- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Basic to the appeal and influence of the realignments enterprise have been the talents of four major political scientists during its creative early days: the late V. O. Key, Jr., and E. E. Schattschneider, both of whom contributed important groundwork; and James L. Sundquist and Walter Dean Burnham, who provided the principal statements in the genre. All four of these writers exhibited a prodigious, sure-footed command of the factual particulars of American political history as well as the rare ability to generalize through detecting patterns. All four offered a kind of ideological excitement, as many academics of my generation will attest. It is small wonder that the genre made such a mark during its classical phase.
Inventive additions were made to the realignments interpretation in the 1970s and 1980s by, among others, the political scientists Paul Allen Beck, David W. Brady, and, writing as a threesome, Jerome M. Clubb, William H. Flanigan, and Nancy H. Zingale. In general, however, as is customary with academic schools, the creativity of the realignments genre tailed off after an initial phase. Trenchant critiques appeared. The historians Richard L. McCormick and Joel H. Silbey, reflecting the sensibilities of their own discipline, offered periodizations of American political history that jarred against that of the realignments canon. In the canon proper, there was little creativity in the 1990s.
Yet the realignments perspective lives on, at least in political science. In undergraduate courses on parties and elections, nothing has replaced it as a device for organizing American political history. In conferences on American political development, it is conventional wisdom. In academic journals, authors keep reaching for it as an authoritative framework. In the minds of many political scientists, notwithstanding the qualms of historians, the two-century-long timetable associated with the realignments canon has come to have an unquestioned fixedness approaching that of, I would imagine, the periodic table for chemists. Also, "Whole Lotta Shakin'"-type statements in the popular media have become a trademark of election seasons.
It is the continuing prominence of the realignments genre that stirred me to write this work, which takes the form of an empirical critique. It asks the question: How good is the realignments genre as a guide to the last two centuries of American electoral, party, and policy history? My answer: not very good at all-either in its classical version or since. Worse yet, I believe that the genre has evolved from a source of vibrant ideas into an impediment to understanding. In its current "normal science" form, it seems to be blinkering graduate students and exacting opportunity costs. For the political science discipline, in my view, it is time to move on. In this work, I do not try to advance any ambitious theory or conceptual scheme of my own-the work is a critique-but, in the large subject area commanded by the realignments genre, to open up lines of inquiry thought to be closed off is possibly by itself a kind of advance.
Chapter 2 is a nonjudgmental presentation of the essential claims, as I see them, of the realignments perspective. I begin by briefly taking up certain works by the four classical authors but then shift gears and present what might be considered a fully fleshed-out, maximally ambitious version of the realignments perspective-an ideal type about a scholarship already featuring ideal types. To do this is to lean heavily on Burnham, whose theoretical or empirical claims have been particularly ambitious; on Schattschneider, whose claims were equally ambitious if less completely worked out; somewhat less on Sundquist, who has been more cautious; and least of all on Key, whose claims were close to the vest. Also accommodated are the other political scientists noted above who made influential analytic moves during the 1970s and 1980s. There is a point in operating in this fashion: what I am calling the fully fleshed-out version of the realignments perspective has proven, I believe, to be particularly engaging and influential.
As an analytic technique, I resolve the large realignments perspective into fifteen distinct empirical claims. In Chapters 3 through 6, drawing on relevant primary and secondary sources where appropriate, I evaluate these fifteen claims for their empirical validity and illuminative power. In Chapter 7, I close with some conclusions and a few points of more general interpretive criticism. In that chapter, as well as earlier, I point up what I am not doing in this work. I am not trying to argue that all American elections are equal. Unquestionably, some of them have been more engaging, momentous, or consequential in various ways than others. It is and should be a continuing scholarly task to illuminate such differences. Yet it is not helpful to get trapped forever in a failed model of illumination.
Excerpted from Electoral Realignments by David R. Mayhew Copyright © 2002 by Yale University. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
|Ch. 2||The Realignments Perspective||7|
|Ch. 3||Framing the Critique||34|
|Ch. 4||The Cyclical Dynamic||43|
|Ch. 5||Processes and Issues||70|
|Ch. 6||Policies and Democracy||103|