The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy by Seth E. Masket is a book I chose based on a New York Times Op-Ed that included the author. I thought that the editorial had merit and since I have been a proponent of a third party, the title of this book caught my eye. When I saw it was published by Oxford University Press, I thought it was worth the time to read it. As I started this blog post, I came to find out that Dr. Masket is the head of the Political Science Department at the University of Denver. He is also similar in appearance to Paul Ryan:
Started: 3/17/2018
Completed: Never
Recommended by: loosely, the NYT
Recommendation: Do not waste your time
Words for which I needed help:
endogenous -- having an intellectual cause or origin
Review:
I really wanted to read this book. It is really annoying me. It feels like the professor has cherry picked his statistics (for example, one of his early charts shows that $4M less went to a party and that about $4M more went into a 508(c)(4)...he then explains that it is $4M for Senate campaigns and that there was no senate campaign when the reduced amount appears). His own charts, graphs, and arguments fight against themselves. Another example, he argues that there was a genuine effort to reform the effects of parties (whom, he asserts, controlled the legislature for their own gain), then points out how unlikely such a genuine reform is (it would require the legislature--controlled by the parties--to vote for something against the party's best interests). He then goes on to argue that the reform was ineffective (big surprise, if it really wasn't a reform that would hurt party interest). Instead of concluding that reform cannot be enacted by legislatures controlled by parties, he argues that parties always find a way around he legislation that is enacted. Well, big surprise, the legislation is written to let that happen. He then coasts through example after example of how this is true. I find the lack of logic, the cherry-picking of statistics, and the conclusions unworthy of the Oxford University Press. So disappointing.
I really wanted to read this book. It is really annoying me. It feels like the professor has cherry picked his statistics (for example, one of his early charts shows that $4M less went to a party and that about $4M more went into a 508(c)(4)...he then explains that it is $4M for Senate campaigns and that there was no senate campaign when the reduced amount appears). His own charts, graphs, and arguments fight against themselves. Another example, he argues that there was a genuine effort to reform the effects of parties (whom, he asserts, controlled the legislature for their own gain), then points out how unlikely such a genuine reform is (it would require the legislature--controlled by the parties--to vote for something against the party's best interests). He then goes on to argue that the reform was ineffective (big surprise, if it really wasn't a reform that would hurt party interest). Instead of concluding that reform cannot be enacted by legislatures controlled by parties, he argues that parties always find a way around he legislation that is enacted. Well, big surprise, the legislation is written to let that happen. He then coasts through example after example of how this is true. I find the lack of logic, the cherry-picking of statistics, and the conclusions unworthy of the Oxford University Press. So disappointing.
