Let them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality

by Jacob S. Hacker, Paul Pierson

In Let Them Eat Tweets, best-selling political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that despite the rhetoric of Donald Trump, Josh Hawley, and other right-wing “populists,” the Republican Party came to serve its plutocratic masters to a degree without precedent in modern global history. To maintain power while serving the 0.1 percent, the GOP has relied on increasingly incendiary racial and cultural appeals to its almost entirely white base. Calling this dangerous hybrid “plutocratic populism,” Hacker and Pierson show how, over the last forty years, reactionary plutocrats and right-wing populists have become the two faces of a party that now actively undermines democracy to achieve its goals against the will of the majority of Americans. Based on decades of research and featuring a new epilogue about the intensification of GOP radicalism after the 2020 election, Let Them Eat Tweets authoritatively explains the doom loop of tax cutting and fearmongering that defines the Republican Party—and reveals how the rest of us can fight back.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Audiobook

304 pages, Paperback

First published July 7, 2020

Reviews

[Mehrsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 stars for the title itself--so good. I loved Hacker and Pierson's American Amnesia and this one is a short follow-up. It doesn't have the depth of analysis that the first did, but it shows how the GOP has put together a coalition of voters to uphold the interests of the plutocracy. For those who need to be convinced of this theory, they'll probably need more than this thin volume, but if you've already been following the history of the modern right, this book will fill in some of the details.

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let Them Eat Tweets
Let Them Eat Tweets begins with the following disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A BOOK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. It isn't. The book fits more into the genre: Why do people vote against their economic self-interest? It focuses is on the historical shifts in the Republican Party that lay the groundwork for Trump's rise and the tactics the party uses to maintain power and manipulate its base.

Political Scientist professors Jacob Hacker (Yale), and Paul Pierson (UC Berkeley) argue that the rise in extreme inequality that plagues the US today has led to a plutocratic Republican government that's goal is to increase the entrenched wealth and power of the superrich. They believe that plutocracy is the Republican's response to the "conservative dilemma – the tension generated by a commitment to economic elites and an expanding electorate."
Historically conservative parties have either made economic concessions or have invoked cultural issues to divert attention and create a populist base. These issues have included: a call to nationalism in the form of war or other military ventures, sectional loyalties, racially-based opposition to immigration, racial or religious polarization, anything that creates a sense of them and us.

Divisive tactics can lead to a breakdown in democratic practice. If plutocrats feel threatened, they may engage in undemocratic practices to maintain power. Plutocrats have used gerrymandering, voter suppression, manipulation and intimidation of media, election fraud, and violence to maintain control.

Hacker and Pierson claim that Trump et al. have resorted to stoking racial fears to harness its base while passing significant tax cuts for the superrich and corporations and amassing substantial government deficits. They also document the Republicans' assault on numerous environmental, consumer, labor, and financial protections to maximize corporate profit.

Each chapter documents the changes in the nation and the Republican Party from the 1980s to the present. Hacker and Pierson do an excellent job synthesizing relevant research that examines: the evolving concentration of wealth, the change within the Republican party from mainstream conservative to far-right, the influence of donations, the history of racial dog whistles from Willy Horton to the present and the building and financing of a right-wing infrastructure that includes the NRA, Right-Wing Media and think tanks and Evangelical Christian movements. The authors also document the current party's willingness to engage in undemocratic practice to maintain power.

Let Them Eat Tweets is a thoroughly researched and frightening indictment of the world we now inhabit. I highly recommend it.

[Ivonne Rovira · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received my undergraduate degree in English and political science, so I’m pretty much a policy wonk and a student of political history. Even so, authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson taught me so much in Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality. Other books have detailed how we got to this dystopian moment where we have 123,000 preventable deaths — and counting! — and face an economic downtown that could surpass that the Great Depression. What Hacker and Pierson lay out in this meticulously researched book is that the racism isn’t a bug, but a feature, connecting Trumpism with other far-right, authoritarian movements back more than a century.

Hacker and Pierson also draw attention to the “off ramps” that the Republican Party declined to take that pushed it farther and farther into thralldom to the 0.1% and their extremely unpopular positions. The message is that extreme inequality requires moderation if democracy is to survive; however, time and again, plutocrats have poured money into divisive racist and anti-Semitic campaigns to replace democracy with authoritarianism in order to keep power and extreme wealth. Even if you’ve read Jane Mayer’s Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right and Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future, Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality is an absolute must-read in these dangerous times!

In the interest of full disclosure, I received this book from NetGalley and W.W. Norton & Co. in exchange for an honest review.

[Rick Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Installment number 523,978 In the collective liberal lament at how bad the world is and how unfair it is.


This book engages regularly in what I’m going to call in “appeal to democracy“ where the author states some thing that the “conservatives“or “Republicans“ are doing and then says that it threatens democracy. Whether it actually threatens democracy or not is irrelevant, As with many lazy rhetorical devices, the fact that it was said by the author is sufficient proof. It also provides a sufficient bogeyman to write against.

Without being too pedantic, I’ve always gotten a chuckle out of the actual labels of our two American parties. Democrats appeal to democracy, something that the United States is not and has never been. It’s a beautiful idea, representing a hopeful future or idealistic ultimate. Republicans on the other hand speak to what is and what has been, the little republic that could. Pragmatic to their core, the noblest I deal of Republicans for so long, pre-Reagan, where to be the practical adults in the room. The Sandra Day O’Connor Republicans are in ethos I definitely agree with.

Now these books contention is that we’ve moved away from those ideals. Anyone with half a working eyeball and a third of a working brain cell would probably agree. But their reasoning as to the causes likely differ a wildly. “Big scary corporate money” (TM), has resulted in a “populist plutocracy.” A fine contention if there were any evidence in this book to back it up.

The problem with this book is that it’s just hackey. The author claims that income inequality in United States is the largest in the world, but apparently is never heard of South America, or Africa, or Asia. Tellingly enough the “whole” world involves Europe and North America. Possibly Antarctica I’m not sure how the income inequality is there. Not a lot of hard-hitting income studies coming out of the Antarctic Economic Forum. Essentially the author ignores a lot of facts and creates what is a several hundred page opEd about how tough it is to be a well educated liberal. Done well I think this book is a banger. I’m practically giddy with excitement to read Thomas Piketty‘s Capital and Ideology at some point in the next five years. But this book ain’t it.

So after grossly miss characterizing several fundamental assumptions about the world and how it works the author proceeds to come to emotional conclusions about how bad things are and “OMG isn’t it terrible” I don’t actually know because I stopped reading. Life is too short to bother with this. There was a beautiful sunset tonight. I spent some time paying attention to that instead.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

The question that is really in need of an answer is exactly how the right has risen to power over the last four decades and how and why the right continues to be a dominant political force, despite advancing what should otherwise be very unpopular economic policies. This book provides one of the best and most concise answers to that question that I’ve come across.

The answer, as the authors explain, is fairly straightforward. It begins with a question philosophers and statesmen have been asking about democracy as far back as ancient Greece: What happens when an economic system that concentrates wealth in the hands of the few is combined with a political system that gives the vote to the many?

What happens is two distinct economic classes develop divergent and competing interests. Capitalism creates a class of economic elites that try to preserve their wealth, while democracy gives the vote to the masses, who can collectively vote for wealth redistribution. To prevent this from happening, the economic elites require political representation, and that political representation is the Republican party.

The Republican party, however, faces a daunting task, described by the authors as the Conservative Dilemma:

“Then and now, the basic question for conservative leaders was the same: how to reconcile their allegiance to wealth and power with the need to attract the electoral support of voters without much of either.”

It’s no secret that the right’s core constituency is big business and the wealthy, but to win elections, the right must appeal to a voter base that has little income or wealth. As the authors demonstrate in great detail, all conservative political strategy is centered on finding a way out of this dilemma.

To the right’s credit, they’ve been wildly successful in their solution to the conservative dilemma. It’s a hard sell to tell your voter base that your economic plan essentially amounts to taking all economic growth and channeling it to the top 1 percent of earners while everyone else’s income remains stagnant, as has happened over the last four decades.

This is why the right has figured out that they’d better not talk about economics too much. The better strategy is to create cultural division, to get their voter base to hate the left so much socially and culturally that they are willing to vote against their own economic interests. And in this regard, the right could not have done a better job.

And the left plays right into it by largely ignoring economic issues as well. The right has set the conversation and the left plays right along, in many cases themselves moving far right economically, if not culturally.

The right knows the game they can win: By aligning itself with Christian fundamentalists, the NRA, and conservative media outlets, the Rupublican party spends almost all of its time—not advancing any practical solutions to political problems—but rather cultivating hate and anger towards liberals. If people hate each other culturally, they cannot unite economically should be the motto of the GOP.

The authors also dispel a common and annoying tendency for people to believe that both political parties are equally corrupt and biased. You often hear some variation of this statement: “Sure, the right is biased, but the left is equally guilty.” This is objectively and quantifiably false. Of course the left displays bias on many occasions, but what political scientists have found in the US is a phenomenon known as “asymmetric polarization,” where the right has drifted further right than the left has drifted left.

The Republican party in the US has radicalized, and is now further right compared to 1) its own historical policy stances, 2) conservative parties in other nations, and 3) the economic policy preferences of its own voter base. The left in the US, on the other hand, is considerably to the RIGHT of other liberal parties in other countries. There may be bias on both sides, but it is far from symmetrical.

The right advocates for radical free market fundamentalism, extreme cultural division, nationalism, authoritarianism, and a concentrated attack on democratic institutions and voting rights. For all the liberal bias that does exist, there is simply no left equivalents to these extreme positions.

There is good news, however. As the authors point out, the conservative strategy is not sustainable. Winning elections through constantly criticizing the other party is a tiresome game, and eventually people come to learn that you have no good policy ideas yourself. The fact is, an economic strategy that distributes wealth UPWARDS is a con game that can trick the population for only so long, once we stop distracting ourselves with manufactured cultural divisions.

