Customer Reviews

The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I should confess that I was surprised when I happened to see that the reviewers have expressed some critical concerns about the writing style of Lowi and the core message the author attempts to convey in the book. First, I would like to say that the book generally, although difficult to follow in some pages, bears a very clear message and hypothesis that provide the basic conceptual and mental framework if one reads through the first chapter carefully. I will try to summarize the leading argument of Lowi within some lines.

Lowi is primarily concerned with political transformation in the United States, which his analysis demonstrates has started in the 1930s and had been continuing through the time in which the book was published. What Lowi calls interest group liberalism (IGL) refers to an offshoot of a new public philosophy called pluralism. Pluralist ideology favors a dispersion of power centers so that no group can control governmental power totally in order to impose authoritative decisions on others. In order not to let any group to dominate the public realm, the pluralist ideology emphasizes broad and extensive public participation to determine what kind of public policies will be crafted and pursued rather than granting entire authority of policy making to central government (say, the Congress). According to Lowi, this strong belief encourages devolution of public authority (the authority to make laws and designate specific standards), in a broad and unguided manner, to public bureaucracies in order for a broad number of participants can partake in the process of policy making, for the sake of flexibility. In a nutshell, the new public philosophy is "process" oriented, not goal or substance-oriented. According to Lowi, there is not even space for law that supporters of new public philosophy argue is so authoritative. However, Lowi's meticulous analysis of political development of the United States shows the reader that this process-oriented public philosophy led the way for public bureaucracies to be captured by organized and strong interest groups.

According to Lowi, the pluralist conception and practice of government does great harm, when one considers its far-reaching consequences. "Flexibility and legitimacy could only have been reduced by building representation upon the oligopolistic character of interest groups, reducing the number of competitors, favoring the best organized competitors, specializing politics around agencies, ultimately limiting participation to channels provided by pre-existing groups" (p. 63). One needs to focus on this sentence carefully just to understand why Lowi expresses a very critical concern about interest group liberalism (IGL). IGL breaks the essential tie between government and politics, and reduces politics into a very narrow space populated and dominated by interest groups around agencies (public or not, the distinction doesn't have much meaning in IGL) that are given authority to implement (or make) policies.

Providing too many a convincing example, Lowi demonstrates that this pluralist process has taken momentum in the 1930s, which manifested itself in the changing "language" of laws (social security is a good example). Since then, the laws have begun to be imbued with ambiguous language that provides no specific standard that would guide the administration to make consistent decisions. According to Lowi, the move from concreteness to abstractness in the definition of public policy represents a watershed in the political development of the United States: interest group liberalism is substituted for the rule of law. Thus, laws lose their unique character as instruments for public control: what is practiced is policy without law, according to Lowi. From social policy, to urban policy, and even to foreign policy, Lowi provides an impressive analysis to illustrate the unceasing impact of new public philosophy. In his cases, what is seen, by and large, are policies, implementation of which are devolved to a great number of agencies, without having any concern to develop a consistent and purposeful policy based on the supremacy of law. The most interesting claim is that this broad and unguided delegation of public authority showed a continuity regardless of who comes to power, Republicans or Democrats, according to Lowi. At the very least, his analysis attests to this continuity.

Finally, Lowi offers some cures in order to improve the current situation. First, the author urges a comprehensive codification in order to reassure legal integrity. Second, Lowi recommends a return to a strong juridicial democracy within which legal formality and administrative procedures take a strong hold.

Within the book's conceptual framework, the arguments sound persuasive. There is one point that I would like to question. Lowi argues that IGL is a product of pluralist ideology and manifests itself in the ambigous language of laws. However, it is certainly possible that we left behind the age in which we had certain questions, and to which we had certain answers. In an age in which there is a high degree of ambiguity, it is extremely difficult to enact very unambiguous laws. In sum, the change in the language of laws may be a natural and direct consequence of what has been changing in the larger environment. Also, the fact that the move from concreteness to abstractness in the definition of public policy occurs in many countries spanning many continents reinforces the conviction that IGL may not peculiarly be a problem for the United States. Lowi makes no visible reference to this alternative rationale of why laws began to be very ambiguous.

To be honest, the book is more comprehensive than what I tried to recap here. Although I am not primarily engaged in political science, I always need a political source that would help me make sense with what is happening or not happening in the contemporaneous American "public administration", and Lowi's book provides a great help for me. I read this book some time ago with primary intention of enlarging my perspective with regard to legitimacy issue in public administration. I can say that this book provides good insights about legitimacy of public administration and should make a great contribution to understanding of public administration students.

Overall, this book is a very illuminating source on American politics and I highly recommend. Also, to those who complain of writing style of Lowi, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt (1958/1998) and "The Postmodern Condition" (1979) by Lyotard, in order for them to be fair about The End of Liberalism by Lowi!

The long review made by another reviewer (below) is nice (and I did not read most of it since I am very familiar with Lowi), however, it is untrue that Lowi did not spend time considering the possibility that the modern world is inherently ambiguous. Lowi makes it clear that this position is just an excuse; he does not make it too clear why, but from my own experience I agree with him. It makes little sense to consider the modern world any more ambiguous or difficult to understand than it may have been at previous times and indeed it should be less so today since we know much more about reality and have much more experience. Reading Hayek's "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" (all 3 volumes) along side of Lowi's "End of Liberalism" and "End of the Republican Era" it is clear that technical complexity is only an excuse for those who do not want to confront the tough decisions that frequently appear in governing (and life in general). And that is, of course, the point of "End of Liberalism"; that Interest-Group Liberalism (and Hayek supports this in LLL) is the ideological (not logical) argument that allows government officials to delegate power, authority, and ultimately responsibility and legitimacy (or rather, these latter attributes are lost all together). There are two important things to remember: 1) Lowi is saying that Interest-Group Liberalism is a trend that will eventually lead to x, y, z, and 2) that his examples are of events/places where x, y, z have already happened. In "End of the Republican Era" Lowi makes it clear that Interest-Group Liberalism is no longer the dominant ideology in the United States while its effects can still be seen. (General note: I have not read all of the reviews here, only the first few that are showed automatically by amazon.com).
Anyway, "End of Liberalism" is not a difficult text. The reviewer below is definitely correct about that. If "End of Liberalism" is too complicated to read for you then you should not go to grad school and I hope that you do not become or that you are not already a person who wields a good deal of discretionary power. Reading and thinking are two of the greatest resources in the human experience and to be hindered in them by a lack of hard work and by excuses like 'its too complicated' is highly unfortunate and is one of the largest and most distressing of empirical realities today since it is such that underlies the so-called 'ambiguity' of modren reality and the lack of responsibility among humans in the West.
I am an undergraduate student at Albion College, Albion, Michigan. I give "End of Liberalism" five stars because I think it is the best I have read in combining empirical data with an historical argument (I am, however, very hesitant). I would like to note that Richard Bensel's critique of Lowi and Hayek (in his 1980 journal article) is flawed in many respects and that I have been unable to find any other critiques, although, I have not yet had time to look very much. I would also like to thank my professor Dr. Andrew Grossman for making me read "End of Liberalism" and for always using theoretical political language in his classes even though most of my peers complain. Language is the most important tool a human possesses and it ought to be the most highly developed and frequently reflected upon.

Theodore Lowi created quite a splash with this book when it first came out in 1969 (edition II came out a decade later). While there had been any number of crude and hysterical attempts at deriding the post-FDR American state, serious political scientists began taking up the challenge in the midst of the bewildering obscenities of LBJ's bungled Great Society, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the intrigues of the Nixon White House. As both a period piece and a classic work of political science, Lowi's book has few rivals, save perhaps James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock's "The Calculus of Consent." He expertly and lucidly traces the evolution of American public philosophy, legislation and jurisprudence, and the policy outcomes they produced before, during, and after the founding of the "Second Republic." Lowi's version of this story is that rule of law (specific legislation of Congress delimited by the Constitution) has degenerated into interest-group liberalism (broad grants of power to the executive branch, which then create powerful agencies with ill-defined mandates and capabilities). The result is now that anyone with a perceived or real grievance mobilizes for government action, bilking the state of more money and resources, and adding powers to the executive branch and its deputies that skirt on unconstitutionality. This sobering development, Lowi makes clear, should pose serious problems for all political agendas, left right and center. He concludes with some modest recommendations for what he calls "juridical democracy," which essentially means a narrowing in scope and an increase in the specificity of the laws Congress passes and the President signs, bringing them more into line with the powers and limitations enumerated in the Constitution. Such proposals mirror those of Tullock and Buchanan, as well as those of Friedrich von Hayek. Despite these associations, this is not a conservative book; it is an earnest plea for sanity from one of our most thoughtful, iconoclastic and independent-minded political thinkers, urging us to consider the consequences of our government's excesses before it is too late. In a post-9/11 world of soaring budget deficits, rampant defense and entitlement spending, and mounting threats to civil liberties, Lowi's book is an urgently relevant reminder that no branch of government, nor any political party, should be above the law--even for the best of intentions.

