Take a photo of a barcode or cover
steveno's review against another edition
4.0
Great book. The first part is a bit dull as the authors establish the sort is actually taking place, but once they get into the nuts and bolts of how the U.S. sorted itself, it picks up, a fantastic combination of academic research and narrative journalism.
junderscoreb's review against another edition
3.0
On the one hand, this book was prophetic about how American politics was about to eat itself alive. But like many prophetic books that were influential, this one seems just kind of obvious a decade later. And its dystopian description of its day is pretty quaint compared to what we've ended up with since it was written.
cookedw's review against another edition
2.0
This book is interesting but dated. Also, early on in the explanations of the "Big Sort", Bill Bishop the Baby Boomer overemphasizes the boomer sixties' importance and doesn't really pull on how most of what the key events were he's talking about were well underway by that point (he does rectify this a bit later).
In general, the book tells a nice story about how we choose not to surround ourselves with people whose opinions are different, geographically, as we look to live in places that meet our personal needs (examples include Portland for the transit liberals and boonies for the cons who want freedom). There is definitely a lot of truth to this, and I think the pieces on how issues have become so interwoven that when you know someone's position on one you know them all, etc. are fascinating.
But, there is a problem here with a lot of the book being anecdotal, and there is a lot of work out there that suggests Bishop and his coauthor have goosed their data a bit by picking a particular starting point (again, his magic turning point year). The personal stories are often very interesting, but it's a bit convenient and piecemeal.
I think for me the biggest point missing was the lack of a recognition that there is a subset of people in this country encouraging the division. While there is no doubt that people are choosing to sort themselves into geographies and having an echo chamber effect, there have been politicians throughout this time period but particularly in the early parts of his identified "big sort" where there were conscious efforts by politicians to play the "us and them"--that is pretty much literally on what modern conservatism is based, as a response to change. It seems weird to consider "value voters" as a phenomenon of this magic sorting process and not consider fully how politicians' strategies have evolved over the years. He does to some extent when he's discussing the polarization, but it started well before the the big sort was fully underway, and any manipulation/shaping of political narrative gets conveniently left out of his discussion so that he can tell you why it's all our fault.
I do think the saddest part about this book is that it generally rings true and has no real solutions except for a hope that generational turnover will help. Ugh.
In general, the book tells a nice story about how we choose not to surround ourselves with people whose opinions are different, geographically, as we look to live in places that meet our personal needs (examples include Portland for the transit liberals and boonies for the cons who want freedom). There is definitely a lot of truth to this, and I think the pieces on how issues have become so interwoven that when you know someone's position on one you know them all, etc. are fascinating.
But, there is a problem here with a lot of the book being anecdotal, and there is a lot of work out there that suggests Bishop and his coauthor have goosed their data a bit by picking a particular starting point (again, his magic turning point year). The personal stories are often very interesting, but it's a bit convenient and piecemeal.
I think for me the biggest point missing was the lack of a recognition that there is a subset of people in this country encouraging the division. While there is no doubt that people are choosing to sort themselves into geographies and having an echo chamber effect, there have been politicians throughout this time period but particularly in the early parts of his identified "big sort" where there were conscious efforts by politicians to play the "us and them"--that is pretty much literally on what modern conservatism is based, as a response to change. It seems weird to consider "value voters" as a phenomenon of this magic sorting process and not consider fully how politicians' strategies have evolved over the years. He does to some extent when he's discussing the polarization, but it started well before the the big sort was fully underway, and any manipulation/shaping of political narrative gets conveniently left out of his discussion so that he can tell you why it's all our fault.
I do think the saddest part about this book is that it generally rings true and has no real solutions except for a hope that generational turnover will help. Ugh.
cziii42's review against another edition
4.0
3.5⭐️, rounded up. Lots of interesting info without any attempt at suggesting where we go from here or “so what?” The context is also pretty outdated at this point. I’d love to see an updated edition to address where we’re at now, 15 years later.
femmecheng's review against another edition
3.0
I feel bad giving this book 3 stars, as clearly a lot of research went into it and there's nothing really terrible about it. However, this book took me an absurdly long time to read (including putting it down for about a week and a half) and felt like a drudge to get through despite me being very interested in the subject matter. For whatever reason I can't discern at the moment, this book just didn't hit the right notes, though it is an interesting topic.
I think one of the biggest issues I have with the book is that I am thoroughly convinced there is a political sorting that's going on (and has been going on for awhile now). However, I feel like the book spent 90% of the time trying to convince the reader this is the case (which worked! I'm very convinced. Though I largely agreed with the idea beforehand), and spent very little time on the "why it's happening" (besides nearly self-evident arguments that people tend to like living with people who think like themselves), the "why it's bad" (from what I can tell, it boils down to "Congress is less efficient". The author even talked about studies that showed that having people interact with people with opposing viewpoints doesn't seem to end in a rational utopia of mutual understanding, so it doesn't seem like not sorting is very good either), and the "how to fix it" (there was really very little said about this at all) aspects that I'm likely simply more interested in.
I think one of the biggest issues I have with the book is that I am thoroughly convinced there is a political sorting that's going on (and has been going on for awhile now). However, I feel like the book spent 90% of the time trying to convince the reader this is the case (which worked! I'm very convinced. Though I largely agreed with the idea beforehand), and spent very little time on the "why it's happening" (besides nearly self-evident arguments that people tend to like living with people who think like themselves), the "why it's bad" (from what I can tell, it boils down to "Congress is less efficient". The author even talked about studies that showed that having people interact with people with opposing viewpoints doesn't seem to end in a rational utopia of mutual understanding, so it doesn't seem like not sorting is very good either), and the "how to fix it" (there was really very little said about this at all) aspects that I'm likely simply more interested in.
lilstarbies's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Book is dated, but he's not wrong that we sort ourselves into our people. With the internet now, we can now do it online and don't even have to move to do it. Too bad there are a lot of 'influencers' who are bankrolled by russian, american, israeli, whatever oligarchs. I did find it funny to hear that back in 2004 RFK Jr was convinced the 2004 election was stolen.
paigemcloughlin's review against another edition
5.0
I read this shortly before the crash in 2008. It talks about the trend of more mobile Americans being free to choose their neighbors and lifestyle tend to flock to places with people like themselves. We are comfortable around people with similar interests and values. But here is the thing being surrounded by people only from your own SES or political orientation or lifestyle choices will warp your view of the world. It also in politics makes similar people egg each other on to more and more extreme positions and radical positions. This has been happening all over the us people are more in more homogeneous enclaves and this trend has balkanized the US and added to extreme polarization. I read it in 2008 but it is so much more obviously worse now.
bookwormmichelle's review against another edition
3.0
I'm not even sure what to do with this. I was pretty disappointed.
It's badly disorganized. There are some good points in here, and there are some good studies cited, but there are also a few that haven't held up to time (this was written even longer ago than I realized, and needs to be reassessed and updated.)
It almost feels like the author just threw studies and stats and polls up at a wall and hoped some would stick. And some of them didn't even strengthen his argument very well--a few kind of hurt it, actually.
And the big, big elephant in the room which was only barely alluded to a time or two--RACE. No, we were not all agreeing with each other in the 1950s. Maybe white people were, maybe white people's politics were less divided, but that is only because both parties were really pretending Black people didn't exist. Gee, I wonder why things suddenly began to change after 1965. What could possibly have changed in the 1960s? Hmmmm. It must be our patterns of moving. (insert puzzled look here).
And to not even mention the influence of racial factors on where people chose to live in the 40s and 50s and where they choose to move now is to deliberately wear a blindfold. There is sooo much, good strong social science, that the author could have used about the effects of housing discrimination and segregation and how it influenced where people live and who they choose to associate with.
I can't shake the feeling that if I had tried to turn this in as a dissertation my committee would have made me start over.
