Judis and Teixeira point have an interesting and possibly correct thesis: we are on the verge of an electoral realignment where the Democrats will have the upper hand. However, the book often degenerates into a simple apology of the DLC line, though the authors make some pretense of objectivity. By keeping minorities and so called "professsionals" (a term designed to give soccer mom more of an analytical respectibility I suppose) the Democratic Party will soon start all presidential campaigns with a big advantage. I don't quite buy it. For one thing, they more or less write off the South; with the exceptions of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina. I agree that North Carolina is a rather promising Democratic target, but anyone who's read anything on Southern politics should know that the Democratic base in Arkansas and Louisiana is rather strong, possibly stronger than that in North Carolina, and Tennessee is not that solidly Republican either; take the last senatorial elections where Arkansas bucked the trend by kicking out a Republican incumbent and where the Democrats picked up House seats in LA and TN. In the same election Erskine Bowles, a new Democrat poster boy and free trade fundamentalist, lost North Carolina by the largest margin of any senatorial candidate in that state since the days of the one party South because he had absolutely no support from working class whites and blacks felt little reason to turn out. Dan Blue, who is black and has an excellent record of defending labor, would have probably done much better but the DLC buried him under a pile of cash The authors ignore all this data probably because trying to take Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana into account would mess with their thesis that affluent suburbanites are the future of the Democratic Party. They also mention Mark Warner in, Virginia's governor, in support of their thesis while ignoring the facts of his campaign. Their line, taken from the DLC, is to win the suburbanites at all costs, take minorities for granted (what are they going to do vote Republican?) and write off rural areas. Mary Sue Terry and Don Beyer tried this strategy in Virginia and, while running ahead in the NoVa suburbs, got trounced statewide. Mark Warner on the other hand made a concerted effort to make an economic appeal to rural Virginians and had a huge get out the vote effort in heavily black areas and won. Speaking of which we find Teixeira more or less turning his back on his earlier thesis that working class whites will be key to winning a majority. In this book working class whites are good to have but by no means essential. The Democrats should stop further erosion in their support but need not make a concerted effort to win them. This completely ignores the volitility of must win Democratic states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, which have become very unpredictable due to working class frustrations. The same working class base is what makes Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas competetive. It's also this same base which has kept West Virginia in the Democratic column in every recent election except 84 and 00. The problem with this book is that it simply ignores Carville's famous line: The Democrats are going to have to start addressing the economic concerns of ordinary Americans rather than being owned part and parcel by wealthy elites. Merely opposing tax cuts and being more moderate than Republicans won't do it, they need a concrete program to address the concerns of ordinary Americans. The Democrats might be the next majority but if they are it won't be by simply doing what they have been doing. They need a wake up call and Teixeira and Judis are on hand with valium.

With George W. Bush riding high in the opinion polls (for the moment, at least) and the Democrats struggling to establish a solid majority in either house of Congress this fall, the title of this book alone is likely to make some Republicans write it off as wishful thinking. They do so at their own peril. Just as the Democrats' 1964 across-the-board landslide proved to be the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition, Judis and Teixeira argue that George W. Bush's (near-) victory and the narrow survival of the Republican majority in Congress in 2000 will soon be recognized as the last gasp of 1980s laissez-faire conservatism. Of course, partisans of all stripes love to believe that such a watershed in their favor is always just around the bend, but Judis and Teixeira do make a remarkably solid, evenhanded case for their prediction.

The many analogies they draw between the 1960s and the current political climate are probably self-evident to most political junkies already. In both eras, the party in power overestimated its own popularity and the durability of its voting base, and suffered from a growing rift between moderates and those on the far left or right within its ranks. Much as Watergate provided the Democrats with a brief respite from their impending years in the wilderness, the Clinton scandals and Al Gore's somewhat inept response to them have enabled the Republicans to remain in power beyond the scope of their current voting base.

Judis and Teixeira argue that that base has already been showing signs of fragmentation for a decade and will inevitably continue to do so; and they provide a detailed demographic and geographical analysis for their argument. As the Republicans continue to alienate most minority groups, the Democrats' already significant advantage among nonwhite voters will only improve (a process that has been exacerbated rather than eased by the Bush administration's response to September 11, they argue). Among whites, the longstanding Republican advantage is past its peak and began to crack as early as 1992. Judis and Teixeira predict that in the coming decade, these trends have the potential to leave the Republicans with a hardcore support base on the all-important Electoral College map nearly as small as that held by the Democrats in the 1980s, concentrated in the Deep South and upper Rockies. Judis and Teixeira provide predictions for all 50 states, ranging from thumbnail sketches to pages-long analyses depending on the size and degree of change in each state. Although no one is likely to agree with all of their predictions (I don't), the breadth and detail of the study is fascinating regardless of your political allegiance.

Although the authors' political persuasion is unmistakable, there is very little analysis of issues to be found in the book. Instead, they stick to analyzing the parties' respective positions on the hottest issues of the era. Their bluntness in addressing the mistakes and cynical moves of both parties in the past 30 years is likely to offend people of both extremes. But for the more moderate among us, it's a breath of fresh air to read in the same place that, yes, the Republicans did build their majority on appeals to racism, misogyny and homophobia and, yes, the far left can in fact be hypersensitive and intolerant in its own way. Again, anyone with an opinion (again, including myself) is likely to disagree with their characterizations at some point, and it could also be argued that they distort the realities of the 2000 political landscape and overstate the excesses of the post-60s Left in order to better fit their argument. But overall, it is a solidly grounded argument, and Judis and Teixeira do acknowledge four common Republican counterarguments and make a solid case against each of them.

Inevitably, most readers will either want to believe this book before reading it, or hope it's wrong and refuse to be swayed as a result. But either way, it's a formidable and well- supported thesis. I look forward to re-reading it in a few years to see how many of the predictions prove true.

With a great deal of insight and nearly zero partisan rhetoric, Judis and Teixeira (how DO you pronounce that?) offer an easy to read political primer about how social and economic cycles fit in with political cycles. Many political events that were mysterious to me were clearly explained, drawing on historical precedent right up through Election 2000. I found myself convinced that the authors know what is going to happen next in American politics.

The conclusion: the Democratic party will emerge as a new majority by the end of the decade. The Republicans may or may not retain the House this year, and GWB may or may not win re-election in 2004. The authors don't pretend to be fortune tellers; instead they chart trends based on comprehensive analysis.

The text backs up its logic with lots of figures, sometimes charted. Part of the book goes state by state for key states and regions, sometimes down to the county level to show what has been (and will be) happening. Each and every explanation made sense to me, without being too tedious to follow.

The only negative thing I can say is to echo something Joe Conason mentioned in Salon. The authors completely ignore the mainstream media bias against Gore in Election 2000. However, since that really isn't the topic of this book it doesn't take away from the five stars I give it.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this book. Mr. Judis fails miserably to explain why political cynicism seems to be at an all-time high. A devout leftist, Judis relies upon formulaic left wing claptrap to support his thesis that high minded elitists are no longer looking out for the interest of working people, but rather their own self interest. He somehow manages to strech out liberal 'bumper sticker' philosophy for 306 pages, most of it mind numbingly innane. This book is an utter failure, particularly given that his book on WF Buckley was surprisingly neutral and honest. This is the type of drivel you would expect to see from some nutjob writing for Mother Jones, not the New Republic. What a shame.

I enjoyed this book and recommend it to anybody interested in American history and politics. John B. Judis gives a historic account of how our democracy has been damaged by big money and irresponsible elites, focusing from the progressieve era to today. The book is an easy read, and Judis makes his points well understood. He analyzes how different elites and special interest groups have functioned in America.

The chapters "Business and the Rise of K Street," and "Triumph of Conservatives," were very interesting and thought provoking. Judis gives a closer and infromative look at how political action committees and conservative groups have contributed huge amounts of money to politicians, and how they recently dramatically increased their influence in governments decisions.

The last two chapters are also good in explaining how changes in big business influenceing government even more in the 70's and 80's is hard to shake when dealing with a reform agenda. It is chalk full of statistics that are astounding, and are attributed to respectable sources: PAC's gave 72% of their money to Republicans during the last six weeks of teh 1978 elections.

A problem with this book though is that it blames the Republicans too much when talking about the lack of public participation in politics. I guess that was expected though considering that Mr. Judis is a senior editor of "The New Republic" (a liberal magazine), although he does not seem to be a fan of Clinton. All together this book is very informative and holds your interest. Along with recommending this book, I will recommend reading Jim Hightower's "If the Gods had meant us to vote they would have given us Candidates." It bashed both Republicans and Democrats, and is comparable to this book, however discusses more recent issues.

This book informs us on the ever-changing-postion government, elites, and society has had over time, and explains how American democracy has evolved to today's current corrupt system. John B. Judis also gives us hope and discusses how our democracy can be corrected.

Judis is particularly smart about the 1970s, which he characterizes as a moment of conservative and corporate backlash. He suggests that if you follow the money, and the think-tanks, you can see (in part) how and why the right was able to triumph politically in a degraded public sphere once we got to the 1980s and 1990s. The name of the game for them has been propaganda--"Trust us, Mr. Working Man, welfare cheats are what ail you. That and capital gains taxes that are too high."--and they've done it well. Hell, with all the Scaife, Olin, Cato, Heritage, AEI, and CEI doublespeak and disinformation spewed out over the course of the last 3 decades, it's a wonder any of us have any sense left at all. Hopefully, with the eruption of a new corporate scandal every other day in 2002 (nearly all of which have links to the "screw-the-poor-and-the-middle-class / but-fatten-the-rich-and-the-corporations" Bush-Cheney Administration) people are finally beginning to wise up...