Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:24:42.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Class Politics, American-Style

A Discussion of Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned its Back on the Middle Class

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Brian Waddell
Brian Waddell
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.

Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.

In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: Class Politics, American-Style
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 659 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

APSA Task Force Report. 2004. “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 651–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Fred. 1987. Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Block, Fred, and Piven, Frances Fox. 2010. “Déjà Vu, All Over Again: A Comment on Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, ‘Winner-Take-All Politics.’” Politics & Society 38 (2): 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluestone, Barry, and Harrison, Bennett. 1990. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing of America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, and Rogers, Joel. 1983. On Democracy: Toward a Transformation of American Society. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., and Lindblom, Charles E.. 1976. Politics, Economics, and Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William. 1967. Who Rules America? New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William. 2007. “Commentary: C. Wright Mills, Power Structure Research, and the Failures of Mainstream Political Science.” New Political Science 29 (1): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engler, Robert. 1961. The Politics of Oil: Private Power & Democratic Directions. Chicago: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Thomas, and Rogers, Joel. 1987. Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2006. “Inequality, American Democracy, and American Political Science: The Need for Cumulative Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (1): 47–49.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey. 1987. Power and Marxist Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1977. Politics and Markets: The World's Political-Economic Systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1982a. “Another State of Mind.” American Political Science Review 76 (1): 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1982b. “The Market as Prison.” Journal of Politics 44 (2): 324–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luger, Stan. 1999. Corporate Power, American Democracy, and the Automobile Industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, John F. 1983. “Neo-Pluraliam: A Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II.” American Political Science Review 77 (2): 369–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miliband, Ralph. 1969. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox. 2006. “Response to ‘American Democracy in an Age of Inequality.’” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (1): 43–46.Google Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox, and Cloward, Richard, 1982. The New Class War: Reagan's Attack on the Welfare State and Its Consequences. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Plotkin, Sidney, and Scheuerman, William E.. 1994. Private Interests, Public Spending: Balanced-Budget Conservatism and the Fiscal Crisis. Boston: South End.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1980. “Political Response to Capitalist Crisis: Neo-Marxist Theories of the State and the Case of the New Deal.” Politics & Society 10: 151–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Jeffrey A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 2009. “Oligarchy in the United States?” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 731–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar