right to vote or to elect their own community leaders. The Republican Party wants to limit voting by undesirables (think poor, certain religions & certain ethnicities); they pour corporate and think tank money into campaigns; practice preemption tactics (this is an interesting theory); use gerrymandering to control regions of the country; and manipulate Congressional rules. This is just the beginning.
If you read the epilogue which highlights the problems in Flint, Michigan, you will experience every one of the GOP’s vicious, deliberate assaults on U.S. democracy.
The book is not a debate or discussion. It is a documented, well-researched, factual account of the Republican Party’s goal to suppress democratic principles so as to advance their own agenda of supremacy of the rich.
Read this book. I double-dog dare you.
What is my problem, you may ask? My problem was the subject matter. I spent many minutes (too many to count) violently cursing, gagging, shouting, snarling and just plain furious.
THE GREAT SUPPRESSION: VOTING RIGHTS, CORPORATE CASH, AND THE CONSERVATIVE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY by Zachary Roth (national reporter for MSNBC) exposes the roots of the Republican Party’s premeditated, deliberate, unethical, outrageous, disgusting, devious, calculating assault on the democratic principles and laws of the United States. The Republican super-rich and corporate interests control the GOP and mandate adherence to certain policies which cast aside average citizens as unimportant non-beings who do not deserve the right to vote or to elect their own community leaders. The Republican Party wants to limit voting by undesirables (think poor, certain religions & certain ethnicities); they pour corporate and think tank money into campaigns; practice preemption tactics (this is an interesting theory); use gerrymandering to control regions of the country; and manipulate Congressional rules. This is just the beginning.
If you read the epilogue which highlights the problems in Flint, Michigan, you will experience every one of the GOP’s vicious, deliberate assaults on U.S. democracy.
The book is not a debate or discussion. It is a documented, well-researched, factual account of the Republican Party’s goal to suppress democratic principles so as to advance their own agenda of supremacy of the rich.
Read this book. I double-dog dare you.
November 13, 2016
Sadly so very timely and important. A few years ago the Voting Rights Act was partially nullified. While people expected that there would be repercussions I'm not sure if people understood the very devastating effects voter suppression would have on the electorate. This book is a look at the history of voter suppression and how it affects elections.
Author Roth looks at the history of voting in the US. Who gets it, when did they get it, how and why certain groups took so long to get the ballot, etc. He looks at certain cases of how elections were affected. He also examines the attitudes behind it of the left vs. the right and how that plays into voter suppression.
Having already read 'Give Us the Ballot' and unfortunately being VERY familiar with what happens when votes are suppressed none of this book was a surprise. If you have a basic familiarity with the material and the concept then none of this should surprise you. Which unfortunately was a bit of a detriment for the book. Unlike 'Give' this book is not as good as giving a more comprehensive history of the fight against voter suppression. This is more of voter suppression itself. Which was interesting but if you've kept up with this news you'd be familiar with some of these stories.
I agree with some critical reviews out there: the book is too long at about 180 pages. The author is a journalist so I suspect this might have been a magazine longread stretched to too long a book. His style is not one that I care for. I'm not so sure about the bias arguments though. Voter suppression is something aimed at very particular groups who tend to be poorer and have less mobility in some fashion to get to the polling place or to get their ID to even vote. There are statistics, reporting, anecdotes that all bear this out. It's why there's a Voting Rights Act.
I think there is some good material here but 'Give' is probably the better book on this topic. So I'd recommend picking this up at the local library if you remain interested in the subject. It's also very topical so if you want to read something directly related to the election or to get ready for the next one this would be quite fitting.
Author Roth looks at the history of voting in the US. Who gets it, when did they get it, how and why certain groups took so long to get the ballot, etc. He looks at certain cases of how elections were affected. He also examines the attitudes behind it of the left vs. the right and how that plays into voter suppression.
Having already read 'Give Us the Ballot' and unfortunately being VERY familiar with what happens when votes are suppressed none of this book was a surprise. If you have a basic familiarity with the material and the concept then none of this should surprise you. Which unfortunately was a bit of a detriment for the book. Unlike 'Give' this book is not as good as giving a more comprehensive history of the fight against voter suppression. This is more of voter suppression itself. Which was interesting but if you've kept up with this news you'd be familiar with some of these stories.
