What do you think?
Rate this book
Crackup: The Republican Implosion and the Future of Presidential Politics
A consistently surprising analysis of how and why the Republican Party imploded in the last decade, setting the stage for the rise of Trump and extremist candidates more generally.
In Crackup , the eminent American politics scholar Samuel L. Popkin tells the story of how the Republican Party fractured into uncompromising groups with irreconcilable demands. Changes in campaign finance laws and the proliferation of mass media opened the way for newly energized groups to split the party. The 2002 "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform bill aimed to weaken the power of big corporations and strengthen political parties by ending corporate donations to the parties. Instead, it weakened legislative leaders and made bipartisanship toxic.
Popkin argues that moving money outside the political parties fueled the rise of single-issue advocacy groups and Super PACs funded by billionaires with pet issues. This allowed self-promoting politicians to undermine colleagues with an unprecedented use of tactics once only used to disrupt the other party. One such politician was Ted Cruz, who effectively promoted himself at the expense of the party, mobilized other obstructionists in Congress, and blocked compromises on immigration and healthcare. Into this abyss came Donald J. Trump, who took advantage of the party's inability to do anything for Republican voters struggling with economic decline. No other candidate, when forced to try to satisfy the irreconcilable demands of major donors and party leaders, could offer a credible alternative to his moon-promising bravado.
A gripping structural explanation of why the GOP ended up with Trump as their standard bearer, Crackup forces us to look at the deeper forces set in motion two decades ago. It also reveals how self-fashioned rebels like Cruz are inevitable given the new rules of the game. Unless the system for financing elections changes, we will continue to see opportunists emerge-in both parties-to block intra-party compromise.
In Crackup , the eminent American politics scholar Samuel L. Popkin tells the story of how the Republican Party fractured into uncompromising groups with irreconcilable demands. Changes in campaign finance laws and the proliferation of mass media opened the way for newly energized groups to split the party. The 2002 "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform bill aimed to weaken the power of big corporations and strengthen political parties by ending corporate donations to the parties. Instead, it weakened legislative leaders and made bipartisanship toxic.
Popkin argues that moving money outside the political parties fueled the rise of single-issue advocacy groups and Super PACs funded by billionaires with pet issues. This allowed self-promoting politicians to undermine colleagues with an unprecedented use of tactics once only used to disrupt the other party. One such politician was Ted Cruz, who effectively promoted himself at the expense of the party, mobilized other obstructionists in Congress, and blocked compromises on immigration and healthcare. Into this abyss came Donald J. Trump, who took advantage of the party's inability to do anything for Republican voters struggling with economic decline. No other candidate, when forced to try to satisfy the irreconcilable demands of major donors and party leaders, could offer a credible alternative to his moon-promising bravado.
A gripping structural explanation of why the GOP ended up with Trump as their standard bearer, Crackup forces us to look at the deeper forces set in motion two decades ago. It also reveals how self-fashioned rebels like Cruz are inevitable given the new rules of the game. Unless the system for financing elections changes, we will continue to see opportunists emerge-in both parties-to block intra-party compromise.
368 pages, Hardcover
Published May 19, 2021
4 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
About the author
Samuel L. Popkin
8 books7 followersFrom Wikipedia:
Samuel L. Popkin (born June 9, 1942) is a noted political scientist who teaches at the University of California, San Diego. He received his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1969. Popkin has played a role in the development of rational choice theory within political science. He is also noted for his work as a pollster. Popkin has published in unusually diverse areas. His most recent book is The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns; earlier he co-authored Issues and Strategies: The Computer Simulation of Presidential Campaigns; and he co-edited Chief of Staff: Twenty-Five Years of Managing the Presidency. He is equally well known for his work on peasant society, with particular reference to East and Southeast Asia, including The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Popkin has also been a consulting analyst in presidential campaigns, serving as consultant on Bill Clinton's presidential campaign on polling and strategy, to the CBS News election units from 1983 to 1990 on survey design and analysis, and more recently to the Gore campaign. He has also served as consultant to political parties in Canada and Europe and to the Departments of State and Defense. His current research focuses on presidential campaigns and the relationship of public opinion to foreign policy. He is married to Susan Shirk, Professor of Political Science at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
Samuel L. Popkin (born June 9, 1942) is a noted political scientist who teaches at the University of California, San Diego. He received his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1969. Popkin has played a role in the development of rational choice theory within political science. He is also noted for his work as a pollster. Popkin has published in unusually diverse areas. His most recent book is The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns; earlier he co-authored Issues and Strategies: The Computer Simulation of Presidential Campaigns; and he co-edited Chief of Staff: Twenty-Five Years of Managing the Presidency. He is equally well known for his work on peasant society, with particular reference to East and Southeast Asia, including The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Popkin has also been a consulting analyst in presidential campaigns, serving as consultant on Bill Clinton's presidential campaign on polling and strategy, to the CBS News election units from 1983 to 1990 on survey design and analysis, and more recently to the Gore campaign. He has also served as consultant to political parties in Canada and Europe and to the Departments of State and Defense. His current research focuses on presidential campaigns and the relationship of public opinion to foreign policy. He is married to Susan Shirk, Professor of Political Science at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 17, 2024
This is a good book and is well worth reading if you are interested in the recent history of the Republican Party (and let's be honest, who isn't interested in that question these days?).
However, I do need to bring readers' attention to the fact that it is not the most reliable book ever published. In the two instances in which I saw a detail in the book that was so juicy I wanted to know more about it, following the footnotes revealed that Popkin was either misinterpreting the source or attributing to it information it did not contain.
First, on page 201, Popkin claims that the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly coined the term "Eastern Establishment" to refer to the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party. His footnote refers to David Blake's 2016 book Liking Ike. Consulting this book, we find no such claim. Indeed, the phrase "eastern establishment" does not appear in the entire book. The claim also does not appear in Donald Chrichtlow's academic biography of Schlafly. As far as I can tell, Popkin is the only one to claim it, and the evidence he offers does not support his claim. It's hardly implausible, and I, at least, can't disprove it, but Popkin gives us no reason to think it's true.
Second, on page 44, Popkin claims that "The year 2010 marked the first time that conservative groups spent more money in primary campaigns against incumbent GOP representatives and
senators than against Democrats in the general election." This is a very significant claim. In his footnote, he cites Paul Blumnethal's article "Citizens United, McCain-Feingold Fueled Congress' Shutdown Politics" on the Huffinton Post. The only part of that article that could be construed to support Popkin's claim is the following passage: "Campaign finance data shows that the majority of the independent spending in Republican primaries in 2012 came from the same insurgent groups behind the shutdown strategy: the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, the Senate Conservatives Fund, Senate Conservatives Action and the Tea Party Express. These groups spent $17.9 million on last year's primary campaigns or 54 percent of all money spent in Republican primaries."
But this sentence does not make any claim at all about spending in the general election. And
$17.9 million does not come close to a majority of expenditures by conservative groups in the general election. Two Karl Rove-led groups and the Chamber of Commerce together spent nearly $60 million on the general election. In this case, we can say with confidence that Popkin's claim is simply false.
Now, any book of this size will have *some* errors of this type, particularly as publishers have slashed copy-editing and fact-checking budgets to the bone. But, it is not at all the case that I have gone through footnote after footnote looking for something wrong. Rather, in both cases where I wanted to track down the source of a claim (because I wanted to use it in my own writing!), I have found that the sources do not support the claim. That does not inspire confidence.
In sum, I recommend reading this book. But I also recommend double-checking any information you take from it.
However, I do need to bring readers' attention to the fact that it is not the most reliable book ever published. In the two instances in which I saw a detail in the book that was so juicy I wanted to know more about it, following the footnotes revealed that Popkin was either misinterpreting the source or attributing to it information it did not contain.
First, on page 201, Popkin claims that the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly coined the term "Eastern Establishment" to refer to the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party. His footnote refers to David Blake's 2016 book Liking Ike. Consulting this book, we find no such claim. Indeed, the phrase "eastern establishment" does not appear in the entire book. The claim also does not appear in Donald Chrichtlow's academic biography of Schlafly. As far as I can tell, Popkin is the only one to claim it, and the evidence he offers does not support his claim. It's hardly implausible, and I, at least, can't disprove it, but Popkin gives us no reason to think it's true.
Second, on page 44, Popkin claims that "The year 2010 marked the first time that conservative groups spent more money in primary campaigns against incumbent GOP representatives and
senators than against Democrats in the general election." This is a very significant claim. In his footnote, he cites Paul Blumnethal's article "Citizens United, McCain-Feingold Fueled Congress' Shutdown Politics" on the Huffinton Post. The only part of that article that could be construed to support Popkin's claim is the following passage: "Campaign finance data shows that the majority of the independent spending in Republican primaries in 2012 came from the same insurgent groups behind the shutdown strategy: the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, the Senate Conservatives Fund, Senate Conservatives Action and the Tea Party Express. These groups spent $17.9 million on last year's primary campaigns or 54 percent of all money spent in Republican primaries."
But this sentence does not make any claim at all about spending in the general election. And
$17.9 million does not come close to a majority of expenditures by conservative groups in the general election. Two Karl Rove-led groups and the Chamber of Commerce together spent nearly $60 million on the general election. In this case, we can say with confidence that Popkin's claim is simply false.
Now, any book of this size will have *some* errors of this type, particularly as publishers have slashed copy-editing and fact-checking budgets to the bone. But, it is not at all the case that I have gone through footnote after footnote looking for something wrong. Rather, in both cases where I wanted to track down the source of a claim (because I wanted to use it in my own writing!), I have found that the sources do not support the claim. That does not inspire confidence.
In sum, I recommend reading this book. But I also recommend double-checking any information you take from it.
September 2, 2022
Popkin analyzes recent electoral history like no one other than a political scientist could, then preaches the endless flow of money and history at you until you fully understand what has happened to the GOP in "recent" years, when it has happened before, and how it could happen again. This book is super engaging, enlightening and easy to process, only being challenging when it comes to the acceptance of what you have seen before you. Setting it apart from many other political tomes of this post-Trump (we hope) era, is the part with solutions, or at least, proposed solutions, for how we might stop the last bit of unpleasantness from happening again.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews