What theory of democracy was political scientist EE Schattschneider criticizing?

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

References

2 Schattschneider's standard for his own writing 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 quality.

3 Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1942), p. 106Google Scholar.

4 Party Government, p. 196.

5 Party Government, p. 197.

6 Schattschneider, E. E., “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” American Political Science Review, 51 (12, 1957), 935CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 E. E. Schattschneider, rev. of American Business and Public Policy by Bauer, Raymond, Pool, Ithiel de Sola, and Dexter, Lewis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Summer, 1965), 343Google Scholar.

8 Schattschneider, E. E., “Congress in Conflict,” The Yale Review, 41 (12, 1951), 181Google Scholar.

9 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960), p. 137Google Scholar.

10 Schattschneider, E. E., Two Hundred Million Americans in Search of a Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. 5Google Scholar.

11 “Congress in Conflict,” p. 187.

12 Schattschneider, E. E., The Struggle for Party Government (College Park: University of Maryland, 1948), p. 31Google Scholar.

13 Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935), p. 293Google Scholar.

14 Ranney, Austin, The Doctrine of Responsible Parly Government (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953), p. 18, note 29Google Scholar. Ranney prefers the second view of Schattschneider's position.

15 Struggle for Party Government, p. 21. All italics in quoted material are Schattschneider's emphases.

16 Struggle for Party Government, p. 22.

17 Schattschneider's work was identified as a “functional” approach by one of his earliest reviewers. F. A. Hermans, rev. of Party Government, by Schattschneider, E. E., Review of Politics, 4 (04, 1942), 241Google Scholar. On the other hand, a commentary on the development of functionalism in political science does not include Schattschneider among the early users of that theory. See Landau, Martin, “On the Use of Functional Analysis in American Political Science,” Social Research, 35 (Spring, 1958), 48–75Google Scholar. The confusion about the meaning of functionalism in the study of parties is discussed by Ranney, , Doctrine of Responsible Party Government, pp. 8–9, 157Google Scholar. See also, Sorauf, Frank, “Political Parties and Political Analysis,” The American Party Systems, ed. Chambers, William Nisbet and Burnham, Walter Dean (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 48–55Google Scholar.

18 Ranney, , Doctrine of Responsible Party Government, pp. 8–10, 157Google Scholar.

19 Struggle for Party Government, p. 23.

20 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 135.

21 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 136.

22 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 30–36.

23 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 49–52.

24 Party Government, pp. 67–90.

25 Party Government, p. 75.

26 Party Government, p. 83.

27 Parly Government, p. 13.

28 Two Hundred Million Americans, pp. 58–61.

29 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 58.

30 Party Government, pp. 14–15.

31 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 133.

32 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 137.

33 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 136.

34 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 136–137.

35 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 137.

36 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 134.

37 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 131.

38 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 141.

39 Ranney, Austin, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Commentary,” American Political Science Review, 45 (03, 1951), 498–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Willmoore, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), pp. 29–37Google Scholar; and Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), chap. 1Google Scholar. See also a criticism of the Ranney-Kendall position by Thorson, Thomas Landon, “Epilogue on Absolute Majority Rule,” Journal of Politics, 23 (08, 1961), 557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ranney's, response in the same volume, “Postlude to an Epilogue,” pp. 566–569Google Scholar.

41 Struggle for Party Government, p. 9.

42 Struggle for Party Government, p. 12.

43 Struggle for Party Government, p. 12.

44 Party Government, p. 7.

45 Party Government, p. 7.

46 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 88.

47 Party Government, p. 203.

48 Schattschneider's views about democrary as a moral system were first elaborated in a discussion with Dr. Julian Hart of Yale in “Democracy as a Moral System,” one in a series of television broadcasts entitled “The American Government and the Pursuit of Happiness” conducted by Schattschneider on The National Broadcasting Company in 1957 and 1958. Schattschneider won a Freedoms Foundation Award for the series. Some of these ideas also appear in Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 104–109. But the main discussion is found in Two Hundred Million Americans, chap. 3.

49 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 42.

50 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 46.

51 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 45.

52 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 47.

53 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 43.

54 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 53.

55 Schattschneider, E. E., “Pressure Groups Versus Political Parties,” The Annals, 259 (09, 1948), 17Google Scholar. See also, Party Government, pp. 35–39 for a discussion of the nature of parties.

56 Party Government, pp. 187–188. Note Schatt-schneider's assertion in the same book, pp. 189–190, that pressure politics is not an attempt by a group to become a majority, but rather an attempt by a minority to control policy. He also distinguishes public interest groups, i.e., those whose members will accrue no direct gain from the causes they espouse and which are not limited in membership to those who have such direct interests, from special interest groups which are limited to members who will gain directly from the policies advanced by the group. Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 25–29. Also, “Pressure Groups Versus Political Parties,” p. 20.

57 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 30–32.

58 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 32.

59 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 33.

60 Politics, Pressures and the Tariff, pp. 164–184.

61 Politics, Pressures and the Tariff, pp. 226–249. Also, Party Government, pp. 199–203.

62 Politics, Pressures and the Tariff, pp. 271–278. Quoted material at p. 271.

63 Schattschneider, E. E., “Political Parties and the Public Interest,” The Annals, 280 (03, 1952), 22–25Google Scholar

64 “Political Parties and the Public Interest”,” p. 23.

65 “Political Parties and the Public Interest” p. 22.

66 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 23.

67 “Political Parties and the Public Interest,” p. 23.

68 Party Government, p. 208.

69 Struggle for Party Government, p. 29.

70 Party Government, p. 52.

71 Party Government, p. 137.

72 Struggle for Party Government, p. 29.

73 Party Government, pp. 111–123.

74 Party Government, pp. 7–9.

75 Party Government, pp. 127–128.

76 Party Government, pp. 99–106.

77 Party Government, pp. 53–61.

78 Party Government, p. 60.

79 Schattschneider, E. E., “1954: The Ike Party Fights to Live,” The New Republic, 02 23, 1953, pp. 15–17Google Scholar. See also, Schattschneider, E. E., “United States: The Functional Approach to Party Government,” Modern Political Parties, ed. Neuman, Sigmund (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 209–214Google Scholar.

80 “Functional Approach to Party Government,” p. 214.

81 “1954: The Ike Party Fights to Live,” pp. 16–17.

82 “Functional Approach to Party Government,” pp. 213–214. A similar relationship between the business community and the Republican Party is considered in Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 42–43.

83 Schattschneider, E. E., “Party Government and Employment Policy,” American Political Science Review, 39 (12, 1945), 1147–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar. “Functional Approach to Party Government,” pp. 208, 213. Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 88–89.

84 Struggle for Party Government, p. 41.

85 Struggle for Party Government, pp. 41–43.

86 “Congress in Conflict,” pp. 188–193.

87 Party Government, p. 207.

88 Party Government, pp. 209–210.

89 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 114.

90 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” p. 935.

91 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” pp. 941–942. Also, Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 2–3.

92 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 7.

93 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 40.

94 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 40.

95 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 7.

96 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” p. 938.

97 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” p. 938.

98 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” pp. 939–941. Also, Semi-Sovereign People, p. 147.

99 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 67.

100 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 64.

101 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 78–96. Also, “Functional Approach to Party Government,” pp. 201–206. For a study of California alignment following Schattschneider's thesis, see Rogin, Michael, “California Populism and the ‘System of 1896.’” Western Political Quarterly, 22 (03, 1969), 170–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Phillips, Kevin P., The Emerging Republican Majority (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1969)Google Scholar.

103 Scammon, Richard and Wattenberg, Ben J., The Real Majority (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970)Google Scholar.

104 “Functional Approach to Party Government,” pp. 203–205.

105 Semi-Sovereign People, pp. 111–112. Quoted passage at p. 112.

106 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 104.

107 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 109.

108 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 108.

109 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 110.

110 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 30.

111 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 68.

112 Semi-Sovereign People, p. 8.

113 Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., Power and Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 44Google Scholar.

114 “Functional Approach to Party Government,” pp. 206–208.

115 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 92.

116 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 93.

117 Two Hundred Million Americans, pp. 94–95.

118 Two Hundred Million Americans, chap. 5.

119 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 99.

120 Two Hundred Million Americans, chap. 6.

121 Two Hundred Million Americans, pp. 83–84.

122 “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope,” p. 94.

123 Two Hundred Million Americans, p. 81.

124 Lipsky, Michael, “Protest as a Political Resource,” American Political Science Review, 62 (12, 1968), 1144–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 Two Hundred Million Americans, pp. 8,103.

What is schattschneider theory?

What is political scientist EE Schattschneider's definition of the pressure system quizlet?

What was the major concern among those who were skeptical of democracy quizlet?

Which of the following best illustrates the process of political socialization?