The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
I just finished reading Sean Trende's The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It. And there's no hesitation on my part in saying this is the book you need to own to understand what brought us to the 2012 cycle, and where the country goes from here. It's a data driven analysis of the political movements of the past two centuries in America which highlights the gap between conventional wisdom and reality with the verve of a mythbusting sledgehammer.
Trende's analysis is marked by restraint and evenhandedness. But much of the book is a confrontation with the dominance of inaccurate or insufficient analyses from punditocracy, full of forceful assertions about the wrongness of 100,000 foot analysis from the TV knee jerk mafia. Each chapter begins with a definitive intonation from some respected source who pronounces the death of one party or the other for the foreseeable future. The post-election view always seems the same: the party that just lost is dead on the mat, and they aren't getting up. And yet a few years later, time and again, they do. Why does this happen? Well, Trende tells us why - with an argument founded in data, not ideology.
Trende's focus on the history of coalition building explains why Barack Obama's (for all appearances dominant) 2008 performance unraveled with surprising speed, why Reagan's coalition was built on Ike's, and why the history of the Southern strategy is completely divorced from the truth.
In the picture Trende paints, the overreach of coalitions in the aftermath of elections is a failing of both parties - but so is an underestimation of the power of personality and leadership to hold together the delicately balanced dysfunction of governing majorities. Bill Clinton's mastery of this approach is tabulated in striking fashion - it may be that no president since FDR was so talented at espousing the combination of high and low necessary to win the country over. But while we know how Clinton almost lost this coalition in his first two years, Trende highlights another failing of the conventional memory: the truth is that FDR almost bollixed his own coalition, too (and laid the foundations for the South's break with the Democrats a decade later).
Yet this is all history, and while it makes for interesting debate, what makes Trende's book essential that it doesn't just look backwards, but examines the forward-focused prospects for the next few years. He analyzes key projections of youth, Latino, and white working class voting patterns and interests - and here, again, Trende's data details the potential failings of conventional expectations.
Trende's taken a much-needed hard look at the things we think we know about how coalitions rise and fall, how majorities are built, and what it takes to take and keep political power. Those who absorb the lessons from his analysis will improve their odds of navigating the next few years of fractious political divides with a fuller understanding of the means to survive, and even win, in the political reality of the now.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
"Yet this is all history, and while it makes for interesting debate..."
Darn it, this is exactly the reply I was crafting up until you acknowledged it.
Predicting how coalitions will form seems to me to be like predicting the weather - everybody knows what will happen tomorrow, a few specialists can make accurate guesses about what will happen a week from now, and lots of charlatans make bank telling you what will happen next year.
Seriously, we've all read Asimov, and Psychohistory is a really cool idea, but let's face it, science fiction is just that, fiction.
Dec '10
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
Trende.
What a delightful name for a statistician to have.
Jul '11
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
Starve the Beast, psychohistory does seem to be what this is espousing. I loved that concept though and it appears we are at a veritable Seldon crisis. Guessing how to win is a fun game even though the stakes are high. Trende is a sweet name, I'll buy him once just for that.
Edited on Feb 8 at 10:28pmMay '10
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
Since going Gault I no longer listen to the pundits. I do however start my day with a Coffee & Markets podcast that gives me 100% accurate analysis and insight.
While the book sounds interesting & I will download it to check out, I have evolved to a place where Dellingpole looks like a PollyAnna-ish optimist. Regardless of who wins and how things evolve politically, I have difficulty envisioning a change of sufficient magnitude to right our floundering ship in time to prevent a get to know you meeting with an iceberg.
hope I am wrong.
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
Steve MacDonald: Since going Gault I no longer listen to the pundits. I do however start my day with a Coffee & Markets podcast that gives me 100% accurate analysis and insight.
· 5 hours ago
Fantastic! Thank you for listening.
May '11
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
I've been professionally involved in politics in one form or another for 20 years, and Trende's conclusions are well known. (I haven't read the book yet,it's loaded on my kindle). It's not really theoretical - it's history. I can remember in 1988, after George HW Bush secured 12 years of GOP executive rule when people were freaking out about the Democrats becoming a permanent opposition party. Same thing in 1994, when it was beyond obvious that Bill Clinton was a one-term president. And the same in 2004, when we won a base turn out election (very rare) against an extremely motivated foe, "proving" that enough voters identified as Republicans as to give us permanent majority status.
There is no such thing as permanent majorities in American politics. That is because (as Trende pointed out in the excellent Coffee & Markets interview) unlike European political parties, American parties are coalitions of widely disparate elements within a dynamic political landscape. A party can put together a winning coalition, but once it starts governing it cannot satisfy all the coalition. It has to pick winners and losers. Then the opposition sweeps up the losers
May '11
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
The inability to hold together a winning coalition has its good points and bad points. Even after the shocking loss we took in 2008, where every media outlet was trumpeting the fall of the Republicans into "rump regional party" status, I was able to (somewhat unconfidently) state that the GOP would be back before anyone thought likely or possible.
The down side is more ominous. Because of the fragility of coalitions, it is almost impossible to change the direction in the growth of the Administrative State - the defining issue of our time. Even if we were able to elect our dream libertarian style candidate (a Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan) that president would be constrained by the realities of the coalition's fragility. To pare back the Administrative State will create winners and losers. LOTS of losers - not just public workers. The opposition party will sweep up those losers and change the political dynamic within 2 to 4 years. Even Reagan, a talented coalition builder and balancer, only managed to plateau the growth of the Administrative State in his first term. It's very disheartening.
Jul '10
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
Trende sounds like a wonderful guest for Uncommon Knowledge. Just saying.
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
As Paul VI told a friend of mine, "We have heard you."
Oct '11
Re: The Lost Majority: Everything the Punditocracy Told You is a Lie
I seem to remember Trende being the first person to take Scott Brown's candidacy seriously and predict he might actually win in 2010, way back when everyone laughed at the idea. After that, I decided to pay close attention to him.