I agree with some critical reviews out there: the book is too long at about 180 pages. The author is a journalist so I suspect this might have been a magazine longread stretched to too long a book. His style is not one that I care for. I'm not so sure about the bias arguments though. Voter suppression is something aimed at very particular groups who tend to be poorer and have less mobility in some fashion to get to the polling place or to get their ID to even vote. There are statistics, reporting, anecdotes that all bear this out. It's why there's a Voting Rights Act.
I think there is some good material here but 'Give' is probably the better book on this topic. So I'd recommend picking this up at the local library if you remain interested in the subject. It's also very topical so if you want to read something directly related to the election or to get ready for the next one this would be quite fitting.
October 29, 2016
The system IS rigged. Just not the way you might think.
Or so Roth claims in his look at conservatives' efforts to skew democracy in their favor. In a nutshell, he means the hard-core conservatives who are a fan of limited government and hold to a strict interpretation of what the founding fathers intended.
This includes a strong belief that letting EVERYBODY vote is a disaster because most people aren't smart enough to research or understand the issues. Voting, they believe, is best left to small groups of educated folks who truly grok politics. Not surprisingly, this tends to mean wealthy white dudes and the corporations they work for (because corporations are people now dontcha know). Roth gives an overview of the voter suppression tactics employed by the GOP, which mostly involve rewriting laws so that you have to jump through a lot of hoops to vote. Gerrymandering is also touched on at length, and tbh, Roth could've gone even further and it still would've been interesting (maybe a whole book on gerrymandering next?).
Speaking of corporations, Roth also dedicates a lot of time to campaign finance, the nitty-gritty of which might bore the casual reader, but is necessary reading for anybody who wants to understand how the 1% use their money to buy the political landscape they want. Again, this is mainly done by passing a lot of laws that make it harder for anyone but folks with lots of cash to run a good campaign (although Bernie has certainly shit on that parade this year).
Basically, Roth argues, conservatives believe they know best, and the rest of us are just a bunch of misguided liberal idiots who just want handouts. It's strongly left, so before you buy it make sure you have plenty of conservative representation in your collection so you won't be accused of bias (presses whose catalogs you should be looking at regularly are Crown, Regnery, and Twelve). Recommended for readers who already have their minds made up on this issue, should probably be avoided by everyone else, lest it raise their blood pressure.
Or so Roth claims in his look at conservatives' efforts to skew democracy in their favor. In a nutshell, he means the hard-core conservatives who are a fan of limited government and hold to a strict interpretation of what the founding fathers intended.
This includes a strong belief that letting EVERYBODY vote is a disaster because most people aren't smart enough to research or understand the issues. Voting, they believe, is best left to small groups of educated folks who truly grok politics. Not surprisingly, this tends to mean wealthy white dudes and the corporations they work for (because corporations are people now dontcha know). Roth gives an overview of the voter suppression tactics employed by the GOP, which mostly involve rewriting laws so that you have to jump through a lot of hoops to vote. Gerrymandering is also touched on at length, and tbh, Roth could've gone even further and it still would've been interesting (maybe a whole book on gerrymandering next?).
Speaking of corporations, Roth also dedicates a lot of time to campaign finance, the nitty-gritty of which might bore the casual reader, but is necessary reading for anybody who wants to understand how the 1% use their money to buy the political landscape they want. Again, this is mainly done by passing a lot of laws that make it harder for anyone but folks with lots of cash to run a good campaign (although Bernie has certainly shit on that parade this year).
Basically, Roth argues, conservatives believe they know best, and the rest of us are just a bunch of misguided liberal idiots who just want handouts. It's strongly left, so before you buy it make sure you have plenty of conservative representation in your collection so you won't be accused of bias (presses whose catalogs you should be looking at regularly are Crown, Regnery, and Twelve). Recommended for readers who already have their minds made up on this issue, should probably be avoided by everyone else, lest it raise their blood pressure.
January 4, 2020
This book is both timely and dated. The historical analysis is very interesting, and he combines a variety of distinct-but-related issues into a solid thesis. But so much has happened since this book was published (shortly before the 2016 election) that some of the exposition feels out-of-date. Good, albeit depressing, read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews