It is true, also, that Chesterfield’s literary style sometimes diverted attention from the scope and power of his work. Often lyrical, pep grammatical, and metaphorical, Shattuck need re’s writing is in a literary league quite apart from odder scholarship. 2 What contemporary political scientist would say: The boss is as American as a Jazz band. ‘ The party in Congress is like a Mexican army; everyone in it takes care of himself. When the enemy appears he may fight, rue n or parley as he thinks best.
This is the kind off army that can be overwhelmed by one man assisted by a boy beat inning a dishpan. вЂў [The parties] let themselves be ha ride by pres sure group as as a timid whale might be pursued by a school of minnows. ‘ Political science, like Genesis, begins with chaos but it does not end there. ‘; American Business and Public Policy slays a choice election of political dragons: economic deter mi miss is manhandled; myths boo t lobbyists and businessmen, a ND a Jot of folklore about congress men a re destroyed.
It kill Is off or wounds a ;mall army of pressure re boys and group posts, and torpedoes * I am indebted to my Wesleyan colleagues, comments on EAI earlier d rafts of this paper. 1 The Wesleyan Argus, March 5, 1971, p. 2. ‘Chesterfield’s standard for his own writ nag was its forcefulness and persuasiveness when read aloud. His method was to read his work to his wife Florence and then to revise passages to improve their rhetorical laity. 3 E. E. Scatterbrained, Party Government ( New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Wi notion, Bibb p. 06. 4 Party Government, p. 196. .; Party Government, p. 197. ” E. E. Scatterbrained, “Intensity, Visibility, Did erection and Scope,” American Political Science Review, 51 (December, 1957), 935. At least a boatload of PU bill opinions . All friends of democracy will applaud the slaughter. ; The schoolboy who wrote that Congress is the ant mommy of Progress probably expressed about as well as anyone can the sense of frustration most Aimer cans have when they think about the national legislature.
The compulsion to know everything is the road to insanity. ” Philosophers have beguiled us with tales about the origin n of government about as convincing as the fables we tell children about where babies come from. ” . . When Congress takes time to pass a bill “in creasing the penalty for making false oaths for the purpose of bathing at the government bath house at Hot Springs, Arkansas,” one has a feel inning that we may be using a cyclotron to warm up a cup of coffee. Al A political party which … Goes not capitalize on its successes by monopolizing the whole power of the government is a monstrosity reflecting the stupidity of professional Laotians who a re more interested in the petty spoils of office than they a arc in the control of the richest and most power full government I n the world-like a n army of baa Arabians who, having overrun n t he city of Baltic more, content themselves with Pl u needing a dime store. ” To manage pressures is to govern; to let pressures run wild is to abdicate These a re phrases of advocacy.
But as an meme racial political scientist, democratic Philips proper, academic I n innovator, pool tactical common attar, and theorist of chaw Eng, Shattuck needier 7 E. E. Scatterbrained, rev. Of American Business and Public Policy by Raymond Bauer, lithely De Solo Pool, and Lewis Dexter, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Summer, 1965) , 343. 8 E. E . Scatterbrained, “Congress in Conflict,” T he Yale Review, 41 (December, 1951), 181. ” E. E. Scatterbrained, T he Semi-sovereign Poe pale (New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960) , p. 37. 10 E. E. Scatterbrained, Two H endured Million Americans in Search of a Government (New York : Holt, Rinehart and Wi notion, 1967), p. 5. 11 “Congress in Conflict,” p. 187. ” E. E . Scatterbrained, The Struggle for Part y Government (College Park : University of Maryland, 1948) , p, 31. 13 E. E. Scatterbrained, Politics, Pressures and the Tariff ( New York : Prentice-Hail, 1935) , p. 2093. 1321 1322 The America n Political Science Review Volvo. 6 ranged FAA r beyond his notable pleas for more responsible parties. The explication of Scatterbrained ‘s wide ranging comments ray holds special dangers. His work reached across three a ND a half turbulent decades: his first book was published in 1935 and his last I n 1969. In different it mess and con texts, men change thee r mi ands without give nag notice to the world , and the commentator may mistakenly treat as a static body of thought that which is in fact dynamic .
It appears, for instance, that Chats Schneider views about pressure re groups evolved grad ally from the harshest condemned Zion too recognition that I n the “creative pro sees” of policy make I nag, pressure groups, “the most easily organized groups,” may be vehicles for thrusts nag I onto the PU bill a Rena problems that have failed of solution in the private sec tort. There is, in addition. The special possibility of going astray in discussing the work of one who combines the role of theorist with that of activist. The Com tithe on Political Parties , for instance, in “Tow rd a More
Responsible Two Party System,” apparently preferred a define I Zion of party me berths p that encompassed all registered party voters. Shattuck needier , who was chairman of the Committee and a member of its d raft nag committee , had previously been outspoken in his belief that pa arty membership should inch due only party activists. A Austin Ran nee poses the dilemma for interpretation : Scatterbrained might have “simply changed his mind,” or perhaps he “was outvoted on this point in the Committee’s deliberations, and be I nag. s he is, a good majorities- democrat, went along with the Committee majority. 14 One steers carefully. Then, among express sins of advocacy in search nag for the core the ROR from which Scatterbrained derived his stances; and this is nowhere more difficult than in considering “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” in which Scatterbrained took a lead nag ha ND, but which was finally a college al effort.
The Advocate as Political Scientist At least since 1950, the ma Sorority sentiment I n political science has been that advocacy and pool I tic a I SST dies a re encomia it blew . Chats Schneider. However, espoused the opposite PRI n CIA pale . Advocacy y is I inherent I n pool tactical science each SE us objects of SST dud, methods of I n vestige- ” Austin Ran nee, The Doctrine of Rest pond Siebel Party Colleen’s It ( Urbana: Univac resist of Ill non s Press. 1953) , p. 1 8, note 29. Ran nee prefers the second view of Chesterfield’s poss.. Zion. Ion, and standards of evaluation are all value laden . Scatterbrained , whose argument thus antic patted by almost two denied that social scientists could escape thee r underlying nag value sass pm it is usually much more d official to discover the right question that n it is actions to find the a answer. It is precisely at this point that the unexamined and unseat deed sum options we make e are most likely to defeat us, for the questions we ask grow out of the assumptions we make. . .
The assumptions we make tend to determine what we investigate , what kind of techniques we use , and how we veal Tate the evidence. ” For Shattuck needier the “right question” was clear enough. A ND from it flowed the purport unity to generate a ND test hypotheses about polio tics and then to veal Tate political institutions and processes . The most legitimate question to be asked in a democracy is :-how can people get control of t he gave ran meet In a NY other kind of system. His q question ca n not be asked at all. ‘ From this broad question of the relationship of people and government, Shattuck needier then mad e certain sass motions about the role of political parties in a democracy. This was a n untitled version of contemporary function al ism. 17 Although party reformers have been sometimes criticized for their fail u re to specify whether the “if notions” they ascribe to parties are activities which parties actually perform or those which pa reties should perform in a demo critic system,l ‘ Chesterfield’s position is UN am obvious. I assume that parties are designed to take eve. E general control of the government, that it I u Struggle for Party Government, p. 21. All italics in quoted material are Chesterfield’s emphases . Struggle for Party Government, p. 22 . 11 Chesterfield’s work was identified as a “fun action ” approach by one of his earliest reviewers. F. A . Hermann, rev. Of Party Government, by E. E. Scatterbrained , Review of Politics, 4 (April. 1942), 241. On the other hand, a comments ray on the De velveteen of functionalism in political science does not include Scatterbrained among the early users of that theory.
See Martin Landau, “On the Use of Functional Analysis in American Political Science,” Social Rest reach, 35 (Spring, 1958), 48-75. The con f suasion about the meaning of functionalism in the study of parties is discus seed by Ran nee , Doctrine e of R spoons hole Party Government, up. 8-9, 157. See also, Frank Sorrow, “Political Parties and Political Analysis,” The AAA lyrical Part y Sys teems, deed. Willard’ Insist Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham ( Nee” York: Oxford University Press, 1967), up. 48-55. “Orangey, Doctrine of Responsible Party Govern Little, up. -10, 157. HTH s content downloaded on HTH, 20 Deck 2012 14: 18:06 PM A II use subject to ASTOR Teen s and Conditions 1972 The Political Science of E. E. Straightforwardness ought to begin with a conception of the purposes of the whole political enterprise to be used as a standard of measure meet. The standard of measurement to be applied to political parties is therefore:- are the parties able to govern in fact? ” Thus, striving for control of government is both what parties do, although often empire effect, and what they are supposed to do.
The application of the general standard of measure meet which Scatterbrained advances, then, is whether parties govern in act-by struggling to win office, do parties in fact provide the Poe pale a means to control the government? Chesterfield’s concern about the hidden assumptions of political research and his belief that political studies should be guided by the ;mineral question of “how can people get con roll of the government” are perhaps best illus _ rated by his critique of early public opinion studies.
He warned in biting language that these studies had condemned the public as ignorant about political affairs without even specifying what the people must know to make democracy work. One implication of public opinion studies ought to be resisted by Al friends of freedom and De Majorca; the implication that democracy is a failure because the people are too ignorant to answer in diligently all the questions asked by the pollsters. This is a professorial invention for imposing pro factories standards on the political system and De serves to be treated with extreme suspicion.
Only a pedagogue would suppose that the people must pass some kind of examination to qualify for participant Zion in a democracy. Who, after all, are these self appointed censors who assume that they are in a notion to flunk the whole human race? Their ATT- Jed would be less presumptuous if they could mom up with a list of things that people must know. “ho can say what the man on the street must know about public affairs? The whole theory of knowledge underlying these assumptions is pedantic . Demo racy was m dad for the people e, not the people e for democracy.
Democracy is something for ordinary people regardless of whet ere or not the pedants approve of them The problem is not one of research , but one of assumptions, definitions and theory. It arises from “a confusion of ideas about who at people need to know, what he role of the public in a democracy is, how the public functions in a De Majorca. “21 Chesterfield’s critique was not, it should be emphasized, a hostility toward voting stud- 10 Struggle for Party Government, p. 23. “‘ Semi-sovereign People, p. 135. 21 Semi-sovereign People, p. 136. Sees, but a demonstration of the hidden assume actions and values which lurk in all political re search, especially in the evaluation of data. Chesterfield’s analysis of the “business and upper-class bias of the pressure system,” for in stance, was based partly on surveys of the co occupations and the socioeconomic ranks of in tersest group members. 2 This research had a clear application to the central question of pop Leticia science: the pressure group system, with its business and upper-class bias, does not pro vide a way for the people to get control of gob ornament.
Similarly, Chesterfield’s use of voting studies to demonstrate “the Jaw of the manipulation of data to De termini the electoral influence of organized in tersest groups. The impulse for his investigation was a belief that neither government nor politic cal parties needed to be as responsive to inter est.. Groups as they traditionally had been, for the electoral claims of such groups were vastly exaggerated. 3 The way in which Chesterfield’s basic as assumptions informed his research is perhaps most apparent in his best known empirical proposition, his explanation of the two- party system in America . 4 The combination of single member districts вЂўand plurality elections, he ar geed, exaggerates the victory of the majority party by awarding it more seats than its per central of the vote, and it “discriminates mod irately against the second party but against the third , fourth, and fifth parties the force of this tendency is multiplied to the point of extinct shushing their chance of inning seats alto gather. “2” Only a minor party with strongly concentrated sectional strength can hope to win seats.
And the presidential election system, be cause it rewards national majorities, under mines sectional third parties because, even if they are strong enough to win congressional seats in their electoral bastions, they are “doomed to permanent f utility … In the pursuit of the most important single objective of party strata egg,”26 the presidency . The structural causes of two-parasitism were not, however, merely an interesting observation on the operation of American politics.
They were , for Scatterbrained, worthy of investigate Zion to show the elements of permanence in the America an two-part y system and thus to argue ” Semi-sovereign People, up. 30-36. 21 Semi-sovereign People, up. 49-52. ” Party Government, up. 67-90. ” Party Government, p. 75. Party Government, p. 83. This content downloaded on HTH, 20 Deck 2012 PM All use subject to ASTOR Teen s and Conditions 1324 The America n Political Science Review Volvo. 6 the likelihood that more centralized, response blew, and issue-oriented parties would not De SST Roy two-pa artist , fuel nag the rise of many small ideological parties I n a ultimate arty com appetite pattern. The Political Scientist as Democrat As al ready shown, Scatterbrained, both as advocate and political scientist, was guided PRI Marilyn by his preference for democrat achy . But what kind of democracy?
Scatterbrained ‘s greatest con irruption to democratic thought in contemporary pool tactical science was not in for emulating a definition or advancing a new per sportive, but rather in reopening a n issue that had mainly laid dorm NT I n America n monoplane today: how can popular r sovereignty be exercised in a modern nation- state? The problem a rose , Shattuck needier asserted , because ” the con rovers about democracy . .. Antedates the rise of modern democracy,” with the result that “[t]he maim n lines of the a r gunmen were laid down long before an honey had ever seen a real [modern] democratic govern meet at work. 27 Consequently, as the nation state emerged, democrats iconic nude to think in classical terms. Democracy was defined as “government by the people. ” But classical De Majorca was ill-suited to modern nations, for the process of govern meet “by the people” in Athens-whose total population was 30,000, of whom the ere-fourth s were slaves-has little reel Vance to modern nation-states. The classical concept of govern meet by the people, of popup lar sovereignty exercised by did erect participation I n affairs. As kept alive during the rise of De Majorca in America by the I NFG entail writings of Sea n-Jacques Rousseau, by the practice of town meet nags I n New Engle ND, a ND by the rhetoric of political ins like Lie NCO, who contain u ally renewed the image of “government by the people . “2 ‘ The pervasiveness of the classical ideal of democracy has led to contain al confuse Soon about the proper role of the people in American democracy. The con array model of mockery was cap turned , according to Scatterbrained, by Jeffery son’s pH erase. “government by consent of the governed. “O This is a conceptualization that is possible I n a modern state where nu members make TTL-IEEE classical notion of democracy absurd . But even when it was recognized by democrats that some system of representation would nee- 27 Party Government. P. 13. Two Hundred Million A Lyrically, up. 58-61. Two Hung red M ‘Lion Aimer cans, p. 58. Essay rill replace direct pa eradication by citizens , few obstacles were seen to the full and precise translation of PU bill preferences into public policy. The way in which this translation would occur evoked little interest among political phi lookers.
The result, Shattuck needier argued, was a disaster for modern political theory . So certain were the philosophers t hat the people would in fact use thee r new powers that the whole con rovers has been concern treated on the com pee thence of the masses Todd erect pull ICC FAA RSI. At the is point coca ins of in k have been wasted …. The classical definition of democracy left a great, UN ex pooled, u undiscovered breach I n the theory of modern democracy, the zone between the sovereign people ND t he government t which is the habitat of the parties. ‘ Leave nag aside for the moment Chastening re’s sass motion that the “zone between the sob reign people a ND the government” necessary rill) is or should be filled by political parties, the general poi NT of his argue meet was in 1942 a revival of a cent oral issue of democracy that contain uses today to be t he most perplex nag sues Zion of political theory explored by empirical studies. What a re the linkages between the sob reign people and govern meet in a democracy?
How should they a ND how do they work? Shattuck mender’s answer explicitly discarded the a argument that hat is needed tots roentgen democracy I n America is toed acute a ND inter est.. Everyone to an extent that “voters ca n the ink about politics the way a United States senator might think about it. “” The whole theory of k People us revive I n the contemn portray world by distinguish nag be t when what they must k now and what they De> not need to k now or ca n not k now .
In their pan fate lives they a re required to “place confine dance daily I n a thousand ND ways in phi ramparts. Surgeon s, pilots, baa ink clerks, engineers, Pl um beers, tech niacin ins, lawyers, [T]hey realize that it is not necessary rot k now how to cake a television set I n order to buy one intelligently. “”” Similar y , the people can not k now enough actually to govern. Indeed. “there is no escape from the problem of ignorance because nobody y k knows enough to run the government . Pull ICC officials k now only slightly more than the rid an ray citizen , a ND one who becomes a n expert fails the classical test of citizenship because “an expert is a person who chooses to be ignore NT about ma NY things so that he may k now all Party Government, up. 14-15. ” Semi-sovereign People , p. 133. ” Semi-sovereign People. P. 137. Semi-So foreign People, p. 136. 972 The POI tactical Science of E. E. Scatterbrained 1325 about one. “”4 The role of the citizen in public FAA RSI is, therefore, the same as I n private mat terse.
In both, “[o]u r us arrival depends on oh r ability to Judge things by thee r results and oh r bail itty to establish relations of confidence a ND response ability so that we ca n take advantage of what other people k now. “”” Chesterfield’s analysis poi ants u pa SST risk I nag parallel between the modern radical expo nets of participatory democracy and the EAI rely students of public opinion ion : both off ND the PU b lice ignorant a ND decal red a crisis of democracy.
The pollsters, of course. Blamed the PU bill and prescribed education; the radicals blamed Sees advisement institutions and preached mass pa r dictation in open meetings empowered to De side all public questions. Neither seems to understand ND Chastening re’s poi NT that the people ca n not know enough to decide Everett I nag. ‘The crisis here,” Shattuck needier a argues, “is not a crisis in De Majorca but a crisis I n theory. “6 And the path for serious political HTH inkers is to “re-examine the chasm between theory a ND practice because it is at least as likely that the ideal is wrong as it is that the reality is ad . “37 Hence the need for a redefinition of popular r sovereignty in a context of what the people are able and willing to do and to k now in a com flex modern world. In the nation-state, then, Democracy is a competitorвЂўe political system in Lichen competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can partial pate in the decision make inning process ….
Conflict, com petition, organ nation a ND leadership a re the ingredients of a working definition of democracy. “” It is this need-the need for leadership p and organ nation o define a ND submit alternative PU bill policies so that the people may choose a mongo them as best they can-that led Scatterbrained to resurrect the doctor nee of re spoonbills parties and to advocate it so vigor souls y that the debate vi ritually doom innate politic cal science for a decade .
His critique of I interest groups, too, flowed from his preference for ma Sorority policy decisions made the rough electoral processes organized by the pa reties rather that n for decisions a arrived at in the more restricted his critique of interest groups raise two if rather q questions about the anta re of is ” Semi-sovereign People, up. 136-137. Semi-sovereign People , p. 137. Semi-sovereign People, p. 134. ” Semi-sovereign People, p. 131. 38 Semi-sovereign People, p. 141. Democratic theory: whether the rule of major ties is u unlimited, a ND what protection should be accorded civil liberties.
Austin Orangey has a r geed that the responsible pa arty school assumed that the American people preferred u unlimited rule by popular r ma Sororities but that in “Tow rd A More Response blew Two-Pa arty System” such under Wing issues of democrat tic theory were avoided. “9 He remit ands us also that response el pa reties a re an old idea whose time seems never to have come, partly because the American people have not been fully willing to accept majority rule democracy. Such students of par ties as A.