PLANK AUGUST 23, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Amazon has a fascinating “election heat” map listing the 100 best-selling “red” (i.e., conservative) and “blue” (i.e., liberal) books, and also calculating, based on the number of sales in each state for the top 250 red and blue books, which states are majority-red and which are majority-blue. The map, which is updated hourly, delivers some bad news—or at least it did when I checked it at 12:45 p.m.
1) America is significantly more red in its reading patterns than in its voting patterns. Only New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont sell more blue books than red ones. Everywhere else sells more red books except Minnesota and Maryland, where it’s a tie.
2) My book (The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis And What We Can Do About It), at 82, only barely makes the list of 100 best-selling blue books, while Joe Stiglitz’s book on the same subject is way up at 8. Hey Joe, how ’bout redistributing some sales my way?
Amazon’s methodology is far from perfect. Winner-Take-All Politics, a book about politics and income inequality by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, is misclassified as a red book, which it most definitely is not. The many volumes of Robert Caro’s Lyndon Johnson biography are classified as blue books, even though they portray the author of the Great Society as a bit of a monster. I’d say Caro’s books are unclassifiable, reluctant though I am to give up his many book sales for the blue team, which can use all the help it can get. Also unclassifiable is Christopher Hitchens’s final volume of collected essays, Arguable, which is here placed in the red column (where he ranks 82nd, like me).
The most striking finding of all is what the red-book list shows about conservative readers' tastes. Books hating on Obama are very popular—The Amateur, by the bottom-feeding Ed Klein, ranks first, Obama’s America, by Dinesh D’Souza, ranks, fourth, and so on. But books that say nice things about conservative politicians are almost wholly absent. Most surprising of all, No Apology, the campaign manifesto of Mitt Romney—the man Republicans will nominate next week as their presidential candidate—was ranked dead last, at 100, when I first checked. When I checked again, the list had been recalculated. This time, it didn’t make the list at all.
10 comments
Stiglitz's book is partisan (i.e., it advocates a policy not a party) whereas Noah's book is more reporting than advocacy, so it's understandable that the former would be high on the blue list and the latter would be low (but on the blue list just the same). I have complimented Noah for the approach he took with his book because a red person can get a lot out of it and not suffer bouts of outrage while reading it. Of course, that doesn't mean any red persons actually read his book.
- rayward
August 23, 2012 at 2:37pm
That last paragraph speaks volumes.
- cspencef
August 23, 2012 at 2:52pm
"America is significantly more red in its reading patterns than in its voting patterns What if liberals read more of both and every Red Book read by a liberal is counted as being read by a red? By way of example, a Republican Executive like Chris Christi might be more successful than a Democratic Executive because, possibly, a tenet of Democratic policy is to make government work and they may cooperate on enacting legislation, whereas, well, just look at the Republicans in Congress. More study on the phenomenon of liberal open mindedness is needed.
- Nusholtz
August 23, 2012 at 2:58pm
I'm not sold on the way books were classified as blue or red. A better system, which would also address Nush's concern, would be to classify books making mostly truthful arguments as blue and books filled with character assassination, minimal concern for accuracy, and tendentious reasoning as red. Yes, this gives the red team Michael Moore and a few others, but they won't be missed.
- GeoffG
August 23, 2012 at 3:26pm
I like Nush's explanation, and it may well be correct. I know I hate-read David Brooks's column far more faithfully than I read Paul Krugman even though I almost always agree with the latter. The intellectual train wreck that is Brooks's writing provides better entertainment value than does Krugman's cool rationalism. At the same time, however, there may be another explanation for the red state reading advantage: when a belief system is founded upon a tissue of lies and contradictions, its adherents must be fed a steady stream of propaganda in order for them to sustain their belief in it. In fact, believers in such lying, incoherent systems actively seek out such propaganda--it relieves their creeping anxiety that the beliefs they profess don't make any sense. Take global warming. If you're persuaded that anthropogenic climate change is real and a real problem--a "blue" intellectual position--then you probably don't need to read the latest Bill McKibben book detailing just how screwed we all are; it'd just be depressing. By contrast, if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change--a "red" intellectual position--that belief will constantly be challenged by medial stories, argumentative acquaintances who understand a thing or two about science, and by the steady accumulation of facts that undermine your position. Maintaining your belief in the face of this scouring sandstorm of data will be a challenge, and you'll take any help you can get, and too that end you'll scarf up any denialist screed you can lay hand to.
- AaronW
August 23, 2012 at 3:42pm
gawd, I wish you could edit posts... "media" not "medial" "to that end" not "too that end"
- AaronW
August 23, 2012 at 3:45pm
Isn't it also a factor worth considering that there are a whole stack of conservative organizations that block-purchase certain books (e.g. anti-Obama screeds) in order to artificially bump up sales figures? I think these numbers should at least be treated with a little skepticism. Oh, and I am a little surprised to find my own book, a scholarly study of how the memory of the Civil War is treated in various literary texts published between 1865 and 1900, not making it onto the list. But maybe it's at 105 or something like that, just outside the gate (What? No -- I don't -- honey I'm absolutely sure I took my meds this morning, I definitely remember . . . )
- ironyroad
August 23, 2012 at 4:03pm
Noah, What to make to the real red-blue state divide --- contributions to charity Are liberals really the selfish, parasitic, useless, non-value added citizens this study implies (see below) ????????? Wait, how could I overlook the contribution that moonbats and democrats make to society: - most abortions, along with highest crime and infant mortality rates - least likely to work in private sector - least likely to pay net taxes - least likely to be in military, especially any front-line unit - highest rate of cognitive dissonance - source of all our trial lawyers, and parasitic bureaucrats - most dysfunctional, broken and funny - and of course --- least likely to contribute to charity *** A new study on the generosity of Americans. The study released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy Of the 10 least generous states, nine voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in the last election. By contrast, of the 10 most generous states, eight voted for Republican John McCain. . The study was based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available. By focusing on the percentage given to charity from discretionary income — the money left over after necessities are paid for — the study aimed to remove variables such as the differing costs of living around the country, Panepento said. The data allowed researchers to detail charitable giving down to the ZIP code,
- mr_rationale
August 23, 2012 at 11:49pm
GeoffG, There are a few red books that are accurate and honestly argued. David Horowitz's Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey is one of them. It's powerful and real. I know, because I used to be on the Far Left (now I'm a Near Leftist). It's a hell of a good read. The problem with Horowitz is that once he abandoned the Far Left, he went almost to the Far Right. He's still got a sharp mind, but his arguments are monotonous. He's still trying to prove a grand conspiracy that simply isn't there. I agree with you about Michael Moore, who claims to have grown up in my home town, but who didn't. He gets almost everything wrong. He did get one thing right. His movie Roger and Me (1989) previewed in poignant scenes the eventual stampede of American corporations to cheaper labor markets around the world.
- magboy47.
August 24, 2012 at 1:42am
Thanks, Magboy. I meant to say, but didn't make it clear, that classifying truthful books as blue would put some conservative books in the blue column. It will be a better world if and when an author's place on the ideological spectrum is not correlated with a tendency to make up facts or spew hundreds of pages of hate. I'm in advanced middle age (though more than halfway to Phyllis Diller's age), but I still think it could happen in my lifetime. (I can even imagine a world where partisans like Rat aren't so overcome with rage and bitterness that they are unable to think clearly.)
- GeoffG
August 25, 2012 at 11:33am