Scan barcode
moreteamorecats's review against another edition
4.0
Hacker & Pierson combine two major liberal concerns here-- inequality in America and corporate money in politics. In effect, they argue, the latter caused the former. A major influx of corporate contributions to campaign funds, lobbying, and organization-building began hitting Washington in the late '70s, and national politics has been the effectual servant of wealth ever since. I condense and amplify their case, but not by much.
The important thing here: Hacker & Pierson are political scientists. They look at a highly emotional subject by means of factual data, gathered by that discipline's methods. The result, despite the authors' clear efforts, is a little bloodless. Their workmanlike prose is much better than most academics', but this is still no page-turner. Barbara Ehrenreich or Thomas Frank, both of whom abandoned the academy for activist journalism, would tell the story better; but Hacker & Pierson certainly have better graphs. They don't sacrifice moral clarity for factual precision, either.
Readers of major center-left wonky blogs (Krugman, Ezra Klein, 538) will find nothing to fear here, and will probably learn a great deal. I certainly did. Compared to standard narratives of post-LBJ American politics, this one tends to underplay ideological shifts and political personalities in favor of following the money-- a strategy I find persuasive.
Most strikingly, nothing in this case suggests that anyone set out to increase inequality. Corporate managers certainly sought to increase their profits (or, if you prefer, ensure their businesses' survival and thriving) by all means available, including political influence. That's capitalism. If they hadn't, they would have been replaced by managers who would. In Hacker & Pierson's account, it is more surprising that business spent the years between FDR and Carter so reticent about political involvement. I would speculate it involves a generational shift among CEOs-- a point Hacker & Pierson might not be expected to take up, as it would bring ideology and personality back into the equation.
The book returns on occasion to Steinbeck's Okie, forced off his land, asking whom he can shoot. The authors empathize with him: Their methods identify only abstractions. The culprit in inequality, they say, is not actually "corporate money", but "politics". To amend that to "power" is easy enough. And the point of power, as of history, is that you can't shoot it. This is social science working right up to its own limitations, where social theory of various forms must take over. But what the book lacks in theoretical bite, it more than makes up in facts.
The important thing here: Hacker & Pierson are political scientists. They look at a highly emotional subject by means of factual data, gathered by that discipline's methods. The result, despite the authors' clear efforts, is a little bloodless. Their workmanlike prose is much better than most academics', but this is still no page-turner. Barbara Ehrenreich or Thomas Frank, both of whom abandoned the academy for activist journalism, would tell the story better; but Hacker & Pierson certainly have better graphs. They don't sacrifice moral clarity for factual precision, either.
Readers of major center-left wonky blogs (Krugman, Ezra Klein, 538) will find nothing to fear here, and will probably learn a great deal. I certainly did. Compared to standard narratives of post-LBJ American politics, this one tends to underplay ideological shifts and political personalities in favor of following the money-- a strategy I find persuasive.
Most strikingly, nothing in this case suggests that anyone set out to increase inequality. Corporate managers certainly sought to increase their profits (or, if you prefer, ensure their businesses' survival and thriving) by all means available, including political influence. That's capitalism. If they hadn't, they would have been replaced by managers who would. In Hacker & Pierson's account, it is more surprising that business spent the years between FDR and Carter so reticent about political involvement. I would speculate it involves a generational shift among CEOs-- a point Hacker & Pierson might not be expected to take up, as it would bring ideology and personality back into the equation.
The book returns on occasion to Steinbeck's Okie, forced off his land, asking whom he can shoot. The authors empathize with him: Their methods identify only abstractions. The culprit in inequality, they say, is not actually "corporate money", but "politics". To amend that to "power" is easy enough. And the point of power, as of history, is that you can't shoot it. This is social science working right up to its own limitations, where social theory of various forms must take over. But what the book lacks in theoretical bite, it more than makes up in facts.
kregerator's review
5.0
Really glad I read this book. Hard to say it is enjoyable because it hits the mark so well. Disturbing if not surprising. I learned a lot of the details around what I had experienced anecdotally. Highly recommended read.
seemasays's review
4.0
Fascinating book full of insights on what happened in American politics over the past 50 years that led us to this moment. It's a complex book and tough to read fast, but it's definitely worth reading to understand why our political system is broken. The one thing I wish they had done differently is to have spent more time on possible solutions. It's clear they don't have any solutions to offer. After reading chapter after chapter of the problems and what caused them, it would have been a great way to end the book. Instead, one is left feeling rather defeated and pessimistic.
dansbooks's review
4.0
Over the years authors like David Cay Johnston and Kevin Phillips have written persuasively and urgently about the way that the wealthy have dominated the political system to rig tax and regulatory policies in their favor - but Hacker and Pearson's book is still a remarkably lucid and tightly argued presentation of this case. It's especially focused on the dynamics of how both political parties have colluded in undermining the middle class over the last 30 years to the advantage of their rich backers, and makes its case in very well-documented but not overly technical language. Few things I've read lately pull it all together as well as Hacker and Pierson do here.
More...