Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:11:02.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whither Parties? Hume on Partisanship and Political Legitimacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2017

JOEL E. LANDIS
JOEL E. LANDIS*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
*
Joel E. Landis is a Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work by party scholars reveals a widening gap between the normative ideals we set out for political parties and the empirical evidence that reveals their deep and perhaps insurmountable shortcomings in realizing these ideals. This disjunction invites us to consider the perspective of David Hume, who offers a theory of the value and proper function of parties that is resilient to the pessimistic findings of recent empirical scholarship. I analyze Hume's writings to show that the psychological experience of party informs the opinions by which governments can be considered legitimate. Hume thus invites us to consider the essential role parties might play in securing legitimacy as that ideal is practiced or understood by citizens, independent of the ideal understandings of legitimacy currently being articulated by theorists. My analysis contributes to both recent party scholarship and to our understanding of the role of parties in Hume's theory of allegiance.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 219 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to James F. Adams, Shalini Satkunanandan, John T. Scott, Robert S. Taylor, participants at the Southern Political Science Association's 2017 annual meeting, attendees of the UC Davis Political Theory Workshop, and several anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and critiques. I am indebted to the Bilinski Educational Foundation for their generous support while the work for this article was undertaken.

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2011. “Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties' Policy Statements During Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 370–82.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bader, Veit. 2014. “Crisis of Political Parties and Representative Democracies: Rethinking Parties in Associational, Experimentalist Governance.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 350–76.Google Scholar
Bader, Veit, and Bonotti, Matteo. 2014. “Introduction: Parties, Partisanship and Political Theory.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 253–66.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1989. “Party.” In Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, edited by Ball, Terence, Farr, James and Hanson, Russell L.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 155–76.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.Google Scholar
Bogart, Dan. 2016. “Political Party Representation and Electoral Politics in England and Wales, 1690–1747.” Social Science History 40 (2): 271–303.Google Scholar
Bolingbroke, Henry St. John Viscount. 1997. Political Writings. Edited by Armitage, David. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonotti, Matteo. 2014. “Partisanship and Public Reason.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 314–31.Google Scholar
Buckle, S., and Castiglione, D.. 1991. “Hume's Critique of the Contract Theory.” History of Political Thought 12 (3): 457–80.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Charron, William C. 1980. “Convention, Games of Strategy, and Hume's Philosophy of Law and Government.” American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (4): 327–34.Google Scholar
Cohon, Rachel. 2008. Hume's Morality: Feeling and Fabrication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Wattenberg, Martin P., eds. 2000. Parties Without Partisans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Weldon, Steven A.. 2005. “Public Images of Political Parties: A Necessary Evil?” West European Politics 28 (5): 931–51.Google Scholar
Danford, John W. 2006. “Getting Our Bearings: Machiavelli and Hume.” In Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy, edited by Rahe, Paul. New York: Cambridge University Press, 94–120.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2009. Disconnect: the Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Mounk, Yascha. 2016. “The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of Democracy 27 (3): 5–17.Google Scholar
Forbes, Duncan. 1975. Hume's Philosophical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1979. “David Hume, Contractarian.” The Philosophical Review 88 (1): 3–38.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts & Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, Knud. 1981. The Science of a Legislator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, Knud. 2009. “The Structure of Hume's Political Theory.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hume, edited by Norton, David Fate and Taylor, Jacqueline. New York: Cambridge University Press, 341–80.Google Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2007. David Hume: Moral and Political Theorist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herdt, Jennifer A. 1997. Religion and Faction in Hume's Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, B. W. 1976. The Growth of Parliamentary Parties 1689–1742. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Hont, Istvan. 1994. “Commercial Society and Political Theory in the 18th Century: the Problem of Authority in David Hume and Adam Smith.” In Main Trends in Cultural History, Ten Essays, edited by Melching, Willem and Velema, Wyger. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V., 54–94.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1932. The Letters of David Hume, Volume 1. Edited by Greig, J.Y.T.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1970. The History of Great Britain: The Reigns of James I and Charles I. Edited by Forbes, Duncan. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1983. The History of England, From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1985. Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary. Edited by Miller, Eugene F.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1998. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L., Norton, David Fate, and Stewart, M. A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 2007. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Invernizzi-Accetti, Carlo, and Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2017. “The Crisis of Party Democracy, Cognitive Mobilization, and the Case for Making Parties More Deliberative.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 97–109.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2014. “Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, James. 2006. “Political Parties and Deliberative Democracy?” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William. London: SAGE Publications, 47–50.Google Scholar
Kramnick, Isaac. 1968. Bolingbroke and His Circle: the Politics of Nostalgia in the Age of Walpole. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention: a Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, Donald W. 1984. Hume's Philosophy of Common Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. Florentine Histories. Translated by Banfield, Laura F. and Mansfield, Harvey C.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1996. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Mansfield, Harvey C. and Tarcov, Nathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1998. The Prince. Translated by Mansfield, Harvey C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Harvey C. 1965. Statesmanship and Party Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Manzer, Robert A. 2001. “A Science of Politics: Hume, the Federalist, and the Politics of Constitutional Attachment.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 508.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2005. “The Rhetoric of Rebellion in Hume's Constitutional Thought.” The Review of Politics 67 (02): 257–82.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2015. Hume and the Politics of Enlightenment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 1981. Philosophy and Ideology in Hume's Political Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell. 2006. “A Defense of Party Spirit.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (4): 713–27.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell. 2010. “Can Deliberative Democracy Be Partisan?” Critical Review 22 (2–3): 129–57.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell. 2014. The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell, and Rosenblum, Nancy L.. 2006. “Political Liberalism vs. ‘the Great Game of Politics’: The Politics of Political Liberalism.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (1): 99–108.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Good and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, Nicholas. 1989. Hume. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Limited.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, Caroline. 1958. “‘Discordant Parties’: A Study of the Acceptance of Party by Englishmen.” Political Science Quarterly 73 (4): 505–29.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of Angels: an Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2012. Hume's Politics: Coordination and Crisis in the History of England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sagar, Paul. 2016. “The State Without Sovereignty: Authority and Obligation in Hume's Political Philosophy.” History of Political Thought 37 (2): 271–305.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 2015. Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
Stewart, John B. 1992. Opinion and Reform in Hume's Political Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 2008. Free Riding. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Biezen, Ingrid, Mair, Peter, and Poguntke, Thomas. 2012. “Going, Going, . . . Gone? the Decline of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 24–56.Google Scholar
Van Biezen, Ingrid, and Saward, Michael. 2008. “Democratic Theorists and Party Scholars: Why They Don't Talk to Each Other, and Why They Should.” Perspectives on Politics 6 (1): 21–35.Google Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 1985. Order and Artifice in Hume's Political Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 1994. “Hume and Contractarianism.” Polity 27 (2): 201–24.Google Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 2004. Hume and Machiavelli: Political Realism and Liberal Thought. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan, and Ypi, Lea. 2011. “On Partisan Political Justification.” American Political Science Review 105 (02): 381–96.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan, and Ypi, Lea. 2016. The Meaning of Partisanship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiteley, Paul F. 2011. “Is the Party Over? the Decline of Party Activism and Membership Across the Democratic World.” Party Politics 17 (1): 21–44.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.