Take a photo of a barcode or cover
The whole ending is supposed to be uplifting? But like, wow things are not gonna get better. Like I was yelling at this book like 'IT'S WORSE NOW YOU HAVE NO IDEA'
informative
medium-paced
Sigh. And it has only gotten worse.
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
I just wish that everyone who excuses Republican lies and obstructionism with, "both sides do it" would read this book. Both sides don't do it.
A good overview dating from 2011, about the nihilism and gridlock then in place in Washington - and which has gotten only worse since. There's been, sadly, remarkably little need to adjust anything that was written back then, though the set of prescriptions looks a little incomplete these days. Still, this is a good, rigorous overview by two highly regarded scholars whose background is more conservative than liberal, though their conclusions will not please many on the right.
Though this book was published in 2012, before President Obama's reelection, it's still relevant today. In fact, in the closing chapter, I was particularly struck by a passage under the tips for things we civilians could do to bring our political landscape back on track:
That struck me hard.
The authors (there are two: both Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein lean middle-right on the political spectrum) talked throughout the book on what has happened in the past and what could happen if things go one way or another. Here in post-Trump 2017, they were right.
The story they told of our nation's political history—how its roots grew for many years and then how, recently, those roots were ripped apart and new, shakier, more extreme grabs for purchase were made by the Republican party—is terrifying, stark, and hits hard with a sense of deja vu. It was published in 2012, and now it's even more of a current affairs primer.
If you want to truly know—from unbiased, academic sources—what has caused the stagnation and obstructionism in the legislative branch, you want to read this book. It's approachable, readable, and deeply, horrifyingly resonant.
That struck me hard.
The authors (there are two: both Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein lean middle-right on the political spectrum) talked throughout the book on what has happened in the past and what could happen if things go one way or another. Here in post-Trump 2017, they were right.
The story they told of our nation's political history—how its roots grew for many years and then how, recently, those roots were ripped apart and new, shakier, more extreme grabs for purchase were made by the Republican party—is terrifying, stark, and hits hard with a sense of deja vu. It was published in 2012, and now it's even more of a current affairs primer.
If you want to truly know—from unbiased, academic sources—what has caused the stagnation and obstructionism in the legislative branch, you want to read this book. It's approachable, readable, and deeply, horrifyingly resonant.
I highly recommend this one to anyone frustrated by the lack of compromise and functionality in government these days. The authors level the blame specifically at the Republican party's unwillingness to compromise, particularly the goading provided by the Tea Party so it is not likely to appeal to those who like that direction. The Democrats have their share of blame but it's clear that the authors consider the Republican party of today much more ideologically extreme than it has been in the past, a statement that I personally agree with. The authors make excellent points about the cost of being unwilling to compromise (among other problems they outline) and offer interesting solutions for how to solve gridlock and the state of politics today. Not a quick read, but a fascinating one.
Every few years or so, we hear the mythical idea that the Republicans are facing a great divide, but how come, as opposed to their Democratic counterpart, their infighting fails to set them back or obstruct their political momentum? Instead, there is always a growing fraction of Republicans that trailblaze with loudness and confidence into the public a wider acceptance of far-right extremism by claiming truths and history as their own and fabricate widespread beliefs that diminishes the integrity of the democratic process. What this book misses is that “moderate” Republicans may initially separate themselves from the new point of extremity that brews in their party at any given moment, but only until it becomes more politically acceptable will they be sure to partake. Whether it be the Tea Party movement that emerged within the GOP following the 2008 financial crisis, or the large group of "Never-Trumper" Republicans who distanced themselves from the MAGA movement within the supposedly divided Republican Party who turned into Trump policy supporters and staffers after he won the presidency, these "divisions" that Republicans face always lead to the party's entire base collectively shifting rightward with minimal consequences and little pushback from their opposition.
It is not ridiculously difficult to notice the cyclic pattern of a failing two-party system that retrenches and generationally evolves into the new platform for more extreme conservative politics to function successfully. It is infuriating that the leading argument from the liberal political class when addressing far-right conservatism furthering their base beyond the extremity is to just "vote better," especially with a severely underperforming Democratic base that refuses to propose popular policy that universally benefits people.
It is not ridiculously difficult to notice the cyclic pattern of a failing two-party system that retrenches and generationally evolves into the new platform for more extreme conservative politics to function successfully. It is infuriating that the leading argument from the liberal political class when addressing far-right conservatism furthering their base beyond the extremity is to just "vote better," especially with a severely underperforming Democratic base that refuses to propose popular policy that universally benefits people.
As a writer and former journalist, I've always found myself interested in stories about how systems work. It's one of the most enjoyable aspects of being a writer: I'm allowed by trade to ask people loads of questions. Because of that, I normally find myself engrossed with books such as It's Even Worse Than It Looks, which sets off to answer the question, "Why is the American government dysfunctional."
While the book's authors are both knowledgable and credible (long-time) observers of the Washington phenomenon, they skim (what I consider) the most interesting details of the political machine and jump ahead to their final conclusions and analysis, which makes reading the book much like seeing only Act 3 of a play.
This isn't to say I discount their findings. It's clear their arguments are based upon both anecdotal observations and a rigorous (if not scientific) study of the "politics of opposition." But the narrative decisions the authors made regarding how to tell the story left me wanting to better understand how Congress transformed from a legislative body into an obstructionist body. Moreover, I suspect their findings will fall flat on those who have right-leaning tendencies because much of their evidence is left behind the narrative.
Still, it's contribution to the larger story of Congressional dysfunction can't be undersold. Taken together with books such as Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost (which the authors argue is a well-written critique but ultimately unrealistic in its goal), one can begin to understand the deep, underlying forces that have disrupted traditional governance -- at least on a federal level -- in the United States.
It's Even Worse That It Looks reads more like a book you'd pick up after spending time with Lessig's work than one you'd read to start trying to understand politics in modern America.
While the book's authors are both knowledgable and credible (long-time) observers of the Washington phenomenon, they skim (what I consider) the most interesting details of the political machine and jump ahead to their final conclusions and analysis, which makes reading the book much like seeing only Act 3 of a play.
This isn't to say I discount their findings. It's clear their arguments are based upon both anecdotal observations and a rigorous (if not scientific) study of the "politics of opposition." But the narrative decisions the authors made regarding how to tell the story left me wanting to better understand how Congress transformed from a legislative body into an obstructionist body. Moreover, I suspect their findings will fall flat on those who have right-leaning tendencies because much of their evidence is left behind the narrative.
Still, it's contribution to the larger story of Congressional dysfunction can't be undersold. Taken together with books such as Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost (which the authors argue is a well-written critique but ultimately unrealistic in its goal), one can begin to understand the deep, underlying forces that have disrupted traditional governance -- at least on a federal level -- in the United States.
It's Even Worse That It Looks reads more like a book you'd pick up after spending time with Lessig's work than one you'd read to start trying to understand politics in modern America.