What do you think?
Rate this book
The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America
This book started out to be an attempt to formulate a theory of political organization. While the emphasis has shifted somewhat in the course of the writing, it is still a book about political organization, an attempt to work out a theory about the relation between organization and conflict, the relation between political organization and democracy, and the organizational alternatives open to the American people. The thesis is that we shall never understand politics unless we know what the struggle is about. The contagiousness of conflict; The scope and bias of the pressure system; Whose game do we play?; The displacement of conflicts; The nationalization of a case study in the changing dimensions of politics; The limits of the political nonvoting as a case study in the scope of political conflict; What does change look like?; The semisovereign people.
147 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1975
13 people are currently reading
486 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 24, 2011
Having read this as an undergrad PoliSci major, I remembered it being better than it was.
Here were my major complaints:
1- not understanding the economic concept of rent-seeking, that big business also colludes with government to preserve their market position. Schattschneider ("Shatty"), claims only small businesses avail themselves of the state. This is clearly wrong, and inverted. Small businesses too often lack any meaningful entry into state power and authority, and only major multinationals can sway politicians and make things happen, i.e. bailouts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-see...
2- not seeing groups as a positive. Referring to their 'distortion' effect on politics, Shatty was surprisingly critical of many groups that seek to give voice to issues of dispossessed peoples. Felons might be disenfranchised, but there are organized "pressure groups" that can still agitate for their rights and fair treatment. This isn't a negative democratic force, and not a bad thing for the Republic.
3- death of the party system - Shatty seems to think that the parties will increase their power and influence, and their limited influence at the time was due to their inability to control future voting. I thought this was an enormous misread of the system. There have always been outside 'pressure groups' as in the church. Their dispossession was not due to their inability to control votes, but in the persuasive force of partisans only occurring with predictable frequencies. The parties, as well, face a difficult governing situation because their only recourse is to defund a candidate and watch them lose, or expel a member and watch them caucus with the opposing power. The parties have been impotent to govern, in the same style as a European system, because of the individual power granted to each legislator, a protection from party rule. This is a positive, not a negative, as Shatty would have us believe.
4- A divided group's impact is nothing (divided meaning its members vote equally R and D). This, as well, is wholesale wrong. Groups that are well divided become appealing to both parties to try and entice with legislation. Hence the appeal of moderate policies and the distance from calcified opinions like labor and abortion. Democrats have no incentive to reward the union base, because those people are stuck politically having given their votes to the Dems. Pro-Lifers suffer the same fate, having become too wedded to the GOP and hence the Republicans are unlikely to reward them with policy, because they don't have to.
5- Non-voting is not a crisis. Shatty seems to think that the vast mass of people who are non-voting is a crisis for the Republic. In truth, many of those people are likely detached from politics. Those are the people for whom the gossip, intrigue and political games are tiring and a waste. And truth be told, often no matter who is elected, things do not change. Non-voting is a political statement that the choices are flawed, that the policies proposed are shallow, and that the prospect for change is small. It might also speak to a complacent class, people who are fine with the system. The rich and many of the college-aged young are focused on the things important in their life, not with the inanities of politics. Most politicos will admit both that their interest is sometimes an obsession, and that many of their own family members are otherwise uninterested in politics. Such suggests that there's no crisis of apathy, but a positive social state lacking crisis.
6- A linear, utopian view of Democracy. Democracy, the worst form of pure government, no different than mob rule or preferences shaped by advertising, is not an ideal. It's perhaps tolerable because it rightly gives citizens many entry points to power, and controls to mitigate centralized power, but it's far from ideal. When Shatty writes that more democracy will result in better policies, he hasn't spent enough time out of the classroom. Kansans and Missourians dislike one another and hate their opposing basketball teams. If Missouri outvoted Kansas in appropriating Kansan salaries to finance public works projects in St. Louis, that's not an ideal. Whether one had full participation or half participation, it's still a negative policy. Democracies can get it wrong, they can go to war, they can oppress minorities, they can oppress majorities. The romantic ideal of Democracy as an abstract is inappropriate and misplaced. It ought, rather, to reflect admiration for the people who are well-formed so as to make good choices, who can see through charlatans and who can dissipate power through popular will.
7- Every major change is not due to the expansion of the franchise. Shatty claims that every major political event was accompanied and caused by expansions in the franchise. From Jackson to Roosevelt, it was the increased voting pools who made change happen. Yet, recent history suggests otherwise. The Reagan revolution of 1980 and GOP sweep in 1994 and 2010 were not caused by expansions of the franchise. These were major shifts in the government and yet don't fit that framework. Major change needs a catalyst, and perhaps past ones were due to an expanded franchise, but perhaps the moment also produced great men who rode that wave as well. Shatty is conflating correlation and causation.
