tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2942823095378772012..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Groups vs. Ideas within PartiesJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7829948559625515032010-04-07T15:28:11.963-05:002010-04-07T15:28:11.963-05:00Mellors,
I'll second Matt's pick of Dahl&...Mellors,<br /><br />I'll second Matt's pick of Dahl's Preface, although I do think it's fairly tangential to the main point above -- but it's a great book, and I didn't include it in my "ten books" list, so I want in on Matt's recommendation.<br /><br />On groups and parties, David Karol's new book is highly relevant. Karol is also a co-author, with several others, of an important unpublished (AFAIK) essay on parties. I'd recommend my own unpublished essay, too, but I don't have it online anywhere (shhh...don't tell Sides). Their essay says that parties are creatures of groups; I say that parties are creatures of pols, groups, and party insiders, with circumstances and context affecting who gets the upper hand. Both are reactions to John Aldrich (Why Parties?), who says that parties are creatures of politicians. <br /><br />Karol's Book:<br />http://www.cambridgegroup.us/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521517164<br /><br />Essay by Bawn et. al:<br />http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/hcn4/Downloads/ToP%20October%205.pdfJonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73753554947963210702010-04-07T14:58:05.585-05:002010-04-07T14:58:05.585-05:00Mellors:
For my money, a great piece that touches ...Mellors:<br />For my money, a great piece that touches this question, if only tangentially, is Dahl's Preface to Democratic Theory. The part that I always had the most trouble with in Dahl's argument was the theme that a person's expressed choice is the best way of measuring what is in their interest. As a fairly paternalistic, elitist guy, it's not hard to see why that bothers me.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-74026374150034521982010-04-07T11:34:27.820-05:002010-04-07T11:34:27.820-05:00JB: You have stated a reality re politics (univers...JB: You have stated a reality re politics (universally) often thought but not well expressed. Feel given significance of the distinction between ideological rhetoric which is thinking in gaseous generalities and mindless contradictory shibboleths vs awareness of and commitment to one's self-interests, as in all the lower class southern whites who would rather lose an arm or their house than vote for economic self-interests they have in common with blacks, this phenomenon needs even more forceful hard hitting succinctness to communicate this fundamental reality. Where in the literature can I find that to move on and explore further what you have more or less adumbrated here, sir?Mellorsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61643900314220556472010-04-06T16:59:08.345-05:002010-04-06T16:59:08.345-05:00"...when it comes to a competition between id..."...when it comes to a competition between ideology and group interests, odds are very good that group interests will win"<br /><br />How do you explain the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument? <br /><br />I know from my personal experience in discussing health reform with my middle class, right wing evangelical father that he was very concerned with a hypothetical rich person who might not be able to get a procedure he desired under fully government run health care regime. He was much more concerned with this hypothetical rich person than he was with the fact that his son's family can't afford health insurance on the individual market or the fact that his daughter's family is in a precarious health insurance situation where if they lost their coverage (under the conditions at the time of the discussion) they would be unable to get new coverage.<br /><br />It seems to me that in the case of the Republicans at least, the party has been very successful at convincing the majority of their members that the ideas of Reagan economics are more important than the interests of most of the groups that make up their coalition. It happens that the ideas match up with the group interests of a portion of their coalition, but when ideas are trumping the interests of most of the members of the group, it seems to me that ideas are winning over group interests.<br /><br />You could make the same argument for the Democrats and affirmative action. AA is obviously an important group interest for a portion of their coalition, but the rest of the coalition has to be persuaded by ideas that AA is worthwhile since it works directly against their own group interests.Jimnoreply@blogger.com