Celinda Lake

In full disclosure, I know the authors of this book, especially Celinda Lake. Celinda, along with Ed Goeas, represent a long tradition. Media outlets often pair a Democrat with a Republican to at least achieve balance. Often this pairing is front and center on news programs, especially on election night. While this tradition goes back at least fifty years with the NBC's pairing of Peter Hart and Bob Teeter, Ed and Celinda have attempted a rarer feat, writing a book together. That's harder than putting together a joint questionnaire or just showing up together for a broadcast event. They had to work through hard issues, even if they were friends.

In this book we learn they had both gone through a conversion. Ed grew up in a Democratic household only to convert in college to become a leading Republican. Celinda grew up in a Republican household and also converted in college to become a leading Democrat. They maintain their differences but have figured out how to work together for a some thirty years on a joint project, The Battleground Polls. Nice work if you pull that off. Most people can't.

And that's the point. If you respect the other person you can overcome differences. But in today's highly polarized world respect is neither obvious nor common. The authors rely on their years of evidence collected in their Battleground polls to show how polarization has grown to characterize the modern electorate. And the authors describe the institutional forces that have pushed us more and more into separate camps. They both point to the evils of social networks and how their algorithms encourage silo-ing our attention. They cite how our primaries have empowered more fringe elements who rarely respect their opponents. They are exasperated by our electoral financing system which allows more fringe but monied participants to undercut candidates who attempt to seek the middle and, course, attempt to show some respect to the other side. They describe the evils of gerrymandering but I wish they had explored more its impacts. They could have described how the decreasing number of competitive districts, and states, have made it less and less rational for many to even vote. Their vote, the minority in a non-competitive district, will never count or change anything, so why vote. While the authors decry the disappearance of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats they don't see, at least in their text, the impact of the 1960s Voting Rights Act and eventually Newt Gingrich. Others see those as the source of today's polarization.

The author's differences are respectfully presented in their alternative approaches to resolving some of the issues driving polarization. Predictably one favors public funding and the other wants to remove all limits on campaign contributions. They share a goal, but disagree on how to get there. They respectfully see where the other is coming from and where they want to go.

The major thing they agree on is that young people are the solution. They both see how less polarized young people are. They cite their work with students at Georgetown as sources of hope. I hope they're right.… (altro)

I hope that the authors are right about the changes that women are making. I'm just not convinced. A lot of it sounds like wishful thinking. Whatever statistics they many have, I question the interpretation. As an example, they attempt to create an image of unity among women. It may be that women who approve of day care and women who disapprove are both concerned about family life. They interprete the problems and solutions in a completely different way, however, and there is little common ground here.… (altro)