8- The politicization of private life is a negative social force. Similar to the previous point about voter participation, Shatty claims that there are naturally political opinions about every aspect of personal life. This needn't be so, and wasn't in time past. We have arrived at that sorry state, where we have a hanging boycott over every product, awaiting word whether their CEO's donate in a politically correct fashion. The culture war, in that it has made us all acutely aware of every thing we do and its potential political consequences, is a major negative social force. We should be ashamed that we have tainted our lives with so much politics and can't enjoy a lazy Sunday without wondering if we're somehow inadvertently supporting our political foes.
Here were my major complaints:
1- not understanding the economic concept of rent-seeking, that big business also colludes with government to preserve their market position. Schattschneider ("Shatty"), claims only small businesses avail themselves of the state. This is clearly wrong, and inverted. Small businesses too often lack any meaningful entry into state power and authority, and only major multinationals can sway politicians and make things happen, i.e. bailouts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-see...
2- not seeing groups as a positive. Referring to their 'distortion' effect on politics, Shatty was surprisingly critical of many groups that seek to give voice to issues of dispossessed peoples. Felons might be disenfranchised, but there are organized "pressure groups" that can still agitate for their rights and fair treatment. This isn't a negative democratic force, and not a bad thing for the Republic.
3- death of the party system - Shatty seems to think that the parties will increase their power and influence, and their limited influence at the time was due to their inability to control future voting. I thought this was an enormous misread of the system. There have always been outside 'pressure groups' as in the church. Their dispossession was not due to their inability to control votes, but in the persuasive force of partisans only occurring with predictable frequencies. The parties, as well, face a difficult governing situation because their only recourse is to defund a candidate and watch them lose, or expel a member and watch them caucus with the opposing power. The parties have been impotent to govern, in the same style as a European system, because of the individual power granted to each legislator, a protection from party rule. This is a positive, not a negative, as Shatty would have us believe.
4- A divided group's impact is nothing (divided meaning its members vote equally R and D). This, as well, is wholesale wrong. Groups that are well divided become appealing to both parties to try and entice with legislation. Hence the appeal of moderate policies and the distance from calcified opinions like labor and abortion. Democrats have no incentive to reward the union base, because those people are stuck politically having given their votes to the Dems. Pro-Lifers suffer the same fate, having become too wedded to the GOP and hence the Republicans are unlikely to reward them with policy, because they don't have to.
5- Non-voting is not a crisis. Shatty seems to think that the vast mass of people who are non-voting is a crisis for the Republic. In truth, many of those people are likely detached from politics. Those are the people for whom the gossip, intrigue and political games are tiring and a waste. And truth be told, often no matter who is elected, things do not change. Non-voting is a political statement that the choices are flawed, that the policies proposed are shallow, and that the prospect for change is small. It might also speak to a complacent class, people who are fine with the system. The rich and many of the college-aged young are focused on the things important in their life, not with the inanities of politics. Most politicos will admit both that their interest is sometimes an obsession, and that many of their own family members are otherwise uninterested in politics. Such suggests that there's no crisis of apathy, but a positive social state lacking crisis.
6- A linear, utopian view of Democracy. Democracy, the worst form of pure government, no different than mob rule or preferences shaped by advertising, is not an ideal. It's perhaps tolerable because it rightly gives citizens many entry points to power, and controls to mitigate centralized power, but it's far from ideal. When Shatty writes that more democracy will result in better policies, he hasn't spent enough time out of the classroom. Kansans and Missourians dislike one another and hate their opposing basketball teams. If Missouri outvoted Kansas in appropriating Kansan salaries to finance public works projects in St. Louis, that's not an ideal. Whether one had full participation or half participation, it's still a negative policy. Democracies can get it wrong, they can go to war, they can oppress minorities, they can oppress majorities. The romantic ideal of Democracy as an abstract is inappropriate and misplaced. It ought, rather, to reflect admiration for the people who are well-formed so as to make good choices, who can see through charlatans and who can dissipate power through popular will.
7- Every major change is not due to the expansion of the franchise. Shatty claims that every major political event was accompanied and caused by expansions in the franchise. From Jackson to Roosevelt, it was the increased voting pools who made change happen. Yet, recent history suggests otherwise. The Reagan revolution of 1980 and GOP sweep in 1994 and 2010 were not caused by expansions of the franchise. These were major shifts in the government and yet don't fit that framework. Major change needs a catalyst, and perhaps past ones were due to an expanded franchise, but perhaps the moment also produced great men who rode that wave as well. Shatty is conflating correlation and causation.
8- The politicization of private life is a negative social force. Similar to the previous point about voter participation, Shatty claims that there are naturally political opinions about every aspect of personal life. This needn't be so, and wasn't in time past. We have arrived at that sorry state, where we have a hanging boycott over every product, awaiting word whether their CEO's donate in a politically correct fashion. The culture war, in that it has made us all acutely aware of every thing we do and its potential political consequences, is a major negative social force. We should be ashamed that we have tainted our lives with so much politics and can't enjoy a lazy Sunday without wondering if we're somehow inadvertently supporting our political foes.
February 20, 2012
One of the best books for understanding how to respond to conflict.
March 13, 2025
This book aims to redefine democracy through the examining of its theories, history, and more. The author does a great job at defining politics and providing ample data to support his thoughts. His examination of politics and democracy in the modern sense gives great knowledge to understanding and making change in current times.
Read
September 20, 2020I only read the first chapter: The contagiousness of conflict
The last part about the dynamics of the expansion of the scope of conflicts was thought-provoking. I am also surprised by how the author merits privacy as an element on which a social institution might be dependent on.
The last part about the dynamics of the expansion of the scope of conflicts was thought-provoking. I am also surprised by how the author merits privacy as an element on which a social institution might be dependent on.
August 9, 2022
Excellent application of conflict theory to explain why some cultural/ideological conflicts become national controversies. The author dissects the dynamics between majority and opposition parties that encourage them to substitute conflicts in order to re-energize ephemeral coalitions.
June 10, 2020
Slightly dated, but very interesting.
March 2, 2022
yay political theory.
September 12, 2009
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!
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!
July 19, 2009
I read this because it has a well known line often quoted out of context: "The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent." One of the book's insights is that the scope of a political conflict goes some way in determining the outcome, but the rich are over-represented at every point of activity. I especially like this paragraph about nonvoters (the numbers are from the mid-50s):
"Loosely, perhaps we have a sociopolitical community consisting of about sixty million newspaper readers, job holders, income-tax payers, automobile owners, householders, and voters. One the other hand, we have about forty million adults in the community who are less likely to possess these tokens of participation and status. Crudely the scope of the political community corresponds to the social facts of life. If the political distinction between voters and nonvoters corresponds to a social distinction between broadly the name segments of the community, it is the most important datum about the political system, much more important than the distinction between Republicans and Democrats."
"Loosely, perhaps we have a sociopolitical community consisting of about sixty million newspaper readers, job holders, income-tax payers, automobile owners, householders, and voters. One the other hand, we have about forty million adults in the community who are less likely to possess these tokens of participation and status. Crudely the scope of the political community corresponds to the social facts of life. If the political distinction between voters and nonvoters corresponds to a social distinction between broadly the name segments of the community, it is the most important datum about the political system, much more important than the distinction between Republicans and Democrats."
March 29, 2011
Considering this is a text for class, I enjoyed the read. It is easy to understand. It proposes the idea that a democracy relies on conflict to function. Schattschneider starts with defining organizations and conflict then starts to apply them to the American democratic process. He spends some time on some case studies, but they are harder to relate to because the book was written about 1960. He spent a lot of time discussing how the two-party system has been a more recent development and how conflict spured that political change. Fascinating, but definitly not something the general public would enjoy, but for people who are public policy minded, this is a good read.
September 7, 2015
Admittedly skipped a chapter or two (as only 3/4 of the book was required by my professor) this guy seems a little skewed in his philosophy of politics. Does he have something against the rich?? Some of his theses are poignant and thought-provoking; conflict definitely gets people/groups activated in the political process. However, he seems to downplay the effect of small-interest groups who I think can have a big influence on politicians and voters.
August 9, 2016
“If it is true that the result of political contests is determined by the scope of public involvement in conflicts, much that has been written about politics becomes nonsense, and we are in for a revolution in our thinking about politics”.
Thought-provoking and at the same time confirming many intuitive considerations. A must-read for anyone interested in the workings and outcomes of political conflict, politics and democracy.
Thought-provoking and at the same time confirming many intuitive considerations. A must-read for anyone interested in the workings and outcomes of political conflict, politics and democracy.
January 19, 2015
Even though this book was written in the 1960s, I still find it is relevant to political thought today. I mean - there still isn't a standard definition of the word and concept "democracy"! Not much has changed. Schattschneider also discusses the role of conflict and business in the overall political scene.
July 5, 2009
Maybe the best book on democratic politics written in the 20th Century. Succinct, epigramatic, and powerful in its analysis. Dissertations could be (and have been) written about dozens of the insights made in the work.
August 30, 2007
An interesting view of how conflict, interest groups, and agenda-setting have affected American politics in the modern era.
September 26, 2016
Democracy is about expanding the scope of conflict.
November 8, 2016
This book was terrible. I hated it. SO difficult to understand but there were a couple good points.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews