Achen and Bartels’ Democracy for Realists shakes the assumptions underlying the democratic foundation on which we’ve build our country. With a career's worth of research and knowledge they strongly argue that our romantic idea of democracy in fact does not produce responsive government and never will do so. They assert that rule “by the people” is an irresponsible way to run a state--our current electorate is disinterested, uninformed, and irrational, and should not be trusted to decide the fate of our country.
While Achen and Bartels cover a wide range of theories and criticisms of democracy, a central aspect of Democracy for Realists tears down the idea of rule “by the people”. Rule by the masses is a key facet of what Achen and Bartels call the “folk theory of democracy”(Achen & Bartels Pg. 21). This folk theory is comprised of our romanticist view of democracy within a society; every voter has specific set of preferences on policy issues, and votes for the candidate who most conforms with these preferences. Political parties are assumed to respond to the demands of the electorate in order to increase their chances of …show more content…
“Welfare” clearly had deeply negative connotations for many Americans, probably because it stimulated rather different mental images than “assistance to the poor” (Gilens 1999)” (Achen & Bartels Pg.31). These huge fluctuations in preferences show how unstable American voters were on their policy stances, and were not well enough informed to know “welfare” and “assistance to the poor” are
While Achen and Bartels cover a wide range of theories and criticisms of democracy, a central aspect of Democracy for Realists tears down the idea of rule “by the people”. Rule by the masses is a key facet of what Achen and Bartels call the “folk theory of democracy”(Achen & Bartels Pg. 21). This folk theory is comprised of our romanticist view of democracy within a society; every voter has specific set of preferences on policy issues, and votes for the candidate who most conforms with these preferences. Political parties are assumed to respond to the demands of the electorate in order to increase their chances of …show more content…
“Welfare” clearly had deeply negative connotations for many Americans, probably because it stimulated rather different mental images than “assistance to the poor” (Gilens 1999)” (Achen & Bartels Pg.31). These huge fluctuations in preferences show how unstable American voters were on their policy stances, and were not well enough informed to know “welfare” and “assistance to the poor” are