Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream

The book that remains to be written is a discourse on why intellectuals cannot see past their (to them) invisible ideological prisms. Because the primary complaint of both right & left-wingers about this erudite work is that it dares to cross the lines--the very many lines--that separate political purity from operational effectiveness. The authors point out that liberals got so angry with W that they were often reduced to blubbering in hysterical fits of anger. This made any policy discussions useless. As Ann Coulter wrote, we argue, they insult. But right-wingers are cursed by ideology, too. The conservative contradiction between small business self-reliance and big business greed has never been satisfactorily resolved. The result is that both political stripes posture to their audience, while acting in the most selfish manner to feed off their individual government troughs. Thus the many equivocal reviews which, if you read between the lines, have both sides complaining that the solutions that Douthat & Salam provide are neither fish nor fowl. What they really mean is that they are not used to prescriptions that deviate so far from party lines. They resent being made to wallow in the filth of the real world. Yet powerful ideas take on a life of their own, long after catchy insults wither and die. What is so impressive about this work is its great erudition, and the wealth of clear-eyed thinking that lays out the great circle routes of the shortest distance between two points: where we are in our many divisive policies and how to get where we need to be.

Due to some time constraints this past summer, I only recently got to read Grand New Party. I was extremely impressed with both the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas. We've heard populist language from conservatives before, but in this book the authors take the time to largely strip away the rhetoric and come up with many ideas for how one party might realign itself to actually stand up for the people upon which its success has always depended. Some of the ideas I thought were great, some I thought were awful, but I found virtually all of the ideas challenging and worthy of dicussion. The historical portions of the book are written with grace and with an eye towards, if not neutrality, certainly an intellectual honesty sorely missing in most political writing. I have never been a consumer of political books and I doubt I will start being so now, but Grand New Party is full of innovative thinking and quality writing. Most political books are full of arguments (and poorly made ones), this one is full of ideas. I typically only read science and the occasional novel, but this is one of my top books of the year and I recommend without reservation.

The book is a smooth read that is brainy yet down to earth at the same time. Lots of facts, plus some stats and demographics, but they don't overwhelm the reader. It is noted that working class voters comprise the "battleground" where most electoral campaigns are fought and decided, and the authors point out that GOP'ers must address the key issue of economic insecurity for this constituency that has been taken for granted by the Bushies since 9/11. Of course, addressing "economic insecurity" or the feeling the working class has "lost the future" is the challenge for both parties. The suggested approaches in the book are not terribly novel or surprising, but require a willingness of party power brokers to be open to changing the status quo. Dems, you may get more out of it than Repubs.

I'm center-left politically, reasonably well informed but not involved in politics. The bulk of this book is a concise but incredibly insightful political history from the New Deal forward that I couldn't put down. I read plenty of political magazines and blogs, yet on every page I would think, Yes-that makes sense! Why hadn't I thought of it that way before? I loved it so much that I bought copies of the book for four members of my family (who are mostly center-right to Rush Limbaugh right). The authors do a great job of describing the enduring appeal of the New Deal in the mid 20th century, emphasizing that it was not only egalitarian but moralistic, then describing the trends that fractured the coalition in the the mid 60s and early 70s. I found their political history to be rich, sharp, subtle, and without precedent. I'm amazed that they could be so sensitive to the motivations and excesses of both the left and the right, yet write with such verve. It's critical but evenhanded, intellectual in the best sense, never dry or academic. In a world that seems to be a left-right Punch and Judy, an echo chamber of ideologues and bashers, this book provides a space for real dialogue. I'm no fan of GWB, but this book helped me better appreciate his intial intentions (if not his god-awful execution). It also paints a much more convincing picture of the roots of social conservatism in the working class than Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with Kansas," which makes them look like rubes. Conversely, I'm hoping it will explain to my more right-wing family members why an "ownership society" that promises more economic growth by cutting taxes and entitlements won't play well with a working class that may have more material weath, but also stagnant paychecks, more inequailty, and eroding stability and social solidarity. The latter, shorter part of the book, their prescriptions for transforming the GOP agenda, is provocative, but inherently messier and to some extent less satisfying (politics being the art of the possible, not a temple of ideological purity). My reactions changed from "Yes, of course!" to "Maybe, but..." and "Hmm...I just can't see it." Nonetheless, I think it's admirable for the book to say, in essence, Now that we understand each other, how do we ensure a 21st century America that supports liberty, prosperity, and safe communities for every working American? Exactly the conversation we need to have as we face the 2008 election.

This small book does an excellent job of summarizing the political history of the Republican Party the past 60 years or so. It offers a critique of where it went, if not wrong, at least out of focus the past eight years. It is a companion to David Frum's book, "Comeback," and the authors refer to Frum's ideas frequently although he is not credited at the end. Some of their ideas I agree with, some I don't know enough about to criticize and I disagree with their health care chapter although I agree on its importance. The emphasis is on the appeal of the Republican Party to the "Sam's Club voter," a term they claim to have originated and which has been used by Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. It is a very useful concept and the heart of this book. Their argument is that the family is a crucial institution for the lower income and less educated American. They discuss how the family, as an institution, has been badly damaged in the past 40 years and they offer suggestions on how to undo some of the damage. The first three chapters are probably the best and summarize the history of attempted Republican reforms that would attract the working class voter to form a new coalition after the Roosevelt New Deal coalition broke up in the 1960s. They point out that, after 30 years of steady progress, wages for working class people stagnated beginning about 1973. They say little about the high inflation of the Carter years but I remember it well and think it deserves more emphasis because of its terrible effect on affordability of home ownership. They point out, as does David Frum, that the high crime, high inflation and stagnant economy of the 70s were all mostly solved during the Reagan era and, following that, the working class had less affinity for the Republican party of George Bush. Their analysis of the attraction of Ross Perot for the working class voter was insightful and explains much. They point out that the Clinton years were actually quite conservative although I would give more credit to the Republican Congress after 1994 than they do. I agree that the impeachment frenzy was a terrible error and forced Clinton to the left as he sought allies. They are quite complimentary to George W Bush's domestic agenda and the 9/11 attacks probably harmed the Republican Party by bringing a preoccupation with the war on radical Islam that diverted it from a realignment on domestic issues. They quote Bush as saying essentially that the war trumped all the domestic issues. That worked until the war began to go sour in 2005. From Chapter six on, the book is about suggested solutions, many of which are innovative and worth consideration. I was disappointed with their chapter on health care because they use the French system as an example of how not to reform it. They misstate the principle of the French system which is that the patient pays the doctor in a fee-for-service transaction, then is reimbursed by the health plan, a non-profit corporation regulated by