Christopher Jan Carman – författare

Compromise is critical to democratic policymaking, but it can be hard to find on Capitol Hill. In this era of routine legislative gridlock, however, some lawmakers do still cross the aisle. In Dealmakers, David C. Barker, Andrew M.O. Ballard, and Christopher Jan Carman examine why they do-and why they tend to be Democrats. The answer, the authors contend, comes down to voter differences in personality and values. Specifically, they argue that empathetic traits and values drive Democrats to accept compromise, whereas competitive traits and values drive Republicans to reject it. Those differences filter up through the ballot box, the data suggest, guiding behavior in the halls of Congress. Drawing on evidence from opinion surveys, randomized experiments, Twitter/X, and legislative records, Dealmakers is the first analytical deep dive into the psychological factors that structure political dealmaking and its absence.

Compromise is critical to democratic policymaking, but it can be hard to find on Capitol Hill. In this era of routine legislative gridlock, however, some lawmakers do still cross the aisle. In Dealmakers, David C. Barker, Andrew M.O. Ballard, and Christopher Jan Carman examine why they do—and why they tend to be Democrats. The answer, the authors contend, comes down to voter differences in personality and values. Specifically, they argue that empathetic traits and values drive Democrats to accept compromise, whereas competitive traits and values drive Republicans to reject it. Those differences filter up through the ballot box, the data suggest, guiding behavior in the halls of Congress. Drawing on evidence from opinion surveys, randomized experiments, Twitter/X, and legislative records, Dealmakers is the first analytical deep dive into the psychological factors that structure political dealmaking and its absence.

Compromise is critical to democratic policymaking, but it can be hard to find on Capitol Hill. In this era of routine legislative gridlock, however, some lawmakers do still cross the aisle. In Dealmakers, David C. Barker, Andrew M.O. Ballard, and Christopher Jan Carman examine why they do-and why they tend to be Democrats. The answer, the authors contend, comes down to voter differences in personality and values. Specifically, they argue that empathetic traits and values drive Democrats to accept compromise, whereas competitive traits and values drive Republicans to reject it. Those differences filter up through the ballot box, the data suggest, guiding behavior in the halls of Congress. Drawing on evidence from opinion surveys, randomized experiments, Twitter/X, and legislative records, Dealmakers is the first analytical deep dive into the psychological factors that structure political dealmaking and its absence.

What is a political representative's job, really? Are they supposed to simply figure out what "the people" want and deliver it, or are they charged to do what they think is best for their constituents -- even if that means sometimes ignoring those constituents' wishes? In Representing Red and Blue, David Barker and Christopher Carman explore what people think about this question, why their answers vary, and what difference it makes. They observe that the citizens of "Red America" -- religious and cultural traditionalists, including most Republicans -- often prefer lawmakers who challenge public opinion, whereas "Blue Americans," or culturally progressive Democrats, typically prefer lawmakers who follow it. What is more, these preferences filter up: lawmakers who represent progressive locales tend to pursue the policies their constituents want, whereas representatives of more traditionalistic places often behave quite differently, leaning decidedly to the Right of even most Red American voters. The fundamental reason underlying these patterns, Barker and Carman argue, is that on average, traditionalists and progressives simply do not hold the values of liberal popular democracy in equally high esteem. What all of this means is that the citizens of Red America live in a different kind of democracy than that of the citizens of Blue America -- one where they have less political say over what their government does, but one that seems to suit their tastes all the same.

What is a political representative''s job, really? Are they supposed to simply figure out what "the people" want and deliver it, or are they charged to do what they think is best for their constituents -- even if that means sometimes ignoring those constituents'' wishes? In IRepresenting Red and Blue/I, David Barker and Christopher Carman explore what people think about this question, why their answers vary, and what difference it makes. They observe that the citizens of "Red America" -- religious and cultural traditionalists, including most Republicans -- often prefer lawmakers who challenge public opinion, whereas "Blue Americans," or culturally progressive Democrats, typically prefer lawmakers who follow it. What is more, these preferences filter up: lawmakers who represent progressive locales tend to pursue the policies their constituents want, whereas representatives of more traditionalistic places often behave quite differently, leaning decidedly to the Right of even most Red American voters. The fundamental reason underlying these patterns, Barker and Carman argue, is that on average, traditionalists and progressives simply do not hold the values of liberal popular democracy in equally high esteem. What all of this means is that the citizens of Red America live in a different kind of democracy than that of the citizens of Blue America -- one where they have less political say over what their government does, but one that seems to suit their tastes all the same.

What is a political representative''s job, really? Are they supposed to simply figure out what "the people" want and deliver it, or are they charged to do what they think is best for their constituents -- even if that means sometimes ignoring those constituents'' wishes? In IRepresenting Red and Blue/I, David Barker and Christopher Carman explore what people think about this question, why their answers vary, and what difference it makes. They observe that the citizens of "Red America" -- religious and cultural traditionalists, including most Republicans -- often prefer lawmakers who challenge public opinion, whereas "Blue Americans," or culturally progressive Democrats, typically prefer lawmakers who follow it. What is more, these preferences filter up: lawmakers who represent progressive locales tend to pursue the policies their constituents want, whereas representatives of more traditionalistic places often behave quite differently, leaning decidedly to the Right of even most Red American voters. The fundamental reason underlying these patterns, Barker and Carman argue, is that on average, traditionalists and progressives simply do not hold the values of liberal popular democracy in equally high esteem. What all of this means is that the citizens of Red America live in a different kind of democracy than that of the citizens of Blue America -- one where they have less political say over what their government does, but one that seems to suit their tastes all the same.