Passions and Interests

As the troubled twentieth century nears its end, democracy and competitive political parties are receiving renewed attention.

Bridging analysis of political parties and political philosophy, Passions and Interests presents eight conceptual models of political parties with particular relevance to American democracy. Gerald Pomper, an internationally recognized scholar, asks three questions: What meanings are attributed to parties? Empirically, to what extent do American parties fit these concepts? How well do these different models serve democratic interests?

The analysis encompasses a broad range of individuals, including party theorists from Michels to Downs, practitioners such as Martin Van Buren and Woodrow Wilson, and political philosophers from Burke to Lenin. Beginning with Madison's definition, Pomper views parties as varying combinations of passions and interests. He examines, both empirically and normatively, models of party as bureaucratic organization, governing caucus, cause advocate, ideological community, social movement, urban machine, rational office-seeking team, and personal faction.

In further explorations, he analyzes these party models in the light of the historical record and empirical data on American voting behavior, then compares them to proposals for party reform in the United States. In conclusion, Pomper evaluates the contributions of U.S. political parties to democratic values and presents a program to strengthen the parties as institutions of American democracy.

"The growth of political parties and the extension of democracy proceed along parallel tracks," Pomper contends. "Competitive political parties facilitate, although they do not guarantee, a considerable measure of popular involvement, control, and policy determination. Without them, government is more likely to evidence authoritarianism, violence, and repression."

Books on American parties have been faulted for being atheoretical. Gerald Pomper seeks to rectify this deficiency by generating models of party which he then compares against the American practice. He employs three dimensions -- mass or elite focus, collective or coalitional goals, instrumental or expressive modes -- to generate eight types of party. There are curiosities in the sources of the models. The party as bureaucratic organization is derived from Michels and Van Buren.

The former was a critic of the influence exerted by party officials, the latter was an advocate of organization not bureaucracy. European examples are confined to British responsible parties, Michels's interpretation of the SPD and the Leninist vanguard. Pomper recognizes that the tight legal regulation of American parties and the intrusion of voters into candidate selection deprives American parties of the autonomy characterisitic of every model. Candidates' independence has made parties into a collection of ...