Political science professors and analysts play an important role in society by helping to explain the political process and its relevance to our everday lives -- but only when they make their readings and thoughts available to lots of people and not just a select few who understand their language.

Ted Lowi's book, "The End of Liberalism," seems to have been written for hard-core political junkies who are accustomed to reading "unreadable books." Mr. Lowi's book is also an outstanding example of terrible writing -- run-on sentences, obscure vocabulary, passive sentences, etc. This book doesn't help anyone understand the political process because it is too difficult to figure out.

I do not recommed reading this book unless you have lots of time on your hands and are willing to take on a headache and lots of frustration.

The poor reviews for this book seem to be centered on the "poor" writing skills of Dr. Lowi, and the "unreadability" of the work. First no one with bad writing skills teaches at universities such as Yale, Harvard, and Cambridge. This book is difficult for the layman because of some of the language used is unique to his discipline. But if this book is too hard for you to understand due to its complexity then don't worry about graduate school. Aside from this Dr. Lowi has written a wonderful book with concepts and models still used today. In fact there are at least two questions on the GRE test in the Political Science part that come directly out of this book. I won't lie this is a difficult read, but profound. It explains the evolution of U.S. government and it's citizens, and their relationships between each other and the development of liberalism. This book sets the stage for how Reagen was able to become elected and leave such an impact on the American psyche.

Theodore J. Lowi, who was voted as one of the most influential political scientists of the modern era by the members of the American Political Science Association, examines the growth of the liberal state and the consequences thereof.

Though interesting, the book is infuriatingly difficult to read because of the author's poor writing style. It is ironic that Mr. Lowi teaches at the same institution where E.B. White once taught (Cornell University, New York). Mr. White is best known as the author of the children's book "Charlotte's Web" and THE guide on developing a good writing style "Elements of Style."

It is evident that Mr. Lowi did not refer to "Elements of Style" when writing his book.

It appalls me that three individuals could draw such amateurish and anti-intellectual conclusions based upon half-witted attempts at understanding Lowi's text.

Our first reviewer, Ms. Ferris, in a drivel of grammatical missteps that miserably try to expose her motivations for reading Professor Lowi's book, brooks a flimsy argument against this seminal work. If interested in reading Lowi's work, I certainly agree with Ms. Ferris on one count--learn to read before tackling a definitive treatise on the development of the American political system.

I found M. Lautenberg's critique equally amusing, especially his decree that Lowi's writing is terrible. I find this interesting coming from an individual who fails to understand the correct usage of the em-dash.

Our reviewer from New York, though familiar with E.B. White, seems as unfamiliar with the elements of style as she charges Lowi to be. Perhaps, my Manhattanite friend, you would find more irony in Lowi and White's affiliation with Cornell University if you received an education at an equally reputable institution.

Lowi's book stands as one of the finest examples of politial writing in the second half of the twentieth century. I recommend it to anyone with a strong interest in public policy and a literacy level to match.

I have just completed this book and I really need the help pf someone who truly understood this book and who actually had to write a paper on this book. It was not a book I would recommend to anyone if they had to actually write about the book and they way I have to write the report is based on Public Policy. Thanks
Tammy Ferris

I am not giving Ted Lowi's book three stars. I am giving my three stars to the reviewer who wrote the wonderful summery of Mr. Lowi's ponderous book. For those who don't have the time to actually read this book, I recommend the summary, especially for graduate students in political science who have to spend their time trying to decipher these kinds of books.

I heard about this book from friends and fellow professors (although no one really recommended it). It was supposed to have made waves when it was first published. It is, indeed, a very difficult book to read. A general reader will need a good background on American history and political theory. Also, it is not very well-written. If anyone can write a concise summary of what the author is trying to say, I would appreciate it.