How America’s Political Parties Change

by Michael Barone

The election of 2016 prompted journalists and political scientists to write obituaries for the Republican Party―or prophecies of a new dominance. But it was all rather familiar. Whenever one of our two great parties has a setback, we’ve “This is the end of the Democratic Party,” or, “The Republican Party is going out of existence.” Yet both survive, and thrive.

We have the oldest and third oldest political parties in the world―the Democratic Party founded in 1832 to reelect Andrew Jackson, the Republican Party founded in 1854 to oppose slavery in the territories. They are older than almost every American business, most American colleges, and many American churches. Both have seemed to face extinction in the past, and have rebounded to be competitive again. How have they managed it?

Michael Barone, longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics , brings a deep understanding of our electoral history to the question and finds a compelling answer. He illuminates how both parties have adapted, swiftly or haltingly, to shifting opinion and emerging issues, to economic change and cultural currents, to demographic flux. At the same time, each has maintained a constant character. The Republican Party appeals to “typical Americans” as understood at a given time, and the Democratic Party represents a coalition of “out-groups.” They are the yin and yang of American political life, together providing vehicles for expressing most citizens’ views in a nation that has always been culturally, religiously, economically, and ethnically diverse.

The election that put Donald Trump in the White House may have appeared to signal a dramatic realignment, but in fact it involved less change in political allegiances than many before, and it does not portend doom for either party. How America’s Political Parties Change (and How They Don’t) astutely explains why these two oft-scorned institutions have been so resilient.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

136 pages, Hardcover

First published October 15, 2019

About the author

Michael Barone, a political analyst and journalist, studies politics, American government, and campaigns and elections. The principal coauthor of the annual Almanac of American Politics (National Journal Group), he has written many books on American politics and history. Barone is also a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. Barone has also written for many major market publications, including The Economist, The New York Times, The Detroit Press, American Enterprise and The Daily Telegraph of London.
He graduated from Harvard University in 1966 and Yale Law School in 1969.

Reviews

[Josh Mirabella · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. I wish that it were a bit longer and that Barone went a bit more into detail about motivations and intentions, but I forgive him on account of those being much, much harder to pin down in a short book than objective statistics and trends. The book did what I wanted it to - it made me more comfortable knowing and talking about the roots of modern political parties, how much those roots apply today, and what they mean for predictions going forward.

[Maria · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but missing key elements. Barone offers to explain why the 2016 election should not be used as evidence of the Republican party changing because it is only one data point. He also uses historical examples of how parties actually do change their policies or member constituencies. What he does not do unfortunately is connect those two points together. There is no section of the book that explicitly points out all the reasons why the 2016 election is not an indication that the Republican party has changed. Overall an incomplete read.

[Scout Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

For such a short book, man this took me a long time to read!

The last 20 or so pages were probably the most interesting and the most related to the 21st century (or 20th century at least). I am not a fan of reading about ancient history (or anything pre 1700s, really), I can somewhat stomach 1700s-1899 but I find 1900s - present most interesting and readable for sure. This is just my personal preference, and it also depends on how well the writer writes about the time period (that can make all the difference).

The sections that covered 1700s-1890s (which was most of the book) were riddled with endless voting statistics/histories that I did not find particularly useful or relevant (after the 20th page, with no real argument, just numbers and numbers and numbers - I was hoping for a bit more commentary on those types of things). When I say numbers, I mean like this: "State X voted 49% Republican and 51% Democrat in the 1994 election; 45% Republican to 55% Democrat in the 1998 election; and 52% Republican to 48% Democrat in the 2002 election".

I had to force myself to read this throughout most of it (not a good sign), but by the end I am glad I read it. I will forget most of the information from the first 80% of the book, but some of the things I made notes of are pretty interesting and good to know.

Some of the earlier history (~1700s) seemed a little useless in a way - like I didn't get what the point was of going over the election results of different states/groups/demographics/areas in such fine detail. If there were some important conclusions drawn, may have been better. I get that it went toward creating a solid background, but I found it didn't really help at all to understand the 1800s onwards patterns. It was boring to read about and I usually wanted to skip it (but I didn't).

The top negative review for this book (by Maria) mentions that the author presents a bunch of historical examples but doesn't really connect things, which I totally agree with. Some parts of the book feel disjointed, just like a general history of political parties, but spaced apart in a way that doesn't really give the reader a clear view/pattern from the beginning to the end (it's more like 1750 compared to 1700; 1800 compared to 1750; 1850 compared to 1800, etc., comparing to the former one).

However, after reading this, I do feel I have a little more understanding of the history of America's political parties, and specifically how damn important the Midwest is to American elections. I enjoyed reading the history on the Midwest and understanding some of the historical events that tied into its importance.

I'm not really sure if I would recommend this book or not - luckily it is very short. If you are interested in history, specifically political [party] history, and you can handle a lot of numbers, I would recommend it. If you are looking for a book to really enlighten you on the 2016 election and how it happened, I'd recommend the last 18 pages of this book only (and with that you won't be fully enlightened; only partially).