Yes, we are diverging from each other. Yes, choosing to associate with people who don't hate us may not be helping. But . . . what exactly are we supposed to do? As a serious outlier in a very conservative area, I understand. I live in the middle of people who think I'm a communist immoral traitor, even though I suspect in a lot of places I'd be seen as pretty moderate. (Apparently my failings include not wanting children to go hungry and not being offended at the existence of LGBTQIA+ community) And Bishop seems to think I don't, actually, exist (married, family centered church-going mom who is NOT conservative) Also I see both sides of many issues yet am still politically active (another thing he doesn't think exist together.) I . . . suspect he is missing a lot more than just my annoying existence.
It's badly disorganized. There are some good points in here, and there are some good studies cited, but there are also a few that haven't held up to time (this was written even longer ago than I realized, and needs to be reassessed and updated.)
It almost feels like the author just threw studies and stats and polls up at a wall and hoped some would stick. And some of them didn't even strengthen his argument very well--a few kind of hurt it, actually.
And the big, big elephant in the room which was only barely alluded to a time or two--RACE. No, we were not all agreeing with each other in the 1950s. Maybe white people were, maybe white people's politics were less divided, but that is only because both parties were really pretending Black people didn't exist. Gee, I wonder why things suddenly began to change after 1965. What could possibly have changed in the 1960s? Hmmmm. It must be our patterns of moving. (insert puzzled look here).
And to not even mention the influence of racial factors on where people chose to live in the 40s and 50s and where they choose to move now is to deliberately wear a blindfold. There is sooo much, good strong social science, that the author could have used about the effects of housing discrimination and segregation and how it influenced where people live and who they choose to associate with.
I can't shake the feeling that if I had tried to turn this in as a dissertation my committee would have made me start over.
Yes, we are diverging from each other. Yes, choosing to associate with people who don't hate us may not be helping. But . . . what exactly are we supposed to do? As a serious outlier in a very conservative area, I understand. I live in the middle of people who think I'm a communist immoral traitor, even though I suspect in a lot of places I'd be seen as pretty moderate. (Apparently my failings include not wanting children to go hungry and not being offended at the existence of LGBTQIA+ community) And Bishop seems to think I don't, actually, exist (married, family centered church-going mom who is NOT conservative) Also I see both sides of many issues yet am still politically active (another thing he doesn't think exist together.) I . . . suspect he is missing a lot more than just my annoying existence.
alexckwok's review against another edition
5.0
An engrossing book by Bill Bishop about the clustering of Americans into different groups and how this clustering has degraded the sense of community and idea of bipartisanship in America. Although the problem may not have been as pronounced when this book initially came out, the idea now that like minded Americans are clustering together and demanding representatives who share all of their views is a huge problem in society.
As one side shfits farther to the left, and the other side shifts farther to the right, independents are increasingly finding themselves alienated. Bill Bishop's book attempts to explain why this is/how this happened leading up to the 2004 and 2008 election, the movements behind this action, as well as what the shift has been in recent years.
Though one might wonder in Bill Bishop's division of Americans, is this knowledge going to bring Americans closer together, or is this still pushing us further apart? Furthermore, it seems like Bishop's book is not really geared towards the average American's understanding as someone from the outside looking in on the broken system, but more of a political strategist perspective on what is happening.
As one side shfits farther to the left, and the other side shifts farther to the right, independents are increasingly finding themselves alienated. Bill Bishop's book attempts to explain why this is/how this happened leading up to the 2004 and 2008 election, the movements behind this action, as well as what the shift has been in recent years.
Though one might wonder in Bill Bishop's division of Americans, is this knowledge going to bring Americans closer together, or is this still pushing us further apart? Furthermore, it seems like Bishop's book is not really geared towards the average American's understanding as someone from the outside looking in on the broken system, but more of a political strategist perspective on what is happening.
mvindc's review against another edition
3.0
This book had such a huge influence on the way we look at political behavior and polarization that it has transformed the way we talk about these subjects--therefore I feel like I've already read this book, in a sense, since it has been so influential on many of the other political books I've read. Still, it's good to read the original research. It's also a bit of a depressing read, considering that politics and Congress particularly have become even more polarized since the book was published in 2008, and it doesn't look like there's really a "solution" to this problem.