Stealth Democracy Revisited: Reconsidering Preferences for Less Visible Government

• DOI: 10.1177/1065912917712478
• Date: 01 September 2017
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917712478

Political Research Quarterly

2017, Vol. 70(3) 687 –698

© 2017 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912917712478

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Introduction

Understanding public preferences for governing pro-

cesses is an understudied area of research. This perspec-

tive contends that it is the means by which policies are

made that shape citizens’ perceptions of the government

rather than the actual policy outputs themselves. Yet one

general criticism of the literature is that processes have

been poorly conceptualized by scholars (Hibbing, Theiss-

Morse, and Whitaker 2009, 162). This inquiry critically

evaluates a core component of a controversial process

perspective: stealth democracy and preferences for

experts. I carefully delineate the assumptions made about

expert preferences and address the claims made by John

R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse (2002, 141) in

their seminal book, Stealth Democracy, which suggests

that people want to defer to nonelected actors, such as

independent experts or a bureaucratic elite, to promote a

level of efficiency and effectiveness within the govern-

ment that self-serving elected officials cannot provide.

There is much to be gained from a more thorough

analysis of the assumptions surrounding expert prefer-

ences. Given the overwhelming skepticism of politicians

and the era of delegating responsibility to unelected indi-

viduals, it is imperative that we understand how prefer-

ences for “expertise” map out in a democracy. Knowing

more about expertise and its assumptions could poten-

tially illuminate whether these sentiments will shape

future expectations for politicians and the government

generally1 (Meier 1997; S. M. Miller 2013, 888–89).

Expertise is certainly a legitimate and necessary com-

ponent of democratic government. Expert-based bureau-

cratic agencies, for instance, execute policy and provide a

set of standard operating procedures that are essential to

efficient governance. However, processes grounded in

reliance on experts also stand in contrast to how the pub-

lic perceives classic democratic participation. The extant

literature on process preferences has not yet sufficiently

defined these assumptions, leaving us with little idea

about the degree to which citizens prefer alternatives that

require less citizen participation.1

I reconsider the underlying assumptions about experts

and institutional processes using original questions I placed

on the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study

(CCES). Recent scholarship recognizes that the original

712478PRQXXX10.1177/1065912917712478Political Research QuarterlyVanderMolen

research-article2017

1University of Tampa, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kathryn VanderMolen, University of Tampa, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd.,

Tampa, FL 33606, USA.

Email: kvandermolen@ut.edu

Stealth Democracy Revisited:

Reconsidering Preferences for

Less Visible Government

Kathryn VanderMolen1

Abstract

Understanding public preferences for governing processes is an understudied area of research. In this paper, I evaluate

a set of critical assumptions relating to process preferences that the literature has thus far not addressed. I specifically

address the claims made by John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse in their seminal book, Stealth Democracy, which

suggests that people prefer political decisions to be made via expert-based governing arrangements to promote a level

of efficiency and effectiveness within the government that elected officials cannot provide. Using original questions

from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, I find concurring evidence that citizens are not strongly

attached to standard participatory processes found in democracy. However, upon using more precise measurements

and placing expert processes into contemporary context, preferences weaken and appear to be shallow in nature.

In an era where process preferences are receiving more attention as trust in government wanes, it is important to

understand the depth of these preferences and their potential to change politics. These results suggest it is imperative

for future scholars to approach the study of process preferences with care.

Keywords

public opinion, democratic participation, process preferences, stealth democracy