AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION. Toward a More Responsible Two-party System. A Report of the Committee on Political Parties (supplement to American Political Science Review, September, 1950). Pp. xi, 99. Washington, 1950, and New York: Rinehart & Company, 1950. $1.00

• DOI: 10.1177/000271625127400147
• Author: Arthur Schlesinger
• Published date: 01 March 1951
• Date: 01 March 1951
• Subject Matter: Articles

222

and

creativity.

He

has

both

fears

and

hopes,

the

latter

being

based

upon

con-

fidence

in

our

scientific

techniques

for

measuring

what

is

happening

to

the

qual-

ities

referred

to

and

in

our

educational

techniques

for

correcting

any

adverse

trends.

J.

ROLAND

PENNOCK

Swarthmore

College

AMERICAN

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

ASSOCIATION.

Toward

a

More

Responsible

Two-party

System.

A

Report

of

the

Committee

on

Political

Parties

(supplement

to

Amer-

ican

Political

Science

Review,

September,

1950).

Pp.

xi,

99.

Washington,

1950,

and

New

York:

Rinehart

&

Company,

1950.

$1.00.

This

report

represents

the

results

of

four

years’

study

and

meditation

upon

our

party

system

by

a

committee

of

the

American

Political

Science

Association.

American

parties,

the committee

observes,

&dquo;operate

as

two

loose

associations

of

state

and

local

organizations,

with

very

little

national

ma-

chinery

and

very

little

national

cohesion.&dquo;

The

result,

it

argues,

is

a

system

danger-

ously

inadequate

to

the

requirements

of

responsible

national

government

in

the

twentieth

century.

The

committee’s

ob-

jective

is

to

transform

the

present

sprawl-

ing

and

illogical

setup

into

a

centralized

and

logical

system

which

will

define

alterna-

tive

policies

with

clarity

and

will

guarantee

their

execution

through

improved

means

of

party

discipline.

In

detail,

the

committee’s

recommenda-

tions

project

a

formidable

new

administra-

tive

apparatus

to

be

imposed

upon

our

present

system.

Prominent

among

many

proposals

is

a

Party

Council,

made

up

of

fifty

top

national

and

state

leaders,

meeting

at

least

four

times

a

year

to

consider

issues

of

policy.

The

National

Convention

should

become

a

genuine

organ

of

party

delibera-

tion,

meeting

biennially,

and

drawing

up

national

platforms

at

each

meeting.

With-

in

Congress,

party

members

should

be

bound

by

the

party

caucus

and

&dquo;expect

dis-

approval&dquo;

when

they

disregard

the

caucus

decision.

The

best

way

perhaps

to

bring

the

rather

elaborate

blueprint

down

to

reality

is

to

ask

a

few

specific

questions.

How

could

a

majority

of

the

Party

Council

conceivably

bind

President

Truman

or

Senator

Taft

to

policy

decisions?

How

is

the

party

or-

ganization

to

exhibit

its

&dquo;disapproval&dquo;

of

mavericks

and

dissenters?

Indeed,

more

fundamentally,

around which

issues

is

the

party

to

be

organized?

If

the

proposed

system

had

gone

into

effect

in

1938,

should

the

criteria

have

been

Roosevelt’s

domestic

policy

or

his

foreign

policy?

What

should

the

criteria

be

today?

Should

Dewey

be

a

Democrat,

and,

if

not,

what

should

Hoover

be?

Across

the

blueprint

there

evidently

falls

the

shadow

of

an

infatuation

with

the

British

party

system

(as

it is

understood

or

misunderstood

in

the

United

States).

The

committee’s

proposals

could

hardly

work

without

a

reorganization

of

our

parties

on

taut

ideological

lines.

Yet

one

must

ques-

tion

(as

the

report

never

does)

not

only

whether

such

a

reorganization

is

feasible,

but

also

whether

it is

desirable.

May

not

our

existing

system

be

better suited

to

the

genius

of

a

country

considerably

more

far-

flung,

diverse

and

heterogeneous

than

Brit-

ain ?

Is

not

the

fact

that

each

party

has

a

liberal

and

conservative

wing

a

genuine

source

of

national

strength

and

cohesion?

The

result

is,

of

course,

that

no

group

can

have

the

desperate

feeling

that

all

options

are

foreclosed,

all

access

to

power

barred,

by

the

victory

of

the

opposition:

there

will

always

be

somebody

in

a

Democratic

ad-

ministration

on

whose

shoulders

business

can

weep,

and

even

a

Republican

adminis-

tration

will

have

somewhere

a

refuge

for

labor.

If

the

party

division

were

strictly

ideological,

each

presidential

election

would

subject

national

unity

to

a

fearful

test.

We

must

remember

that

the

one

election

when

our

parties

stood

irrevocably

on

ques-

tions

of

principle

was

the

election

of

1860.

ARTHUR

SCHLESINGER,

JR.

Harvard

University

OGLE,

MARBURY

BLADEN,

JR.

Public

Opin-

ion

and

Political

Dynamics.

Pp.

xvi,

362.

Boston:

Houghton

Mifflin

Company,

1950.

$3.50.

This

text

differs

in

several

important

re-

spects

from

others

in

the

field

of

public

opinion.

It

is

shorter

than

most,

and

the

treatment

of

familiar

topics

is

quite

sum-