Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America [Paperback]

E. E. Schattschneider (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 160 pages
• Publisher: Harcourt School (June 1980)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0030106400
• ISBN-13: 978-0030106408
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.3 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 5.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,702,536 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant, but move on, May 15, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (Paperback)

I can only agree with the other reviewers. This is as good as political science gets. Pure brilliance.

When you have read this book - you really should! - then you can move on to more current studies that uses Schattschneider's ideas and develops them much further. Rochefort & Cobb: "The Politics of Problem Definition", Baumgartner & Jones: "Agendas and Instability in American Politics", Cobb & Ross: "Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial" and Jones: "Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics" should all interest you once you've fallen in love with the thoughts of Schattschneider. Your view of politics will never be the same again.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Traditional Theories of Democracy and Responsible Parties, October 14, 2009

By 

Matthew P. Arsenault (SW Michigan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (Paperback)

Schattschneider takes issue with traditional theories of democracy which suggest that "the people really do decide what the government does on something like a day-to-day basis" (133). Rather, he contends that such an old conception of democracy does not capture the reality of politics and governance in the US. Rather, Schattschneider contends that "Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process" (141). In part, Schattschneider seems to support the "responsible parties" model, which posits that strong, centralized parties with clear and specific platforms should be in control of government, and only then can be held accountable to the masses. The argument posits that a real majority interest exists, and that the majority - organized around a strong party - has the right to control government. Weak parties, on the other hand, would have difficulty in governing effectively. Officeholders may defect, the party platform may not be binding, and subsequently accountability would be weakened.
In part, Schattschneider is arguing against conceptions of pluralist democracy, in which various groups form around similar interest in order to pressure government to adopt specific policies. Schattschneider contends that the pressure is system is biased, and particularly favors bourgeoisie interests. Because such interests are quite powerful, they are better able to pressure the system in pursuit of their particular interests. Because the pressure system is biases, we have to reject the pluralist and group theory assumptions that all people can formulate groups around their own interests and bring pressure to bear on the system.
Schattschneider contends that two large, cohesive parties help mitigate problems associated with pressure politics. He contends that the large parties are not aggregates of interest groups. First, pressure groups are too small to make an impact on the party. Second, pressure groups are not party neutral, but like the masses, must align with one party or the other. As such, the party has power over the interest groups, not the other way around. Furthermore, because the big, consolidated parties must mobilize large segments of the population in order to gain control, less supported issues or conflicts are overpowered by bigger, more popular issues with which the masses are more interested in, and have a greater stake. As such, cleavages over large issues divide the political space. The "sides" of the cleavages can be unequal; we see the formation of majorities and minorities. The goal of the parties is to control or exploit these cleavages. Schattschneider writes, "To understand the nature of the party conflict it is necessary to consider the function of the cleavages exploited by the parties in their struggle for supremacy. Since the development of cleavages is a prime instrument of power, the party which is able to make its definition of issues prevail, is likely to take over government" (73).

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A classic work in American politics, December 31, 2007

By 

Steven A. Peterson (Hershey, PA (Born in Kewanee, IL)) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (Paperback)

E. E. Schattschneider was one of the most important political scientists of the middle part of the 20th century. His work has had an influence on many analysts of politics. This slender volume, although brief, is one of his more provocative and influential works. Ideas from this book show up in the work of many others.

Let's take a look at just two of the many provocative points that he makes.

A central assumption underlying the work (Page v): ". . .the nature of political organization depends on the conflicts exploited in the political system, which ultimately is what politics is about." Understanding the scope of conflict is a central question in this book. Some want to keep conflict narrowly constrained and "private." If so, economic powerhouses will win out, because they would be dominant in that domain. Others, who wish government to get involved, try to broaden the scope of conflict so that political institutions get involved. If this is the case, then a different dynamic will be at work. In his view (Page 12), "Democratic government is the greatest single instrument for the socialization of conflict in the American community." By widening the scope of conflict, the people can become important players.

A second important argument that he makes represents a critique of the view that democracy is enhanced by the existence of organized interest groups, since these represent the views of many people and inject a democratic influence into the political process. Schattschneider demurs. First, the members of these interest groups are not typical of all people. In a famous line, he notes that (Pages 34-35): "The vice of the groupist theory is that it conceals the most significant aspect of the system. The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent. Probably about 90% of the people cannot get into the pressure system."

Anyway, this is a wonderful little book. Of course, there are some issues that emerge: sometimes arguments are not developed enough (brevity in this book is a plus, but it sometimes seems to leave some points "hanging"); he may downplay some positive aspects of the interest group system. However, in the main, his arguments remain as fresh today as they were when the book first came out, in 1960. Still worth a read!