[John Kaufmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a surprise to me. I thought it would be more of a journalists regurgitation of what has happened over the past four years of Donald Trump's presidency (after all, 'Tweets' was in the title). But the book turned out to be a big picture view of the subtitle -- how the right-wing manages to rule despite economic policies that benefit the rich.

The authors call it the Conservative Dilemma. Rich elites want to protect and grow their wealth; they don't want to shake things up. That is the essence of conservatism, so the wealthy are the bedrock of Conservative parties everywhere -- and of the Republican party in the U.S. This agenda, however, is unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Hence, to attract enough electoral votes to gain power and enact their agenda, elites must either moderate on economic issues or appeal to other cultural values and issues. Republican elites over the past 40 years have increasingly opted for the latter. They use what the authors call the three R's of Republican base-building: resentment, racialization, and rigging.

This 3R strategy encompasses tribalism; fear-mongering -- of government, gays, non-Christians, foreigners, communists/socialist/liberals, and anything else that could infringe on one's 'personal rights"; coded appeals to (subliminal, if not overt) racial prejudices; appeals to sexual and ideological purity; and when these fail, resort to gerrymandering, voter suppression, unlimited campaign financing, distortion of truth, and ultimately, judges who will uphold these tactics. A grand strategy!

I've looked for years for a satisfactory explanation of why so many people vote against their economic interests. Numerous books have attempted to explain this phenomenon, some sociological, some political ("What's the Matter With Kansas," "The People, No," "Why the Right Went Wrong." "White Trash," "Angry White Men," "Alienated America," "R.I.P. G.O.P.," "Heartland," "Stranger in Their Own Land," to name several ). But none, in my mind, has provided quite as comprehensive and compelling an argument as this book. I felt like this book provided not just an explanation of how the Republican party has managed to wield power; it also provided a framework or lens through which to view and interpret the politics in the US and elsewhere. Indeed, the authors provided examples of how the Conservative Dilemma was muted by moderating economic policies (Progressive era, FDR, and LBJ in the United States, even the conservative Tories in the UK until recently) and how it was resolved by resort to the three R's (Nazi Germany).

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently wrote a review praising Robert Reich’s book, The System, for illustrating so clearly and forcefully how this republic has become a de facto oligarchy. In this book, Messrs. Hacker and Pierson show how this happened.

Central to both books is the reality of extreme economic inequality in the United States. It is this extreme inequality, among the worst in the world, that explains both the existence of the oligarchy and the increasingly authoritarian tactics being employed by the Republican Party. Since the facts are not on their side, and since their policies favor only the few and not the many, the only way they can seize and maintain power is by fomenting ongoing rage and fear which, by their very nature, requires constant ginning up and ever-more-furious language and tactics.

“Runaway inequality has remade American politics, reorienting power and policy toward corporations and the superrich (particularly the most conservative among them). In the process, it has also remade the Republican Party, transforming a mainstream conservative party into one that is increasingly divisive, distant from the center, and disdainful of democracy. From the White House on down, Republicans now make extreme appeals once associated only with fringe right-wing parties in other nations, stoking the fires of white identity and working-class outrage. Yet their rhetorical alliance with ‘the people’ belies their governing alliance with the plutocrats. Indeed, the rhetorical alliance stems from the governing alliance. To advance an unpopular plutocratic agenda, Republicans have escalated white backlash – and, increasingly, undermined democracy. In the United States, then, plutocracy and right-wing populism have not been opposing forces. Instead, they have been locked in a doom loop of escalating extremism that must be disrupted.”

“In this book, we use the term ‘plutocratic populism’ to describe the party’s bitter brew of reactionary economic priorities and right-wing cultural and racist appeals.”

Harvard political scientist Daniel Ziblatt coined the term “Conservative Dilemma” to discuss the problem conservative parties face in their attempts to implement policies that favor the wealthy elite at the expense of the masses at that very time that the franchise has been expanded to include all – or most – of those masses.

“Outflanked by the left on economic issues, [conservative parties’] survival depended on introducing or highlighting other social divisions. And these divisions couldn’t be trivial or temporary; they had to be strong enough to attract durable political support from the working and middle classes. In modern societies, the list of such ‘cleavages’ is short, and their history unpleasant. There are racial, ethnic, and religious divisions. There is the call of nationalism or foreign military adventures. There are sectional loyalties. There is opposition to immigration. In short, there is a set of noneconomic issues – many racially tinged, all involving strong identities and strong emotions – that draw a sharp line between ‘us’ and ‘them.’

“The question is not whether these cleavages will enter democratic politics. They will. Given their allegiance to economic elites, conservative parties are compelled to take this route.”

However, embracing a strategy of cultural division introduces “two great risks. First, conservative parties may become vulnerable to capture by outside organizations that specialize in generating outrage….” Such “organizations – single-issue groups, cultural institutions such as churches, and certain kinds of media outlets, for instance – are often more effective. These organizations can focus on building strong emotional bonds with citizens and tapping shared identities. Crucially, these organizations may feel much less need to moderate and equivocate.” Such organizations are very “useful surrogates” to conservative parties, and, in turn, the most powerful surrogates find it very useful to use parties to attain their own goals, some of which may not necessarily be the same as those of the conservative parties themselves.

Over time – as we can see in the United States – these surrogate groups, especially far-right media like Fox News, the NRA, and the evangelical churches have effectively become the tail wagging the dog. The net effect of this has been to drive the Republican Party ever further right on cultural issues as their candidates, if not taking the “right position” on the issues most important to these surrogates, will find themselves out-primaried on the Right.

The second risk associated with the Conservative Dilemma is “the prospect of diminishing commitment to democracy. Parties that open Pandora’s box don’t just face the possibility of being overrun by extreme surrogate groups. If the party’s appeals to voters are not enough, they may attempt to shift the electoral math more directly. If playing by the rules is ineffective, bending or breaking those rules may become an appealing alternative.” And we have seen the Republican Party doing precisely that: stacking the courts, gerrymandering in such a way that Democrats have to effectively win a super-majority of votes to even have a chance of prevailing, and of course purging voter rolls and making it ever more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to vote.

Political scientists call such tactics “democratic backsliding…. Once a party in power loses confidence in its ability to win in fair and open contestation and starts down the path of rule-breaking, it may be hard to turn back.”

“The historical record reveals a clear pattern. Whenever economic elites have grossly disproportionate power and come to see their economic interests as opposed to those of ordinary citizens, they are likely to promote social divisions. They are also likely to come to fear a fair democratic process in which those citizens have significant clout. These elite responses to extreme inequality enter into politics mainly through conservative parties, which must navigate the tension between unequal influence and democratic competition. The Conservative Dilemma is not a problem of a particular moment. It is a problem inherent in democratic politics in contexts of extreme inequality.”

[Diane Hernandez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let Them Eat Tweets is an intentionally political divisive book. I am only concerned because the non-rich Republican voter who needs to read the facts within the book will skip it based on the title or quickly judge it as fake news. Essentially, the book is preaching to its own, democratic, choir.

And the choir, which includes me, already knows these things just from being alive at this time. Someone needs to press home a simple truth: Watch what Trump does—not what he says. His actions do truly contradict his rhetoric. Making America Great Again is a fantastic slogan...but what has he done to achieve that for anyone but himself and his rich friends? Not much, if anything. His plan is brilliant in its simplicity. Deny everything and, if the truth comes out, call it fake news. I better get off my soapbox and get back to the review.

If you are a Democrat or a never-Trump Republican, Let Them Eat Tweets will validate your views. If you are a Trumper, you aren’t reading this review or the book but instead blasting me as a fool in the comments. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree. Because of the tone of the book, in my eyes at least, is not hitting the correct audience, 3 stars.

Thanks to Liveright, W.W. Norton & Company, and NetGalley for a copy in exchange for my honest review.

[Shane Hankins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book about contemporary politics and political economy I have ever read. It provides a crisp, clear and well argued framework for understanding the current political situation (some would say crises) in the US. If you want to understand how a small group of economic plutocrats keeps achieving their policy goals despite being massively at odds with the best interests and desires of the vast majority of the population, then you need to read this. It provides a robust yet relatively simple paradigm for understanding our politics while sketching a roadmap for improving them.

[Perry · Rating 4 out of 5]

The transformation of the GOP into a plutocracy that does little to help most of its constituents. Although a slightly different take than Dark Money and The Fifth Risk, the book provoked the same response from me: utter depression.

[John McDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fairly precocious, though sometimes obvious, study of how the Republican Party thwarts the will of the majority while serving the interests of America's plutocrats. Throwing caution to the wind, the authors declare that America is moving, if the evidence they cite is accurate, toward plutarchy, a system of laws and governments which exist to enhance the fortunes of the already rich while seeming to address some minor concerns of the disaffected.

I happen to agree with the authors' theses, the premises underlying their conclusions, and the evidence they cite. I have watched this evolution toward government in service to the rich consume Democrats as well in their support of the most odious aspects of free trade agreements, tax 'reform' which since 1981 has perpetuated income inequality and the disproportionate wealth flowing to wealthy families, individuals, and corporations. GOP efforts to pack the Courts with Federalist Society adherents is a more recent, but in my opinion, a more dangerous trend which recently saw the ascent of a generally myopic lawyer who has been socially and religiously cocooned for the whole of her life, Amy Barrett, becoming a Supreme Court justice.

To those who follow these political science trends, the authors correctly identify the "3 Rs" that permit election outcomes at the national level and in the US Senate become reality: racialism, rigging of elections, and resentment of those who have been left out of the vast economic gains produced since the 1950s who are persuaded to vote for the plutocrats because they harbor deeply seeded resentments toward immigrants, people of color, ethnic minorities, even college students. If one doesn't believe this, simply look at Mitch McConnell and ask: has anyone ever so blatantly and unapologetically taken the cause of the extremely rich against the middle class. If you can't see it, you are part of that group.

I think the authors could well have confined themselves to two points to make their case: taxation and racial resentment, which the authors actually cover very well. What they fail to observe is that none of the tax 'reforms' enacted since 1981, with the exception of the tax code established in the 2018 tax act, were promoted and supported by Democratic congressmen and Senators who were unapologetic in establishing the trend toward lower marginal tax rates for the very wealthy who paid the highest rates but whose higher tax payments are absolutely required to lend support to programs such as Social Security, healthcare, Medicare, food for the poor, public education, and the like--all the things that make life palatable, healthy, and prosperous.

When I was graduated from law school in 1972, the entire Tax Code of the United States was contained in one book of about 900-1000 thin pages. All the IRS Regulations interpreting the Tax Code provisions were contained in 2 separate volumes, each about 900 tissue-thin pages. As the exemptions, exclusions, and preferences for Wall Street, corporations, wealthy estates, the Super Rich, the special oil, gas, and coal interests began to be written into the Code and the Regulations interpreting code provisions, tax laws became so bewilderingly complex that one change required adjustments and additional interpretations in other parts of the Regulations so that the number of Tax Code volumes expanded (as of 2010 before everything became digital) to at least 10 volumes and the Regulations expanded to right around 20 volumes. Democrats simply do not seem to understand how changes in the Tax Code for those who seemingly are not affected by the changes in fact are brutalized by the changes when those changes favor those in the highest marginal tax brackets and corporations. I have yet to hear a single Democrat acknowledge complicity in the assault on the middle class, which reached it apogee during the tenure of Donald Trump. My observation is that the massive disgorgement of money to the very rich embodied in the 2018 Tax Act was simply the evolution of a 40-year march by US Congress and Senate, and in some cases, even Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton comes to mind), to give the rich what they want: more money to expend to minimize the effects of democratic governance. I believe, based on my experience with the Tax Code and Regulations, that these changes to the Code and the interpretation of the Code have been the single biggest contributor to batterings administered to the middle class and the poor.

I think the authors--both political scientists--have it right. They have developed a theory which is useful in righting the course. The tone is so pessimistic but the reality we face is a pessimistic reality for those of us who find democracy, first practiced in Athens, and cemented in the American Constitution the best mechanism--not the perfect mechanism--for governance by and for the people. Fortunately, the conclusion the authors serve up is far more optimistic even while recognizing that demographic changes will not, in and for themselves, re-establish the democratic ideal. For it to work, though, the Second Party--whether it is the GOP or something else--will have to show itself and reform itself in such a way as to send off the plutocrats who have taken control and elected their own to Congress. It is encouraging that they, too, do not believe the necessary changes will occur from demographic trends now developing. The change will have to be more conscious than demographics and it will mean addressing directly the structural infirmities that allow the plutocrats to rule even as they appear to join forces with those who have been left behind in an odd sort of populism that benefits only the rich.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth Reading

The author covers how the Right has so much power and how it is affecting the United States ability to be a Democracy. Explains how we got here, the motivation of the Right and possible ways to stop it. Democracy is on the line.

[Cadence Woodland · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a book about Trump. It is about how we built a highly unique system - a populist plutocracy - that could only have arisen in America. How media, policy, communications and messaging coordination, and special interest worked together over 50 years to create a self-fulfilling cycle of radicalization. And a system where power is largely leveraged by invoking a specific coalition of voters through specific means (usually identity politics) in one audience, to enact a policy agenda that largely benefits another audience entirely (largely the already-wealthy). And yet, this alliance has created a powerful ruling party...and a bundle specific threats that it is increasingly not just unwilling but unable to curtail, much less walk back.

Given the news of this week (the storming of the US Capitol, which I followed from another country - and BOY do I wish more American could see how this is playing through the eyes of even our staunchest allies!), this felt like a prescient read.

Regardless of political leaning, I think this is worth leading. If you lean left, you might learn something about policy agenda vs. messaging and how political policy (and results) are being felt in American life and how--and where you may being whipped into rage that doesn't actual serve your political aims. If you lean right, it's worth a consideration about the difference between ideology and identity and where it may have gotten dangerously confused.

Tl;dr I wish I could force at least a dozen I know to read/listen to this.

[Amanda Cora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last book of the semester finished!!

[Lesley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent analysis of the expansion of "plutocratic populism" since Reagan. Republicans serve the wealthy using huge money donations (exacerbated by Citizens United) while maintaining the support of working class and middle class whites using racism, Fox News and social media, the NRA, and the abortion debate. Lots of interesting facts, including how the average Republican voter is significantly more progressive than the party. Trump is the culmination, not the main cause. Well worth a read.

[Lorcan Neill · Rating 4 out of 5]

The current state of the Republican Party is a danger to America. It’s embrace of plutocratic populism over the last 40 years has exacerbated inequality and divided the nation. They are actively engaging in tyranny of the minority. Read this to learn more - highly insightful and well written by two acclaimed political scientists.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

idk if this fed into my leftist echo chamber but it sure did help fuel my hatred for Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell!!!!

[Clay Wescott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Republicans in the US rule using the three R's: resentment, racialization and rigging, combined with policies friendly to the super rich plutocracy. Resentment is the key: deep perceptions of unfairness and indignation at fellow citizens who they think others are eating their share of the pie. Partners such as the Christian Right and Fox News encourage and foment this dislike, steering it towards immigrants, people of color, gays and lesbians. They do this without mentioning that the real pigs at the trough are the plutocrats getting their tax cuts, and slashing social programs to pay for them. Indeed the extreme pro plutocrat slant worsens the social conditions for most voters, making them even more resentful.

Racialization is related to this, drawing on the deep US history of slavery, reconstruction, apartheid, and pseudoscience on racial inferiority. Since these are increasingly minority views, the third plank of vote rigging is needed. This weaponizes elements of the constitution (overrepresentation of rural white voters in electoral college and senate elections, separation of powers) by aggressive gerrymandering in Republican controlled states, and appointments of extreme, right wing judges.

This "successful" ruling strategy has been crafted over a long period, starting in the 1980s. Trump is just the latest manifestation.

One aspect that needs further thought is the authors' labeling of this approach as "pro-business". While there are elements of this, there is also another side. For example, support to fossil fuel business (the Koch family is a major supporter) is arguably preventing the realignment to renewable energy, and could be turning US companies into zombie, uncompetitive businesses by undermining the forces of creative destruction at the heart of strong capitalist economies.

Also, there is little mention of international elements, and how they intersect with the overall ruling strategy. Key enablers for the global super rich are the interlocking, global networks of company registrars, banks, offshore accounts, courts, real estate businesses, hedge funds, accountants, auditors, passport brokers and facilitators that enable beneficial owners to amass, protect and enjoy their fortunes. In addition, there are the endless wars in the Islamic world produce profits for military contractors, but isn't the lack of success risking the USA brand? And in recent years, the go it alone strategy of undermining long standing alliances seems risking the same, isn't it? Or is all of this part of a more far-reaching effort to justify a larger military, militarized police, surveillance state and other elements of authoritarianism to subdue the popular majority?

Another element that could be given more emphasis is the divide and rule aspect of this strategy. Poor whites, blacks and latinos all have common economic interests. The RRR strategy works to keep them apart, and thus weakens their political voice.

Another aspect that could be developed in a future edition is how the framework helps explain the unique US response to COVID-19. A divide and rule strategy pits poor whites against people of color, distracting them from their common economic interests in comprehensive health and other social programs, and regulations to protect the environment. This allows tax cuts and weak regulations benefiting the rich. Indeed, the assets of plutocrats and other wealthy investors are close to all time highs following massive pump priming from the Fed and Treasury, despite the pandemic and deep economic recession. Weak social programs and the lack of a coherent response to the pandemic, combined with willful ignoring of health guidance, fuels massive spikes in infections. Communities of blacks and people of color are hit particularly hard by disease and job losses. They protest, along with sympathizers, and some protests become violent. This violence is exacerbated as federal forces are sent in, and the "riots" are weaponized by Fox news and other outlets to feed into the rage and racism of the republican base of rural white men. Rigged voting is highly likely in the chaotic, pandemic setting.

[Kevin Krogmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jacob and Paul deserve 5-stars for this book, which catalogues what should be common knowledge in America, but isn't. Namely, that the Republican party - as the Conservative party - are fascists: willing to overthrow democracy in the United States I'm pursuit of the power and transfer of wealth to the wealthy.

They deserve 4-stars for the thoroughness of their argument and one star for it's importance. The thoroughness comes in the detailing of how the Republicans, facing the Conservative Dilemma -- slavish attachment to unpopular economic policies -- stoke outrage and embrace white identity politics in order to manipulate voters to win elections (that Republicans have increasingly rigged) in order to heap wealth on themselves and their donors (at the cost of the middle and lower classes).

The book seeks to correct a huge, indefensible omission in their previous works -- like their otherwise awesome book, American Amnesia -- and that it is the degree to which racism motivates Republicans and their old, white male base to consider themselves above democracy and better than their fellow citizens. The authors' make a little too much of Republican use of "racialization," the use of seemingly non-racial terms to convey racist sentiments. It is interesting, but hairsplitting. Whether deployed as a strategy, tactic or a belief system, it is still plain, old, ugly racism know matter how it is package.

There are at least two elements that are missing. The first is the story of how and why the Democratic Party so thoroughly abandoned labor to it's enemies. This is not central to the Conservative Dilemma telling and there are a few moments when light falls on the Democrats in the book. More here would be good.

A second missing element is a(n) (a)moral one. The authors fail to call out how conservative policies seek to create or perpetuate systems of exploitation. Republican politicians and their donors form a small, powerful group who seek policies that actively allow them to profit from exploiting others -- think not just tax policy, but environmental, labor, consumer protection, collective bargaining, etc. This groups outstanding feature is it's psychopathology. Individuals (self-described "makers") who have the hubris to claim responsibility for the status and wealthy that inheritance and luck have given them, but refuse to take responsibility for the harm that they cause millions of others. Call it the original sin of the two Freds (Fred Koch and Fred Trump): the raising of a psychopathic cabal. May the lot of them -- the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells along with the Trumps -- rot in hell with David Koch for their active pursuit of the misery of the masses.

Our society needs a moral reckoning as much as our democracy needs a political one.

[Marilyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended by The New York Times and The Washington Post, I ordered this book and found myself underlining and writing notes throughout. The authors summarize and detail how the Republican Party got to where it is today: building a polarizing Us vs. Them dynamic that encourages (and succeeds in) tribalism and fear while simultaneously elevating very wealthy elites (plutocrats) whose main interest is keeping power and making sure the ‘other’ doesn’t make any headway or get to close to their inner circle.
The authors make clear the irony and juxtaposition that to keep power the wealthy rely on a dwindling base of voters who are recruited using religion, race, bigotry, and false narratives.
A huge part of the book is how and why these divisive tactics are eroding democratic norms, tenets, and values, and why their continuation and progression will further erode democracy. The chapter “Organizing Through Outrage” reveals particularly well how social media, Breitbart, and Fox have been used successfully to manipulate viewers.
Although much of the analysis of the typical Trump Republican voter was old news to me, the detailed explanations of the history of how wealthy elites rose to power and now control all branches of government was new and quite alarming. It’s beyond bizarre that those who hold the purse strings and won’t share or care are the ones being upheld and supported mostly by those who benefit least.
In their conclusion, the authors offer a ray of hope — a huge repudiation at voting booth and after is needed—but the overall tone, backed with economic inequality statistics, is sobering and dire about the future of our democracy.

[Rita Lei Chen 雷晨 · Rating 3 out of 5]

An explanation worthy of reference to Trump’s rise: This all stems from the Conservative Party’s dilemma, that is, it is necessary to maintain the benefits of the chaebols and to put on the legitimacy of the elections, which gave birth to the impossibility of chaebolism The combination of: Utilizing groups such as the American Rifle Association and right-wing media to organize the poor, uneducated whites in the South and the South, and unite them with the main, but not limited, 3R (resentment, racialization, election manipulation) tactics Vote for a tool that is loyal, isolated from the outside world, and can be counter-propaganda. Vote for political ideas that actually hurt yourself and benefit the top chaebols. The focus is to continue to arouse their anger, emotional polarization, and use their motivational reasoning. The foundation is The hidden superiority of white Americans and the loopholes in the formulation of the U.S. Constitution by the founding fathers (in fact, it is a mismatch caused by unforeseen subsequent changes). In fact, the right-wing media instilled meta-rights to make the people automatically resist different voices, which is so similar to the original one! It can be regarded as the practiced tittytainment 2.0: not to paralyze the people, but to make full use of it.

[ZDR · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll keep this short. I thought it was a well-researched, well-written, very lucid summary of the evolution of the GOP over the last 4 decades or so. The author did a great job of keeping the reader anchored on the main pillars of the GOP and its support system: the party itself, billionaire plutocrats, the NRA, and the churches. By focusing on these four pillars, they were able to trace the evolution from that initial point to sometime in the middle of the Trump presidency.

I also took away something which I think gets forgotten a lot in the current discourse: we get so bogged down in culture wars, identity, what a woman is or isn't, gay rights - all important things, without a doubt, because they are key to who we are as people and the freedoms we demand. But the right welcomes this - this is their battleground, this is how they rile up their base, by forgetting about the very unpopular economic issues that they push. Economic justice and economic fairness and equity that are just as important in allowing people to live their best lives in dignity and peace. If the GOP fought on those grounds, they'd lose heavily. But by focusing on the social and slipping in the economic, they make everything a battle, which allows them to compete even as their base dwindles.

Definitely worth a read.

[Ebmarch · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent synthesis of a number of different topics related to counter majoritarianism. But I believe casting this issue in the context of inequality and economic elitism, along with the three Rs of resentment, racialization, and rigging shows how deep the threat is to “small d” democratic principles today.

I believe, as the authors do, that a resounding electoral victory by the Democratic Party will be necessary to cause the GOP to rethink their strategy. However, I think that will be a long time coming due to what the authors have so clearly educated me on: the built-in GOP advantages of Geographical representation, bias towards less populated, conservative states in the Senate, the Senate filibuster, and the “ultra conservative” Supreme Court and its bias (which is clear in light of the recent decisions on abortion, eliminating race as a consideration in college admissions, negating certain aspects of the voting rights act, and the likely challenge to the Chevron decision which would disable expertise in government agencies to make rules about critical issues like climate change, and environmental quality.

Well, a bit repetitive, I think it’s an excellent read and well worth the time.

[Hasan · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many books that have been written in this genre of late including by Ezra Klein in 2019. This book references an often repeated fact of American politics. The GOP keeps squeezing every last ounce of white vote while alienating minorities and turning out an agenda meant to pay off their donor class and playing to nativist and conservative cultural sensitivities for the masses. This isn't a popular agenda. They do not adapt and propose a more popular agenda. It is truly the party of the plutocrats.

The Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote one time since 1992. Trump isn't about to break that streak this cycle. But as we've seen with Bush v Gore and the more recent undemocratic behavior of the WI and NC GOPs after losing Governor's races, the GOP won't take losing lying down. As this book outlines, they'll try to manipulate electoral circumstances, work the referees, gerrymander their maps and more to hold on to power with their incredibly unpopular agenda. And thus far, they keep getting rewarded for it.

[Thomas Judge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fairly insightful with respect to explaining how the GOP became increasingly reactionary, became increasingly dogmatic to the point where Republicans felt compelled to feed on fellow Republicans more than the political opposition, and recast itself as less a political party from 2016 to 2020/2021 and more of a cult. The title is unfortunate as it suggests that the focus is upon the GOP's specific party leader from 2017 to 2020 rather than upon its supposed leadership from 1980 to 2020/2021. (This should have been an obvious inference to the publisher's marketing team as "tweets" used in the context of the current political situation -- i.e., 2016-2020 -- invariably conjures up images of the fellow who occupied 1600 Penn Avenue during that period.) However, as the authors so capably point out, that individual is not and never has been the problem nor the cause of the problem with the GOP since the 1980s; he is, merely, a symptom. And so he will undoubtedly be remembered as such and no more as time progresses.)

[Hannah JB]

“Entrenched minority rule remains a very possible future…. We can only avoid only if we
Recognise and address the profound inequalities that have made it possible “

Though I deeply agree with this closing statement, this book is only* a concise chronology of recent (post WW2) political trends.

*it performs this job well and provides great resources to answer “wtf is goin on with USA politics”
But intensely glazes over inequalities which are more profound than, and overlap with, class to more deeply strengthen this web of a mess which needs untangling.

This isn’t a complete sociocultural review of the American political psyche, modern or otherwise - but it hits a lot of the major highlights in policy changes and their role in widening the chasm of wealth inequality.

This book also leaves no suggestions for redress or any power the people may have to steer things in the right direction. Great educational flash primer that will hopefully make folks more deeply consider the state of the nation, ask more questions, and find ways to get involved.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does as good a job of any book I’ve read at connecting the dots in recent political history around the rise of the Right in the Republican Party. Hacker and Pierson trace its source to the growth of inequality combined with the rising unpopularity of policies that further that inequality. To maintain political viability even while embracing the needs of the plutocracy, the party increasingly turned to a politics of resentment and racialization as well as policies that limit democratic control, including by taking advantage of weaknesses in our political system (role of Senate, electoral college, gerrymandering, power of courts). Trump, they correctly argue, is not an aberration but an extension of a strategy that is decades in the making. The book is especially interesting in the role of extra-party institutions in “organizing outrage”—the NRA, evangelical Right, conservative media—and pushing the party to support plutocracy—Koch networks, US Chamber.

[Cyrus Douglas Vincent · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read, the book is both insightful and timely. Hacker and Pierson's book fits within a library of new work on the subject of plutocraracy and populism. Some of the material will not be new to regular readers on the subject, but it will provide some language on the topic that is important as well as better understanding of the framework that empowers the political hierarchy that is benefiting from the populist impulses of the masses (Trump is implied rather than made explicit).

I can recommend this book as both a primer for the casual political hobbyist to understand the mechanics of plutocratic populism as well as material for a close follower of political systems to continue building their understanding of contemporary power dynamics. It is well-written enough to satisfy either audience and fits neatly within the body of political literature I've read so far this year.

[Hemanth N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, I had to put down the book several times to comprehend the current state of America. The book talks about how plutocracy (government by, for and of the rich) has risen to power and how richest 0.1 percent of Americans have roughly as much wealth as bottom 90% combined. The author shows how plutocrats has shifted not just to the right of conservative parties of other nations, but to the right of many right wing parties. The book talks about concepts of democratic backsliding, conservative dilemma, extreme inequality. It also explains how politicians made Evangelist ( Viguerie and Weyrich) to change their opinion and make Abortion as the most important issue. Also, how GOP started embraced three R's of resentment, racial tension and rigging.

[Chase Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

First off, the title is amazing. But I really liked this book because it moves the past the latest and shiny trend in politics — the focus on non-college educated whites in rural areas — to shine a light on an existing problem that explains the major problem with the current GOP and its embrace of Trump. Plutocratic populism within the GOP is degrading our democracy and they are now doing everything possible to shore up their minority influence in the face of demographic change and increasingly unpopular policies. It really highlights the need for Democrats to focus on economic issues, rather than simply matching the GOP in its all out assault on cultural and social issues.