Russell D. Murphy

The Mayoralty and the Democratic Creed The Evolution of an Ideology and an Institution

The democratic creed is as ambiguous as it is ambitious, and this affords political elites numerous opportunities to maneuver for strategic policy advantage. One target of these maneuvers is the electoral process, and those who lose, or expect to lose, in this arena are free to seek changes in the formal rules of the game-to alter election procedures or to limit the scope of voter participation-in ways they believe will maximize their substantive interests. The mayoralty is a case in point. Throughout its brief history, the operative meaning of mayoral leadership has varied considerably, and much of this variation has been the result of elite efforts to capitalize on the ambiguities of the democratic creed. Debates over the existence of the mayoralty, the scope of its authority, and its role in urban governance all have been influenced by struggles over the meaning of electoral politics, and these struggles, in turn, have often been prompted by strategic policy calculations. It was thus at the beginning, and, mutatis mutandis, it is thus today.

People and Pedagogues: E. E. Schattschneider and the Democratic Creed

This is the 50th anniversary of E. E. Schattschneiders Party Government , that eloquent and influential manifesto, first published in 1942, celebrating party government and popular rule. It is also an occasion to recall one of the pioneers in the profession, and to reflect on his contributions to the development of political science as an intellectual discipline. I have been asked to comment, albeit briefly, on Schattschneiders public philosophy, and, less grandly, on his notion of citizenship and citizen education—a daunting task, at best. I say this because Schattschneiders views are widely known and widely cited, as even a cursory glance at entries in recent editions of the Social Science Citation Index reveals. And he writes in a style that is eloquent and accessible, and leaves little doubt in the readers mind about where he stands on issues. As a result, any commentary on his views runs the risk of either stating what everyone already knows, or, worse yet, mis-stating it.