“Responsiveness,” “responsibility,” and “majority rule” comprise a trio of terms that are basic to the discipline of political science, and particularly to the analysis of democratic political institutions; yet so undeveloped is our science that they represent apples of discord rather than areas of agreement. Where we should have clear concepts for scientific analysis, we are confronted rather with thought receptacles whose unexplored ambiguities constitute standing solicitations to fallacy—solicitations, it may be added, that receive a bountiful response. In view of this situation, it is little wonder that, when we go beyond description to evaluation, we find the doctors in violent disagreement. This article is not limited to definitions. The writer takes a stand on more than one of the issues that plague and divide students of the democratic political process. It is written, therefore, not only in the firm belief that terms ought to be defined, but also with the conviction that in this case an analysis of meanings will lead almost automatically to a resolution of some of the mooted issues, while contributing substantially to a rational appraisal of others.
[1]
Willmoore Kendall.
Prolegomena to any Future Work on Majority Rule
,
1950,
The Journal of Politics.
[2]
Eva J. Ross,et al.
Freedom Under Planning.
,
1945
.
[3]
A. Lindsay.
The Essentials of democracy
,
1929
.
[4]
W. Lippmann.
The Phantom Public
,
1925
.
[5]
J. O'brian.
National Security and Individual Freedom
,
1956
.
[6]
Julius Turner,et al.
Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress
,
1952
.
[7]
R. B. Mccallum,et al.
The British general election of 1992
,
1947
.
[8]
Marver H. Bernstein,et al.
Congress Makes a Law
,
1950
.