Some things I learned
- Franklin Roosevelt stood for big government, deficit financing and inflationary currency
Jackson "boasted of running budget surpluses that briefly eliminated the national debt. His mistrust of paper money amounted to hatred, and he triggered a financial panic by requiring buyers of federal lands to pay in gold (which F. Roosevelt banned)" (8).
- Political DNA of Dems/Reps
"The Democratic Party, from its beginnings in the 1830s, has always been a collection of out-groups, of demographic groups that have not been regarded by themselves or others as typically American but which, taken together--and it is almost always a problem of holding them together--make up a majority of the nation. The Republican Party has always been formed around a core group considered to be typical Americans, but which by itself has never been a majority of the electorate and must attract others to the party's banner in order to win" (9)
- "Violent crime rates & welfare dependency had roughly tripled between 1965-1975, plateaued/rose in 1980s. Democrats' opposition to more intensive policing and tougher penalties for criminals, tighter limits on welfare benefits were widely unpopular, especially in major metropolitan areas where stories about violent crime were featured on local newscasts night after night." Consequence: those metro areas Dems had since 1930s started voting Republican. (77).
- By 1990, widely held by journalists that "Republicans had a 'lock' on the presidency and Democrats a 'lock' on the House of Representatives" (81)… "just when political trends and their causes are identified, they often tend to disappear".
- George Bush's approval rating after Gulf War victory peaked at 91% (82)
- Feb 1992: Texas celebrity billionaire Ross Perot launched an independent candidacy. "bemoaning Bush's NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Perot 'de-partisanized he critique of Bush' in a way that Clinton, struggling through the gauntlet of Democratic primaries, could not." Perot led polls in the three way race in June 1992. (82)
- "In any ways the Perot candidacy resembled the Trump candidacy 24 years later. Both were widely known as successful entrepreneurs; both decried the free-trade policies of both major parties and questioned the worth of foreign alliances and military interventions. Both campaigned bombastically and disregarded traditional political customs. Both zoomed to leads in the polls..." (83)
- Pages 116 & 117 were SUPER IMPORTANT. If you only read 2 pages of this book, read those.

[Jessi Prevost · Rating 2 out of 5]

Loses most of his message in a distracting overstatement of numbers - years, percentages, etc.
Felt more like a statistical analysis of how people have voted for office throughout the years rather than a history of the parties. The history is there but it’s difficult to make sense of through the constant number vomit. Does do a great job of writing through a neutral lens.

[Josh McQueen · Rating 3 out of 5]

After Trump’s surprising win in the 2016 election, Michael Barone, a political analyst and pollster, wrote “How America’s Political Parties Change and How They Don’t.” Barone’s book focuses on America’s two oldest political parties that still survived this day, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Barone works to break down how these parties started, how these parties almost became extinct, and how they adapted to survive to today and beyond.

Barone’s main argument is laid out at the beginning of the book very succinctly:

“What have come to believe, after many years of reading and reflection, is that America's two political parties have maintained, over their astonishingly long lifespans, their basic character, their political DNA. But each has done so only by adapting its policies and adjusting its personnel when faced with political circumstances threatening its viability.”

Barone throughout the book describes how both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have adapted policy wise and how the live Republicans eventually left the Republican Party and the conservative Democrats eventually left the Democratic Party. The book presented from a number of different perspectives, looking at it from each era and history, the viewpoints of the political parties, and even the different areas of the country, like the Midwest.

This book contains a ton of information to support its argument, but I think that the amount of information it has, specifically number, wise, creates more confusion than clarity. I agree with Barone that it is important to look at numbers and understand the change, but Barone insists on breaking down percentages of different regions in every political election, whether it be presidential or congressional. The way this is laid out and within these chapters, it just feels like a flood of numbers, rather than a way to support the argument.

There are some good ideas that can be taken from this book, but I feel as though Michael Barone could have made a much more simplified version. Even something as simple as providing visuals with graphs at the end of the chapter or at the end of the book may have helped with better conceptualization.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always loved Michael Barone's research into voting trends and this book is no exception. Barone demonstrates how the two main American parties have retained mostly consistent identities over time, even if the members of their coalitions gradually change. The GOP has always been a party of those who consider themselves "normal Americans" but in fact do not make up a natural majority. The Democrat party is typically a collection of "out groups" that, when aligned, can form a majority.

With this basic structure Barone explores congressional and presidential elections since the late 19th century. Although Republican periods of dominance are generally longer and deeper than Democrat periods, neither party has never had a natural majority, and thus no permanent one. Barone sees no reason this will change in the future. He does not see Trump's ascendancy as changing these calculations, but I will point out that in 2016 the elites were clearly supporting the Democrat candidate while Trump collected a lot more votes from outsiders (dare I say "deplorables") than say, Mitt Romney. It remains to be seen how things will play out this year, especially if Comrade Sanders secures the Democrat nomination.

Despite the quibble this is truly a fascinating book that thankfully takes a wide-angle lens view that provides a nice alternative to getting bogged down in the petty tomfoolery of typical DC politics.

[Natalie V · Rating 4 out of 5]

**3.5 stars**

This book is certainly has some interesting commentary that can occasionally be bogged down by some heavy writing and statistics that resemble a textbook (not that there’s anything wrong with a textbook-like novel).

I liked how it dug into the history and roots of each political party’s making and further delved into how the different regions of the United States played a role in our politics today.

I really liked the deep dive into the gradual split of liberals vs conservatives. I think it gives us a much better approach as to how the solid Democratic south started voting Republican rather than the obtuse argument of a straight “party switch.”

The last part about Trump’s victory in 2016 is probably the most interesting. Given the most recent election and the shifts we saw in the electorate, I’d be interested in reading a continuation of Barone’s thoughts.

Solid book, a little tough to read at times, but good arguments and facts to back them up.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A succinct and persuasive history of the incredible durability and adaptability of America’s two main political parties. Highly recommend for the insightful facts and analysis offered by a man who knows American politics unlike almost any other.

[Vive · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick, convenient and insightful book about US political party patterns and history. I finished reading it just in time for the 2020 election. Serves as a required reading for one of my poli sci classes as well, but I found it worthwhile nonetheless lol.

[Ruth Board]

I am trying to add this book