Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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).

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!

This often-quoted book is one of the most classic works of 20th century political science. Despite its age, published in the early 1960s, this brilliant little book is still astonishingly fresh. Schattschneider's account of the expansion and privatisation (contraction) of conflicts, and his description of the structural biases of modern western democracy, is eye-opening. The book is very accessible, yet scholary. This is one of the best, most important, and in a strange way morally refreshing, books on politics I have ever come across.

I first read this book in college and have never forgotten it. During careers in politics, business and the church I've found myself returning again and again to Schattschneider's key themes. From his discussion of conflict and its scope to his simple point that whomever controls the agenda controls the outcome, Schattschneider has captured the essence of human interaction. Nearly forty years old, this is still a superb book not to be missed.

Schattschneider discusses some very difficult topics -- why politicians organize the way they do, why political issues are presented in the ways they are, and how ordinary voters fit into a democratic government. His central argument is that the most important fact about democratic governments is that they are large, i.e., they try to involve very large numbers of people in a meaningful way. This book forever changed the way that I look at the political universe.

I enjoyed re-reading this book as much as I enjoyed reading it many years ago. It is well written, well documented and easy to read. Highly recommended!

This a sharp and well written monograph. Schattschneider's ideas of the "mobilization of bias" and politics as conflict as well as his critique of pluralism (or "groupist" theory) are well known and easy enough to summarize. For that reason I put off reading this book for years. That was a mistake. He explains his views better and clearer than text-book summaries and his critique is nuanced and quotable. The book is cheap and tiny - spare 10 bucks (used version) and an afternoon and enrich your understanding of politics.

I received this product on time, and in near perfect condition. The spine was only very slightly worn, but other than this very minute detail, nothing is wrong with it. Completely satisfied.

I agree with other reviewers that this book is as great as political science gets -- I grant you that such is faint praise. I also agree that, having read it, one should move on to later treatments.

...Please find it in a library and let it drip off your brain like fine wine down your tongue....