Why We’re Polarized by Ezra Klein (PDF)

Description

ONE OF BARACK OBAMA’S FAVORITE BOOKS OF 2022 One of Bill Gates’s “5 books to read this summer,” this New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller shows us that America’s political system isn’t broken. The truth is scarier: it’s working exactly as designed. In this “superbly researched” (The Washington Post) and timely book, journalist Ezra Klein reveals how that system is polarizing us—and how we are polarizing it—with disastrous results.“The American political system—which includes everyone from voters to journalists to the president—is full of rational actors making rational decisions given the incentives they face,” writes political analyst Ezra Klein. “We are a collection of functional parts whose efforts combine into a dysfunctional whole.” “A thoughtful, clear and persuasive analysis” (The New York Times Book Review), Why We’re Polarized reveals the structural and psychological forces behind America’s descent into division and dysfunction. Neither a polemic nor a lament, this book offers a clear framework for understanding everything from Trump’s rise to the Democratic Party’s leftward shift to the politicization of everyday culture. America is polarized, first and foremost, by identity. Everyone engaged in American politics is engaged, at some level, in identity politics. Over the past fifty years in America, our partisan identities have merged with our racial, religious, geographic, ideological, and cultural identities. These merged identities have attained a weight that is breaking much in our politics and tearing at the bonds that hold this country together. Klein shows how and why American politics polarized around identity in the 20th century, and what that polarization did to the way we see the world and one another. And he traces the feedback loops between polarized political identities and polarized political institutions that are driving our system toward crisis. “Well worth reading” (New York magazine), this is an “eye-opening” (O, The Oprah Magazine) book that will change how you look at politics—and perhaps at yourself.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Ezra Klein’s Why We’re Polarized is an enlightening, smart and thought provoking look at how America, and its 2 main political parties, got so polarized.Klein explores several key narratives including the psychology of group think and identity; a nation that has increasingly sorted itself geographically and ideologically; the nationalization of news and politics; the decline of local and regional news; a declining and enraged power elite of white, aging, Christians; a 50 year campaign by reactionaries to create a culture war based on grievances and abstractions, and a 24/7 cable news and talk radio cycle that exists to stoke division and get attention for itself.The book begins with the story about a group of political scientists in the late 1950s who proposed that the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, were too similar and that the public is better served with a less homogenous and more polarized party system.Klein then delves into some studies around evolutionary psychology, social science, group allegiance and self identity. He presents several example studies of how easily humans sort into us vs them group loyalty and how group identity is stronger than ideology or reason. He cites several studies that prove that fear and hate of out-groups is more powerful than loyalty to your in-group.He then argues that Trump is not an anomaly but rather a natural outgrowth of the Republican movement of the past 40 years. A party whose power is increasingly reliant on a declining white, aging, conservative, Christian demographic which is terrified of losing power and privilege. “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.Trump’s latching onto grievances of race and political correctness fulfill a fearful minority’s fantasies of restoration and renewal.Klein explores how the electorate was more ideologically similar across parties 50 years ago when ticket splitting was more common and compromises easier to forge. There were also more diverse cross sections of cultural difference within each party. That changed with the civil rights act of 1964 when the southern Democrat “Dixiecrats” moved to the Republican party under the nomination of Barry Goldwater who was opposed to the act. Yes, polarization has a lot to do with racism.The geographic sorting of the nation which began in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1990s concentrated older, white Americans into the exurbs and the younger, better educated, more diverse Americans into the suburbs and cities. This phenomenon