Nonfiction
Adult
Like many Canadians, I have struggled to understand the politics of our big neighbour to the south. It’s partly a morbid fascination, but it’s also from a place of anxiousness – could we find ourselves on this path? Two award-winning professors of political science from the University of North Carolina posit the idea that the political ideologies that have so deeply divided Americans (more specifically, white ones) is the result of two worldviews – one fixed, one fluid. They define fixed as a view based on fear of outsiders and of change, one that values hierarchy and obedience, and sees the world as full of dangers. Fluid is defined as one that welcomes diversity and change, preferring nuance over simplicity, and seeing the world as a generally safe place to explore. This is a continuum, with many folks in the middle. The authors argue that politics in America has changed over the past 50 years, as voting patterns have slowly shifted to closely align with worldview, especially after the attacks of 2001. I was astonished to learn that in Nixon’s time, there were more Democratic Senators in the South and Republican Senators in the North, a situation now reversed. Importantly, the authors also explain why the divide is so vicious – each sees the other as not only different but dangerous. And the divide is deepening as social connections between the two groups diminish – there is a rural-urban divide, a northeast/southwest divide, and a population density divide. They go to different schools, attend different churches, drink different coffee, and (per the title) buy different cars. With few opportunities to mingle, hopes of bridging of the divide fade. While the bulk of the book focuses on the U.S., a chapter examines the rise of far-right and divisive politics in Europe as well. While the concluding chapter offers some hope for the future, I wish they had spent more time examining what is happening in this area, and what can be done. An interesting and fairly accessible book, it is sometimes heavy reading – I had to put it down frequently for a break. I did find some of the data challenging, largely because I buck their analytical trend – I live in a rural area, I don’t like Starbucks, and I have a big dog rather than a cat, but by no means could my world view be labeled fixed. But the overall message is clear: the current American partisanship “is completely out of control”, and the onus is on the people of the United States, not the leaders who simply tap into existing fears and discomforts to get elected, to change things. My thanks to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for the digital reading copy provided through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.
More discussion and reviews of this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37570587

PRIUS OR PICKUP? by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler explores "why the [political] parties and the people who identify with them seem more like tribal enemies than members of a single national community who disagree about some things." Hetherington and Weiler argue that people tend to have either more of a "fluid" or "fixed" worldview, where the former see a world full of mostly good people and the latter feel threatened and see protection of oneself as a high priority. The authors explain that conservatives are actually apt to have greater startle and disgust responses, something they contend is tied to choices in education and occupation, noting differences between management’s bottom-line orientation (more fixed) and the creativity (or fluidness) of other professions. PRIUS OR PICKUP? is an accessible text which includes charts documenting differences in worldviews and party identification, as well as attitudes about military force, gender, LGBT issues, and immigration.

#PriusOrPickup #NetGalley

A very creative way to illustrate the two political poles among the American population. The authors explore the deepest factors resulting in this bipolar political division. The two profiles are explained by study cases and statistics. The book contains an extended bibliography that makes possible to use the book in the classroom.

Interesting perspective, but grossly generalized conclusions for much bigger concept/problem/issues. It’s entertaining and intriguing though.

Conceptually curious and could have made a dynamic article, but a bit thin as a book. It's easy to draw a connection between worldview/values and how they translate into political preferences. It makes sense that parenting styles may be indicative of what one fears or prioritizes, but it's an over generalization for a more complex topic.

There are some generalizations but the concepts in this book are sound, when showing the difference between Trump and Clinton voters. A message like "Make America Great Again" resonates with folks with a fixed worldview while those with a fluid worldview are open to more change and progress and aren't mired in the past or the concept of what "the good old days" consists of.