Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:07:28.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schematic Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

H. Mark Roelofs
H. Mark Roelofs*
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Can philosophically inclined political scientists, as well as quantifying behavioralists, use diagrams? Of course … and have at least since Plato depicted Socrates drawing lines in the sand below the walls of Athens. Nothing will more quickly or comprehensively convey the relationships between the elements within a complex idea than a carefully constructed, skillfully rendered schematic diagram.

A few years back, I published a book on American politics (Roelofs 1992b). Some readers found it interesting, but others seemed unable to credit—much less to critique— its central claim: to have presented a detailed, integrated, and comprehensive account of the American political system as a conceptual whole. Apparently, for these readers, my argument was so extended, the elements to be connected within it so numerous (and sometimes individually so strange), they simply lost sight of my overall intent.

In a phenomenological perspective, the American political system, viewed comprehensively, is an Idea, extraordinarily complex, and filled with ingenious devices as well as major contradictions and paradoxes. Yet it is still a single system, as the diagram I have now developed to illustrate the argument of my book (Figure 1) attempts to show.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 168 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1996

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

Adams, John. 1851. “Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.” in Works of John Adams, ed. Adams, Charles. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Adams, John. 1900. “Thoughts on Government, in a Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend.” in, Letters of John Adams, Vol. 1, ed. Adams, Charles. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1962. The Politics of Aristotle. Trans. Barker, Ernest. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, Arthur. 1949. The Process of Government. Evanston, IL: Principle Press of Illinois.Google Scholar
Cushman, Robert. 1984. Cases in Constitutional Law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Elder, Shirley, and Ornstein, Norman. 1978. Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Policy-making. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. 1982. The Federalist Papers. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1990. The Symbolic Presidency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold, and Kaplan, Abraham. 1950. Power and Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, and Ornstein, Norman. 1981. The New Congress. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles Louis. 1977. The Spirit of the Laws. ed. Wallace, D.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Northcote, Sir Stafford, and SirTrevelyan, Charles. 1855. “Report of the Commission of the Civil Service.” Parliamentary Papers, vol. XX.Google Scholar
Plato. 1971. Plato's Meno. Trans. Guthrie, W.K.C., Brown, Malcolm, ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Roelofs, H. Mark. 1992a. “The Prophetic Presidency.” Polity 24:2–20.Google Scholar
Roelofs, H. Mark. 1992b. The Poverty of American Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Roelofs, H. Mark. 1994. “Two Ways to Political Science: Critical and Descriptive.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27(2):264–268.Google Scholar
Rossiter, Clinton. 1962. Presidential Power. New York: Scientific Editions.Google Scholar
Taylor, Robert J., ed. 1961. “Massachusettes Constitution.” In Massachusettes, Colony to Commonwealth. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Truman, David. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Tullis, Jeffrey. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1983. Max Weber on Capitalism, Bureaucracy and Religion. Trans. and ed. Andreski, S.. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q., and Dilulio, John J. 1995. American Government: Institutions and Policies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar