Winner of the 2019 Viviana Zelizer Best Book Award from the Section of Economic Sociology of the American Sociological Association

“Monica Prasad begins with an unabashedly favorable view of European welfare states yet gives validity to conservative concerns over taxing production rather than consumption. Readers from all political suasions shouldn’t be deterred by whether they agree with theses like these. By reading Starving the Beast, they will garner much better understanding of the history, events, and forces surrounding the conversion of the Republican party to being the Santa Claus of tax cutting.”

—Eugene Steuerle, Institute Fellow and Richard B. Fisher Chair, The Urban Institute

“Republican commitment to tax cuts is one of most consequential and problematic features of modern American politics. Monica Prasad's fascinating book, Starving the Beast, offers a compelling new explanation of how this came to be.”

—Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology and Yankelovich Chair in Social Thought University of California, San Diego

Since the Reagan Revolution of the early 1980s, Republicans have consistently championed tax cuts for individuals and businesses, regardless of whether the economy is booming or in recession or whether the federal budget is in surplus or deficit. In Starving the Beast, sociologist Monica Prasad uncovers the origins of the GOP’s relentless focus on tax cuts and shows how this is a uniquely American phenomenon.

Drawing on never-before seen archival documents, Prasad traces the history of the 1981 tax cut—the famous “supply side” tax cut, which became the cornerstone for the next several decades of Republican domestic economic policy. She demonstrates that the main impetus behind this tax cut was not business group pressure, racial animus, or a belief that tax cuts would pay for themselves. 

Rather, the tax cut emerged because in America--unlike in the rest of the advanced industrial world—progressive policies are not embedded within a larger political economy that is favorable to business.  Since the end of World War II, many European nations have combined strong social protections with policies to stimulate economic growth such as lower taxes on capital and less regulation on businesses than in the United State.  Meanwhile, the United States emerged from World War II with high taxes on capital and some of the strongest regulations on business in the advanced industrial world.  This adversarial political economy could not survive the economic crisis of the 1970s.

Starving the Beast suggests that taking inspiration from the European model of progressive policies embedded in market-promoting political economy could serve to build an American economy that works better for all.

MONICA PRASAD is professor of sociology and faculty fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

Complementing the focus on the structural and social-psychological aspects of measuring social change, this report establishes a research approach relating social measurement to antecedent and consequent political considerations: political values, policy impact, power consequences, administrative influences, institutionalization, and so forth. This study is directed to any social scientist interested in political phenomena and in the issue of the relationship between social science and public policy.

Peter J. Henriot, Center of Concern, Washington, D.C.

First the press became the media, and now the media have become the Imperial Media—or have they? In this timely and comprehensive analysis, Michael Robinson and Margaret Sheehan examine how the news media behaved (or misbehaved) in covering the 1980 presidential campaign.

Using the media's own traditional standards as a guide, Robinson and Sheehan measure the level of objectivity, fairness, seriousness, and criticism displayed by CBS News and United Press International between January and December of 1980. Drawing on statistical analyses of almost 6,000 news stories and dozens of interviews with writers and reporters, the authors reach convincing and sometimes surprising conclusions. They demonstrate, for example, that both CBS and UPI strictly avoided subjective assessments of the candidates and their positions on the issues. Both gave the major parties remarkably equal access. But the media seem to give more negative coverage to front-runners, treating serious challengers less harshly. Perhaps the most surprising finding is that networks were not more superficial than print; CBS attended to the issues at least as often as UPI.

Robinson and Sheehan find television coverage more subjective, more volatile, and substantially more negative than traditional print. But CBS behaved neither imperially nor irresponsibly in Campaign '80. The networks did, however, emulate the more highly charged journalism of the eastern elite print press.

By blending the quantitative techniques of social science and the tools of Washington-based journalism, Robinson and Sheehan have produced a book that will be essential reading for students and practitioners of politics, public opinion research, journalism, and communications. Lively and readable, it should also appeal to anyone interested in the role of the news media in contemporary politics.

MICHAEL J. ROBINSON is associate professor of politics at Catholic University and director of the Media Analysis Project at George Washington University.

MARGARET A. SHEEHAN is research analyst for a law firm in Washington, D.C.

Although tolerance is one of our most cherished ideals, history suggests it is not an inborn human trait. Tolerance must be learned, and the sophisticated arguments on which it is based make it much harder to learn than intolerance. In this extensive study of civil liberties, Herbert McClosky and Alida Brill attempt to discover who learns the norms of tolerance and why.

Reaching well beyond traditional categories of analysis, McClosky and Brill have surveyed civil libertarian attitudes among the general public, opinion leaders, lawyers and judges, police officials, and academics. They analyze levels of tolerance in a wide range of civil liberties domains—first amendment rights, due process, privacy, and such emerging areas as women's and homosexual rights—and along numerous variables including political participation, ideology, age, and education.

This landmark study offers a comprehensive assessment of the viability—and vulnerability—of beliefs central to the democratic system. It makes an invaluable contribution to the study of contemporary American institutions and attitudes.

Herbert McClosky was research director at the Survey Research Center in Berkeley and professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley.

Alida Brill was program director and scholar in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation.