Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bluemoosetom's review against another edition
4.0
This book is a really fascinating look in to the growing partisanship of the American electorate, told in a reasonably non-partisan way (the author admits his liberal leanings, but shows how both liberals and conservatives contribute to "The Big Sort" and generally just looks at the trends and why they started).
So what is "The Big Sort?" Essentially, people beginning in the 1970s have started living in like-minded groups many. Many cities have become overwhelming Democratic and rural areas and exurbs are overwhelmingly Republican. This book looks into the trends of this polarization, and how it relates to group psychology, market research, the history of the political parties, the Social Gospel and the Great Commission philosophies of Christianity.
Some of the most interesting aspects were how there wasn't much difference in the two major parties through the 1940s and 1950s (and both were recruiting Eisenhower for a presidential candidate), but party affiliation was high and both parties had a mix of liberal, moderate, and conservative members. During 1965, public trust took a nose dive and party affiliation followed on a huge decline. Over the coming decades, the parties have realigned themselves.
The greatest value of this book is how it makes one realize how little civil discourse there is and how rare it is to have interaction with people who differ on many issues. Both sides have circled the wagons and are further polarized by a feed back loop of their own rhetoric. This makes it all the easier to vilify the "other". Looking at my own choices, of what I study, where I spend my time, my hobbies, and where I live, I see that I am part of "The Big Sort." It will be interesting to see if the trends continue.
So what is "The Big Sort?" Essentially, people beginning in the 1970s have started living in like-minded groups many. Many cities have become overwhelming Democratic and rural areas and exurbs are overwhelmingly Republican. This book looks into the trends of this polarization, and how it relates to group psychology, market research, the history of the political parties, the Social Gospel and the Great Commission philosophies of Christianity.
Some of the most interesting aspects were how there wasn't much difference in the two major parties through the 1940s and 1950s (and both were recruiting Eisenhower for a presidential candidate), but party affiliation was high and both parties had a mix of liberal, moderate, and conservative members. During 1965, public trust took a nose dive and party affiliation followed on a huge decline. Over the coming decades, the parties have realigned themselves.
The greatest value of this book is how it makes one realize how little civil discourse there is and how rare it is to have interaction with people who differ on many issues. Both sides have circled the wagons and are further polarized by a feed back loop of their own rhetoric. This makes it all the easier to vilify the "other". Looking at my own choices, of what I study, where I spend my time, my hobbies, and where I live, I see that I am part of "The Big Sort." It will be interesting to see if the trends continue.
heavymetallibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
Really enjoyed this book, lots of fascinating insights. Can't wait to read Bowling Alone now!
valbot3000's review against another edition
3.0
The big conclusion is to decrease voter turnout and increase political apathy? No thanks, next.
nicholep14's review against another edition
3.0
The excellent research and framing from the author clearly outlines how America has ended up so divisive in many areas, and it was even written a decade ago! It is a dense read and took me a lot longer to get through than most books, its like a voluntary course on subtle shifts from the 1950's to 2008.
cdivish's review against another edition
3.0
Very interesting premise that we are self-selecting locations to be near like-minded people. I wasn't able to finish it, but I might revisit it.
lillsa01's review against another edition
3.0
A slog to get through, this book was filled with numbers and statistics to back up the thought that since the 1970's, Americans have been clustering in like-minded groups, whose opinions are then internally amplified, creating political deadlock. I found the most interesting chapter to be on religion and how churches grow. As someone who is currently living somewhere that I would not choose, where I am continuously at ideological odds with my neighbors, I was hoping this book would give some insight into what creates community and why people live where they do. There were some interesting tidbits in this book, but it was buried beneath mountains of political statistics.
mardob95's review against another edition
3.0
First thing that I learned in this book is that there has been strong political drama for decades.
Second thing I learned is that moderates don't work.
Unfortunately, the author's messages on having people "meet in the middle" feels less and less relatable as politicians become more and more polarized.
Second thing I learned is that moderates don't work.
Unfortunately, the author's messages on having people "meet in the middle" feels less and less relatable as politicians become more and more polarized.
scott_h_119's review against another edition
3.0
This is an interesting look into American civic life. The only drawback is that it was clearly written in about 2007. Also interesting, many of the conclusions it comes to are still applicable in the age of smart phones and social media.
nicoleswanson's review against another edition
3.75
I did this one as an audiobook and to be honest probably shouldn’t have. I may reread the physical copy and amend my rating, but it was a bit hard to follow and very repetitive. However, again, that was the audio version and maybe it’s just a book better read in other ways.
There were some great nuggets, some studies that were really fascinating. But overall it felt like I was hearing hours of what seemed common sense to me and not particularly worth writing a whole book about. I think perhaps it would have been better as an article.
There were some great nuggets, some studies that were really fascinating. But overall it felt like I was hearing hours of what seemed common sense to me and not particularly worth writing a whole book about. I think perhaps it would have been better as an article.