Party Responsibility - a Critical Inquiry

• Author: Herbert Sonthoff,Murray S. Stedman
• Date: 01 September 1951
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400305
• Published date: 01 September 1951
• Subject Matter: Articles

454

PARTY

RESPONSIBILITY - A

CRITICAL

INQUIRY

MURRAY

S.

STEDMAN,

JR.,

AND HERBERT

SONTHOFF

Swarthmore

College

NTEREST

IN

THE

QUESTION

of

reorganization

of

American

politi-

cal

parties

is

probably

at

an

all-time

high.

Since

the

end

of

World

War

II,

most

of

the

dozen

or

more

new

books

dealing

with

Congress

have

touched

on

the

problem;

and

innumerable

books

and

articles

have

dealt

with

the

parties

and

the

problem

directly.

The

Report

of

the

Com-

mittee

on

Political

Parties

of

the

American

Political

Science

Association

is

one

of

the

most

recent

contributions.’

It

suggests

the

need

for

more

centralized

parties,

and

rests

its

arguments

on

assumptions

usually

made

by

proponents

of

such

reform.

Some

of

these

assumptions

will

be

examined

in

this

article

and

frequent

reference

made

to

the

Report.

The

purpose,

however,

is

to

approach

the

study

of

these

assumptions

broadly,

rather

than

merely

to

center

attention

upon

the

Report.

’

I

There

may

be

wide

agreement

with

the

Report’s

assumption

that

the

present

two

party

system is

irresponsible,

although

the

precise

meaning

of

&dquo;irresponsible&dquo;

may

vary

greatly.

Yet

the

essence

of

the

assumption

is

that

the

American

party

system

is

an

inadequate

mechanism

for

translating

popular

wishes

into

action

or

specific

policy.

This

charge

rests

on

several

beliefs

which

are

open

to

considerable

doubt.

It

assumes

that

the

problem

of

popular

responsibility

is

largely

the

mechanical

one

of

organization,

i.e.,

that

responsibility

is

&dquo;effective&dquo;

only

when

there

exist

clear

lines

of

responsibility.2

If,

as

the

allegation

presupposes,

responsibility

is

a

matter

of

discipline,

it

becomes

a

fairly

narrow

and

rigid

premise.

There

is

also

an

implied

assumption

that

majority

rule

is

preferable

to

consensus

rule,

and

that

anything

less

than

majority

rule

is,

in

a

techni-

cal

sense,

irresponsible.

It

is

presumably

held,

therefore,

that

a

majority

established

by

consensus,

either

as

legislative

or

sectional

consensus,

is

not

true

majority

rule

and

is

hence

irresponsible.

This

argument

is

tenable

only

if

we

identify

majority

rule

with

majority

party

rule.

Such

an

identification,

however,

raises

the

central

problem

of

popular

government.

Is

it

empirically

true

that

all

sectional

interests

are

increasingly

negligible?

1

"Toward

A

More

Responsible

Two-Party

System."

Supplement

to

The

American

Political

Science

Review,

Vol.

XLIV,

No.

3 (September,

1950),

hereafter

referred

to

as

Report.

2

"Party

responsibility

is

the

responsibility

of

both

parties

to

the

general

public,

as

enforced

in

elections.

Party

responsibility

to

the

public,

enforced

in

elections,

implies

that

there

be

more

than

one

party,

for

the

public

can

hold

a

party

responsible

only

if

it

has

a

choice....

Party

responsibility

also

includes

the

responsibility

of

party

leaders

to

the

party

membership,

as

enforced

in

primaries,

caucuses

and

conventions."

Report,

p.

2.