- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Barack Obama’s galvanizing victory in 2008, coming amid the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s, opened the door to major reforms. But the president quickly faced skepticism from supporters and fierce opposition from Republicans, who scored sweeping wins in the 2010 midterm election. Here, noted political scientist Theda Skocpol surveys the political landscape and explores its most consequential questions: What happened to Obama’s “new New Deal”? Why have his achievements enraged opponents more than they have satisfied supporters? How has the Tea Party’s ascendance reshaped American politics?
Skocpol’s compelling account rises above conventional wisdom and overwrought rhetoric. The Obama administration’s response to the recession produced bold initiatives—health care reform, changes in college loans, financial regulation—that promise security and opportunity. But these reforms are complex and will take years to implement. Potential beneficiaries do not readily understand them, yet the reforms alarm powerful interests and political enemies, creating the volatile mix of confusion and fear from which Tea Party forces erupted. Skocpol dissects the popular and elite components of the Tea Party reaction that has boosted the Republican Party while pushing it far to the right at a critical juncture for U.S. politics and governance.
Skocpol’s analysis is accompanied by contributions from two fellow scholars and a former congressman. At this moment of economic uncertainty and extreme polarization, as voters prepare to render another verdict on Obama’s historic presidency, Skocpol and her respondents help us to understand its triumphs and setbacks and see where we might be headed next.
Did America sweep into office a candidate promising to remake health care and then punish him a mere two years later for doing just that? More complicated factors were at work, and the Harvard sociologist and political scientist Theda Skocpol attempts to unravel them in Obama and America's Political Future...Whatever is happening with the Democrats, Skocpol's take-home message is that we need to recognize the substantial rightward slide of the Republican Party—a fact that she says has only been underscored by Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate...In the book, Skocpol homes in on the Tea Party, the members of which she and her colleagues have spent many hours interviewing. She's careful to draw a nuanced view of them, to explain that they are not the strict anti-government activists many make them out to be.
— Jesse Singal
If you read only one book about Obama this electoral season, read Obama and America's Political Future, the slim volume that includes Skocpol's essay and three smart responses. Together, they rise above the tick-tocks and polemics that characterize too much of the United States' political writing.
— Chrystia Freeland
Chapter 3: Obama’s Problem: Misreading the Mandate
Professor Skocpol has done her usual superb job in evaluating the successes and failures of the Obama administration to this point and in looking critically at the current state of American politics. It is my goal merely to suggest some additional thoughts that may help expand the conversation.
To consider why things might have gone wrong during the first years of the Obama presidency— Professor Skocpol’s assumption is that things did go wrong— it might help to take a brief look at what happened to another presidency that began nearly thirty years earlier and found itself after two years in much the same place President Obama is today.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan carried forty- four states and won the electoral college 489 to 49. One possible explanation for such an impressive outcome— the explanation favored by Mr. Reagan’s supporters, myself among them— was that the American people had rebelled against a government that they believed had become too big, too expensive, too intrusive. In this scenario, Reagan’s election was a mandate to move the country in a more conservative direction, with fewer government programs, lower taxes, less regulation, and in the areas of foreign and defense policy a much more muscular confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The other possibility was that voters had simply tired of Jimmy Carter; that they considered him unsuited for the office he occupied; that they were tired of his woeful countenance, that they were tired of what they perceived to be a pervasive ineptitude whether dealing with Iran or infl ation. They wanted him gone and Ronald Reagan was the only serious alternative. Besides, with a third candidate, John Anderson, a much more liberal Republican, on the ballot, Reagan, the only conservative among the three, received less than 51 percent of the popular vote. And against an opponent who first had to fend off a serious challenge in his own party. Hardly an overwhelming landslide.
There was some validity to both interpretations— by the end of November 1984, there had been 100 separate state elections for president in which Ronald Reagan was a candidate— two in each of the fifty states— and Reagan had won 93 of those 100 elections. But while he enjoyed an occasional working majority in Congress during his first two years, voters punished his party in the midterm elections after he had been in office for just two years. And while he later regained much of his lost popularity and was reelected overwhelmingly, he was never again given a Congress whose support he could count on.
Posted November 4, 2012
Though an attempt at scholastic research, this work is little more than a liberal diatribe. Any true academic analysis of political events should not be blatantly pro or against any side/faction/agenda. I suggest any analysis (or even pedantic comment) about economic policy be informed by an economic background, and an honest analysis of statistical facts.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 4, 2012