gave the Republicans an opportunity to better target their constituents and create identity narratives that weren’t about compromise and cooperation, but rather grievance and fear of the other side.Democrats grew their portion of the electorate by maintaining a strong sense of diversity and compromise but were disadvantaged because of disproportionate Senate representation in rural states. So as younger Americans began concentrating in cities, their political power weakened as a result of Senate rules, gerrymandering and the electoral college.Over the past 20 years, political campaign demographers began re-defining the dividing line between Republican vs Democrat – those living in areas with less than 900 people per square mile leaned Republican, and areas with more than 900 people per square mile leaned Democrat. In Jonathan’s Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind – he called it the Whole Foods vs Cracker Barrel divide. Where you ate or shopped for groceries became a bigger indicator of your political party than income, education or many other traditional metrics.Klein then discusses the explosion of cable news and the decline of local reporting. This elevated national politics and politicians which made obsolete the old adage – all politics is local. This also forced politicians to devalue compromise and promote winner-take-all mindsets. This had a greater effect on the Republican party being their constituents were a declining electorate.Dems also rely on a much broader set of news sources, not one source exceeding 15% of their total news consumption, whereas Repubs rely almost exclusively on Fox News and a few similar reinforcers in talk radio. This leads to a Republican party with a more narrow and homogenous view of the world and reinforces the concept of group identity and grievance.Klein argues that the Republican party is well aware of its demographic challenges – the average white American is 58 years old, the average black American 27, the average Asian American – 29, the average Hispanic American – 11! This reality forced the Republican party to re-evaulate their strategies during GW Bush’s first term with compassionate conservatism, outreach to black and latino voters, immigration reform and other shifts. But with Obama’s election, the extreme wing of the right pursued more aggressive and desperate measures to slow the tide (Tea Party). Then along came Trump, who saw an opportunity to exploit that fear and be the fighter that they needed all along. Even evangelical Christians rationalized their support of a clearly immoral nominee by believing that in these desperate times they needed a street fighter to bring the America they grew up in back. Make America Great – Again.Klein also proposes that the gradual weakening of parties and the growth of partisanship is another reason for our current polarization. Back in the day, prior to the caucus and primary process, party officials had more influence in selecting their candidates (smoke filled back rooms) – Klein believes that a candidate like Trump would have never gotten near the Republican nomination. We’ve flipped from a system that selected candidates who were broadly appealing to party officials to a system that selects candidates who are adored by base voters (primary voters).Klein also defends PAC money which he says promotes moderates, while individual donations promote polarization and extremists. Individual donors want to fall in love or express their hate. Institutional donors are more pragmatic – they want moderates who can get things done.Klein proposes a set of possible solutions to our current polarization including:Eliminate the filibuster – which allows the minority to hamstring the majorityGet rid of the Electoral CollegeControl gerrymandering – promote proportional representationConsider Ranked Choice votingHave electoral zones represented by multiple members of congressMake 3rd parties viableGive Wash DC and Puerto Rico congressional representation / statehoodMake voting easier, not harderKlein believes that with these changes the Republican party will be forced to adapt, modernize, be more competitive and less reliant on outrage, culture wars and electorate map manipulations.Overall I found the book well written, eye opening and engaging. It follows other books I’ve read in this genre including Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America and Jonathan Judis’s The Populist Explosion. I felt the book lost its way a bit towards the end when the author was struggling to figure out how to wrap up his thesis and propose solutions. But in the end, Klein did tie up his loose ends and finished with a sensible set of policy proposals.Highly recommended!

⭐”Why we are Polarized” by Ezra Klein isn’t a very goo book, in my opinion. It’s thesis as to why we are polarized and the conclusions are wrong, despite starting off well and be correct in some of its observations.The author lays down some key framework throughout the book, and it was here I found myself agreeing with him…but if you think about it, that’s a part of the problem, because in the world of science, establishing true premises is basically a truism. Of course this part was correct, because it lays down so much of what is alreayd known. Klein points out that Americans have grown more polarized than a generation ago. This polarization is refelcted in the rancor and hard-line grandstanding in Congress, in the media, and even at the ballot box. This tendency towards polarization is a vicious circle: we make our institutions more partisan, and they make us more partisan, and so on. The views of the American people get reflected in our institutions, since we elect the people who compose those institution; but these people are incentivized to remain in power, and use partisan issues as a wedge to get themselves elected, thus making the electorate more partisan. Klein discusses how this wasn’t always the case, and it is here that he veers off into the world small-“c” conservatism (not big-“C” Conservatism, like Reagan or Bush).Klein looks back fondly on the era of US politics when the two-parties were not really political parties in the proper sense. At one point in time, the Democrats and Republicans didn’t represent organized coallitions of like-minded voters and politicians coordinating to influence policy, but were essentially fraternities or clubs that individuals joined. Thus, they represented nothing but a brand that you voted in or joined cause grandpa did. In this millieu, writes Klein, there were Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives in both parties. Thus, vertically (within the two-party system), the electorate was not divided along ideological lines. Voters would vote for individual personalities like Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon, rather than a party. Further, electing a liberal democrat like Humprhey meant supporting a conservative democrat like Strom Thurmond. This made political rancor along partisan lines diminish, and had a “middling” effect on politics, meaning that when you looked at the big picture, you’d tend to see a US government or nation-state that was neither Liberal nor COnservative, but Moderate. Klein than speaks fondly of Washington’s farewell address denouncing parties as factions.Klein basically insinuates that the existence of partisan coallitions that are organized around shared ideals is hurting America. The lightening rod that made the parties so different were the race-related issues of the 1960s and 1970s. After the parties were restructured along a right-wing conservative-reationary Republican and left-wing liberal-radical lines, the damage was done. Since then, the viscious circle of institutional parties using wedge issues and voters pressuring politicians to adopt wedge issues, has caused the electorate to drift more to the left or right, respectively. This is why we are polarized, writes Klein. This is his thesis.But, if making it so that Republicans and Democrats each have equal numbers of Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives in their ranks, so that ideological differences in the electorate don’t coincide with which partisan brand (Democrat or Republican) a politician or voter belongs to, than that begs the question: what’s the POINT of the parties at all? This is the “PETITIO PRINCIPII” to Klein’s thesis, and betrays his small-“c” conservative bias. This is why I disagree with Klein and this book.I prefer the school of thought followed by people like Kenneth Arrow (the “Arrow’s Theorem” guy), that the two-party system is its self the problem. The US electorate is not a monolith: there are fundemental differences in worldviews among Americans. Further, there are real issues that are more than just a matter of opinion, but are present in the real world and require novel solutions, and different people of different ideologies can offer different approaches to solve them. Inasmuch as these differences are real, and prior to politics, it follows that politics (at least in the context of democratic societies) should reflect these cleavages in the electorate in the seating arrangement in Congress and Statehouses. If 17% of the electorate thinks a certain way on a certain issue, than 17% of the seats in the legislature should think that way too. Political parties and partisanship are GOOD and NECESSARY because organizing into a party is how that bloc of 17% of voters gets those 17% of seats in the legislature.After all, its not like the politicians themselves have some intrinsic right to just be there; it’s not like we are supposed to have a “political class” of lifetime politicians that join meaningless brands like Democrat or Republican that don’t actually stand for anything, but are just “fraternities.” Also, the idea that they should “have a middling effect” by moderating what the voters want on their behalf (like the politicians know better than their voters do) is aristocratic and undemocratic. People like Klein would argue that “middling” the voters disparate demands is necessary in the name of the greater good. After all, we can’t argue about the same issues forever, we have to reach consensus on the issues and bring the debate to a close at some point; otherwise we can’t move forward and do the job of actually running the country (this is called “comity” to use Thomas Jefferson’s term).I would agree with the school of thought that Klein belongs to (small-“c” conservatism) on the point of comity. But I disagree with him on how he thinks we should get there. We don’t need two large-tent parties to “middle down” our differences on out behalf. Instead, we need a Congress and Statehouses that reflect the diversity of opinion that exists in America, and the “middling effect” will happen from the tug-of-war between these groups in the Legislature. The politicians should battle it out, make concessions, and do deals on the floor of the legislature so that a middle ground can be reached between them. To make that happen, we need one party each for every major school of thought in America. What we don’t need is a LEGACY SYSTEM where we have two monolithic parties, that are essentially just brand names that have been around since the 1860s, don’t stand for anything in particular, and are populated by lifetime politicians who joined this or that party cause daddy and granddaddy had, and essentially view their voters as “clients” that visit them cause they are the only game in town.Klein describes America’s political system as “broken” and I agree. But before we can describe something as “broken,” we have to look at something that isn’t broken. What comparable non-broken political systems exist in the world that the US could be contrasted to? Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Japan, France, the UK, the Nordic countries, and so on, all offer great examples of unbroken democracies. And what do these countries have in common, that the USA lacks? They are all multi-party systems. Not one of these countries has a political party thats more than few decades old (unlike our parties that go back to the 1860s), and none of them have only 2 parties. Some have as many as 8 equally viable parties! Parties come and go all the time. Some disgruntled people somewhere, who feel strongly about some issue, can organize a new party and get seats in Congress easily. Nobody shows any loyalty to their parties…they aren’t viewed as football teams with colors, but vehicles that are meant to serve as a spring board for this or that issue. People do vote along party lines, and demosntrate more “partisanship” than americans; but that’s because the parties always reflect some issue. At first, you might thinks this sounds like chaos; but it is not. The parties have to find a balance of power between one another in the legislature, and policy that more surgically reflects popular support for any given issue is the result. Again, Canada, the Netherlands, and so on, lack the entrenched cronyism and corruption of the USA, and the governments of these countries ACTUALLY govern (they get work done).There was a political scientist named Juan Linz who, decade before Klein wrote this book, compared the multi-party systems of these countries to the two-party systems of the UK and the USA. Even though he wrote long ago, ironically he seems to “answer” Klein, cause many of the points Klein makes in defense of his thesis are overturned by Linz. I suggest looking at this author.

⭐This book looks at the systems that have created broken politics in America but is just as relevant to many other countries where we see a rise in strong armed men putting forward crazy ideas and misinformation and creating systems that polarise through two strong pillars – fear and misinformation. This book makes an argument for how we are influenced by systems rather than people and how that influences how people vote.- Facebook status of people have moved away from party identity at 80% in whether they were republican or democrat to around 60% nowadays and yet people are no longer driven by what they support or the parties policies but more about how they feel towards their favourite party and the drive and negativity towards the other party. In England and America where people’s identity can be likened to a religion or your favourite sports team – it doesn’t seem to matter what might be best for the people of a country or how they might run the party but more by their feelings and their belief systems in the story they tell themselves rather than rational debate as well as by the fact that they are more influence by their dislikes of the other party that they don’t want to support rather than the party they do want to support. Negativity trumps ideology.- In the 1980s it was difficult to tell what each party in both American and British governments believed in as their ideological system of government and many were equal in issues such as abortion and welfare but as the decades have past, it is now much easier to know what each party represents as well is what your own feelings about those beliefs systems and parties are. And once again the parties have become more divided, more polarised and in turn created more fear about the other party and saying their faults rather than explaining what their own parties aims and goals actually are. And it seems to be working.- In the past Republicans had many similar viewpoints to Democrats on immigration and Reagan in the 1980s was often liberal on issues that Democrats shared. As the years have past, these viewpoints have widened, become more entrenched and more divided and fixed.- The book also looks at the psychological aspect of how people vote and there are the five factors that make us who we are such as open, agreeableness, nervousness, outgoing, etc. The greatest one single question you can ask to find out how someone is most likely to vote is how they respond to the theatre that they feel about America and the society that surrounds them. People who are more pro-family, believe in the death penalty, easily disguisted, are more likely to be Republicans and those who like change, meeting different people, more open, try new foods – they are likely to be Democrats. Does our personality drive how we vote? Especially as we become more entrenched in echo chambers such as Twitter and other social media news sites and the change in how we get our news. These personality traits are formed when we are quite young but they can greatly predict today how someone is more likely to vote.- In another book that talks about the psychology of how people vote, two single questions could be asked and depending upon the answer would give people the power to identify how a person was likely to vote. These two questions were did you believe in capital punishment and do you feel that your country was better in the past. If you support The death penalty and feel your country was better in the past, then you were much more likely to have voted Brexit or Republican (or Conservatives).- The book also discussed group psychology. Just think if you support a football team or other sports team how much there is the identity of us versus them. Experiments where children were randomly assign to different groups dependent upon how they felt about different paintings or were able to see different numbers of spots, even though this was actually random and the results are whether the children like paintings or different groups of numbers were actually ignored, when handing out money or other gifts to the different groups, they became more particular to give in to the group that they felt were part of their team over the outsiders who had belong to a different group. Group identity and ideology draws people more today in their political ideology and the people who share their groups. By exploiting this, which Trump has certainly done but also UK ex-prime minister Johnson in the UK, we create more partisan and division and start aligning ourselves with party political identity and even more so going against the party of opposition. We think we come to our political beliefs systems over time and through rational thought, weighing up what one party might represent another another, but the truth of the matter is, the way we now vote is part of our personality or tribe and we are more focused on the party we don’t want in power rather than who we do want to govern. And its become engrained in our personalities. However, what has happened over time, is that political parties have learnt to exploit these ideas and thus focused how they present themselves and to become more divided in their political viewpoints. And to promote fear about the other parties.- Group identity could be anything to do with the religion that you believe in, the football or sports team you support and also the political ideology that you share but the most important thing about this is that you just want to belong to a group and the best way to do that is by forming an allegiance. We now know that loneliness can cause almost as much damage as smoking in some studies and the same thing can occur in the need to belong to a group and reduce the loneliness we might also feel by not belonging to something. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t appear to make sense, it’s just about belonging and sharing with like-minded souls. And that the vision has become more and more polarised as it becomes more about identity.- HOW WE FEEL MATTERS MORE THAN HOW WE THINK and that can be seen in issues around increases in anger, polarisation and how we feel about people who have different viewpoints that belong to different party ideologies. We go around seeking information to support our belief systems whether it be religion or politics and become adamantly aggrieved by the other side’s view point (think confirmation bias). And these divisions are increasing as politicians start to learn to use more ‘us and them’ mentality in their speeches from Boris Johnson, Putin, President Xi, Trump, etc.- More politicians are realising the power that YOU DON’T JUST NEED SUPPORT, YOU NEED ANGER AND THE BEST WAY TO CREATE THAT ANGER IS BY EXPRESSING FEARS AROUND THE OTHER SIDE’S POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. This is what drives people to vote often because they don’t want the other party in power more than the fact that they want their party in power.- Two interesting themes come out of this book at the halfway point and the first is that everybody wants to have some form of control whether it be left leaning liberals or far right conservative in the fact that whether it’s cancelling due to political incorrectness or attacking others it seems a lot of it is about seeking ways of having control over others. Another idea that comes out of the book is how we are now accessing more information than we’ve ever had in any time in our past, we have a wide range of different access to free newspapers and yet we are still no more informed than we were in the past, wandering around in the dark. However people only have a limited attention span and though you can access much more in the way of non-political reportage or TV that isn’t news or factually based, we are still limited for many of us in what a knowledge is about a political idea and therefore it simply seems much easier to just follow the political party that you feel represents you.- Maybe we had better political knowledge and we had less access to so much cable and free television and we had a much more nuanced and unbiased news factualy reported we might be wiser in how we vote. In fact there is a study cited in this book where access to cable TV meant a reduction in understanding different sides of the political viewpoint. It’s almost as if we are radicalising, limiting political expression and thought and reducing peoples ideas to think when they can just belong to something.- I LOVE THE LINE ABOUT THE FACT THAT MANY FOODS HIT A BLUE SPOT OF SALT, FAT, AND SUGAR ALL OF WHICH IS UNHEALTHY FOR YOU BUT IT’S OUT THERE BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE PUBLIC WANT AND DEMAND. In the past many newspapers were much more fairer in their analysis because they knew that many people would find a newspaper because they wanted to read the sports section or the TV Guide but now they become more intrinsic in how they get people as part of their package and when you think about the most newspapers in the UK are right leaning in their viewpoints.- We are all tribal and we are all part or want to be a part of the group because we are social creatures and it has become more of a realisation in this day and age of press and TV coverage but not only do you want to be noted you also want to share that news and the best things to do that are ‘if it bleeds it leads’ (gets the liberals) and for the Republicans ‘if it causes outrage’ then that will be the lead. More and more the attention seekers seek your attention through more and more outrageous click-bates which you can then share to show the world where you belong and who you are. Our politics are beginning to define us as much as our culture, religion or sports team or favourite band.- Two interesting points the book makes are that the use of social media isn’t necessarily orientated to the right or the left but towards the loudest and the most outrageous and Donald Trump was able to tap into that well. Another point about Donald Trump is that because he was so loud and outrageous. He managed to dominate over 50% of all the candidates that we are running for the Republican Party and that meant 19 other people got a similar amount of press coverage and media coverage as did Donald Trump himself. Similar outrageous approaches that are also being used by British politicians at the current time especially in the current Tory government under Boris Johnson.- The book looks at how the Democrats have a problem with regards to how things are reported and come across. They are so fixated on topics such as immigration and making sure that they do not say anything controversial. One of the things that made the difference between Clinton and Trump in 2016 is that one was full of outrage, conspiracy theories and just saying whatever crossed his mind and the other tried to be a decent politician (whether you agree with this or not). In fact in tests where people are shown Trump stating a liberal policy viewpoints and his conservative viewpoints, that when people look at the policies that are more liberal or conservative, they didn’t really care about the idea, they just liked the man and what he stands for – though what that actually was, could be very vague.- Another factor argued by the author about the American political system is that it’s not really democratic and the time of the writing of this book the Republicans had control of the house and the Senate and yet they don’t have the majority of the votes and they very rarely win the popular electoral votes because for a Republican to do that they would need to have 65% of the vote. The problem with America is that it is regional and how it votes and how the presidential candidate is chosen. This regional variation has a massive influence in regards to who becomes the next president. It is a unique system that very rarely occurs in any other countries – though somewhat similar to the UK model.- Another problem with the Democrats although it really shouldn’t be a problem is that there seems to be a fairness and justice and a wish to seek the truth if you look at their newspapers New York Times, it might be left-wing but it’s certainly fair and balanced in its coverage and seek clarity on what it’s saying is the truth. This is a scruple that no longer plays a part in Republican politics or right wing media (both in Fox News and British right wing newspapers). And when you can be outrageous, sell misinformation and tell lies then you can do anything and that’s what the Republicans do and many other right wing politicians. It’s an unfair balance but it’s what is happening in modern day American politics and in other parts of the world also.- The concluding chapter looks at a number of approaches in which to make America less polarised and these include trying to be fairer in the political system, coming up with a better voting system, wth better and more balanced coverage and teaching people how the system works.- The book also suggests that we ourselves have to be a part of the change. One suggestion of that is being mindful of our identity because all politics is all about identity and who forms your identity, which is complex and beyond something that even occurs at a conscious level. By being aware of how we are being manipulated and how we have been made to vote informs us of our identities is something that will greatly help us in developing a better political system.- There is a lovely summary at the end of this book talks about the crazy days of America’s past and when you think that in the 60s civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, President John F. Kennedy as well as Robert Kennedy who were all assassinated, marches for black rights, civil disorder and the Vietnam war riots of the 60’s were just as chaotic as having some demagogue like Donald Trump – Trump is just another part of American politics. Things have gone wrong in the past and when I was born there was many a black man couldn’t even have the right to vote in America. So we might have some hope.

⭐This book explains partisan politics wonderfully. Reading from the UK and it has as much relevance here as the US.

⭐A recommendable read ahead of the 2020 US presidential election, „Why We‘re Polarized“ by Ezra Klein. Klein kicks his book off with an in Europe widely overlooked fact: the 2016 US presidential election was nothing extraordinary. In 2004, 55% of men voted for the Republican party compared to 52% both in 2008 and 2012. Donald Trump also got 52% of votes in 2016. Despite Trump‘s sexistic quotes and sexual miscounduct allegations, 41% of women voted for him (and so did the majority of white female voters). John McCain and Mitt Romney got similar numbers in 2012 and 2016. What‘s important to American voters is not the faith in their own candidate but the negative emotions about the party they reject. That voter’s behavior was actually completely different untill 1950. Back then the American Political Science Association called on Democrats and Republicans to become more distinguishable from each other, claiming voters were at a loss whom to vote for and why. Klein explains how race, religion, geograpy and class have become indicators that can easily be applied to predict towards which party one leans to and how Donald Trump made it to highjack the Republican party.All in all, Klein delivers a thoughtful historical and psychological explanation for polarization trends in the US.

⭐Some books change the way you think, I think this one will do that to me.The book teaches the reader how to understand the way people think and reacts to politics. No less. It uses scores of studies, research papers, anecdotes and history as well.He manages to keep thinks fairly objective across most of the book. In the last part he explains his own political point of view (liberal) and tries to sketch some solutions to the current political situation in the US.A treat. And a must.Congratulations and thank you, Mr Klein.

⭐Todo el mundo debería poder leer este libro. Ojalá traduzcan pronto al español. Aunque su análisis versa sobre todo o casi exclusivamente sobre los EEUU, la mayoría de sus planteamientos y conclusiones pueden aplicarse a lo que estamos viviendo en España desde que empezó el siglo XXI. Es el mejor libro que he leído en mucho tiempo.

⭐

Keywords

Free Download Why We’re Polarized in PDF format
Why We’re Polarized PDF Free Download
Download Why We’re Polarized 2020 PDF Free
Why We’re Polarized 2020 PDF Free Download
Download Why We’re Polarized PDF
Free Download Ebook Why We’re Polarized