Book Review: Almanac of American Politics
In this week's American Prospect, political analyst Mark Schmitt takes a hard look at the latest edition of Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics. He ultimately tries to make a case for the irrelevancy of the Almanac today, arguing that most of the information in the Almanac is now widely available on the Internet, and the starkly partisan nature of today's politics renders individual Congress members' views less important than before. He also provocatively contends that Barone's publicly espoused ideological views hinder the book from adequately addressing recent upheavals in American politics and government, such as the 2006 election that catapulted the Democrats back into power and political scandals of Republicans such as Tom DeLay:
More significant for the Almanac, Barone has come to embrace a strict dualist view of the world. Starting in the early 1990s, his introductions have been built around either/or paradigms: the culture war between educated elites and 'Tocquevillian America' in the 1996 book, and an incoherent distinction between 'crunchy' and 'soggy' policies and politicians in 2000. In 2004, he authored an entire book, Hard and Soft America, in which various books, ideas, policies, and politicians are classified as either 'Hard' (good) or 'Soft' (bad). . . .The early Almanacs were a celebration of America's pluralism, its 535 idiosyncratic legislators and 50 governors, and the magnificent fluidity of a democracy in which the products of narrow political machines could settle a constitutional crisis. But what place is there for such pluralism in a world of Hard and Soft, Crunchy and Soggy? If everything is darkness or light, what's the use of an Almanac of American Politics? What do you really need besides an up-to-date Enemies List? . . .
With Barone having spent, by my calculation, 53 years as "a close student of political and demographic data," perhaps it's time for the editors of the Almanac to think from scratch: What sort of guide would most help the nerdy boys and girls of 2009 understand and appreciate American politics?
The review raises an interesting question: What information do we need to sort out the complex political landscape of today--is a comprehensive volume of data on all congresspeople no longer enough?