Ȃȅȃ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophy
What accounts for changes in the political system over the past few
decades? Ehrenhalt makes or hints at several suggestions. Skill in commu-
nicating—in town meetings, in door-to-door canvassing, on television, in
direct-mail literature—has gained in importance (p.ȀȈ). “Ļe more cam-
paigning becomes a science unto itself, the more public offices and rewards
flow to people who have mastered its details” (p.ȁǿȅ).
Air conditioning and jet planes helped change the character of Con-
gress. More so than before, serving in it can and must be a year-round, full-
time occupation; yet members can keep in touch with their constituents.
But long weekends back in the district, together with heavier work loads,
have further eroded camaraderie among the members (p.ȁȂȃin particu-
lar). On local as well as congressional levels, an explosion in staffing has
changed the legislative process, making legislatures both more competent
and more active (p.ȀȂȇ).
Redistricting under theȀȈȅȁSupreme Court decision and the civil-
rights movement contributed to opening up the political system. Changed
convention rules and the increased importance of primaries have altered
the presidential race. Vietnam and Watergate created opportunities for
antiestablishment, antiorganization types (pp.ȀȄȁ,ȁǿȈ–ȁȀǿ).
Some of these points, obviously, are just as much features as expla-
nations of the new system and require explanation themselves. Ehrenhalt
does not, and does not claim to, provide anything approaching a full, well-
articulated, persuasive explanation.
Still, he has made a praiseworthy contribution to political science. It
meshes nicely with the work of public-choice economists. Perhaps more
academically oriented researchers will build on his work, figuring out, for
example, how to obtain statistics on the personal characteristics of politi-
cians and how to test his insights in ingenious ways.
Ļe book’s two final paragraphs state a brief conclusion. Our political
system is deficient in leadership, discipline, and the willingness to seek
accommodation of divergent personal preferences. It generates a politics
of posturing and stalemate. Yet it will not do simply to blame ambitious
professional politicians for “this mess”:
We understand more than we might like to admit about city councils
that can’t defer to leadership; about state legislatures where every indi-
vidual is a faction unto himself; about a Congress that lacks any sort of
meaningful community among its members. We understand these prob-
lems, or should, because they are all around us in American life. For all