Diminished Democracy (The Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series) (Volume 8) Paperback – March 15, 2004

Difficult to read but it was for school. Great fast delivery and a great price.

The presentation of the data in the first 200 or so pages was excellent. In the author does a good job showing what the USA has lost in jettisoning its classic membership based civic associations.But the author refuses to consider or is unaware of some causes, effects and solutions to the problem that do not fit in with faculty lounge political chic. For instance, she never considers the possibility that civil rights laws have made our country into a "nation of enemies" to quote Phillip K. Howard. Surely, the government granting citizens the opportunity to sue one another for slights to ethnic pride or whatever had SOMETHING to do with the civic disintegration she describes. Immigration is another issue that might also have something to do with the diminishment of democracy that she decries. Not even touched. That despite social science evidence from Robert Putnam on how diversity diminishes social capital. Many of the old line civic institutions such as the Knights of Pythias or Columbus, etc. were male only. The author makes little no mention of how feminism helped to destroy these institutions. Men have a need to associate with one another in the absence of women. Why is it that the author does nothing to refute my sneaking suspicion that feminists dedicated themselves to suing or otherwise threatening these "bastions of male privilege" if they didn't admit women on the same basis, thereby depriving them of some of their point?Also not touched is the elite obsession with "multiculturalism". If those in the cultural high ground encourage citizens to divide themselves up into squabbling ethnic, racial and sexual minorities, of COURSE there will be civic disintegration. This omission is blaring. But, I would guess only a professor could miss it.Her analysis of public sector unions is utterly laughable. She considers them an important civic institutions that build social cohesiveness, etc. A few years after she has written this, these very same public sector unions are bankrupting towns, municipalities, states, etc. I cannot imagine that this is as great a benefit as Theda had imagined they would be.Not only does the government get off easy in Theda's analysis, but government is an important provider of social capital. If, a benevolent and protective government provides all that Theda thinks it should, what need is there for the Benevolent and Protective order of Elks? That the government might have made the old style civic institutions surplus to requirements is, (obviously, as it's not a faculty lounge issue) not even considered.I admire the author's collecting of the facts, but the author's mind is so addled by political correctness that her analysis is, in a word, stupid.

"Diminished Democracy" is part of the Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series and provides a critical examination of the erosion of democratic principles in contemporary politics. This volume explores how various factors—such as political polarization, institutional dysfunction, and diminished public trust—have impacted the health of democratic systems. Through a series of insightful lectures, the book analyzes the challenges faced by democracies today and offers perspectives on potential reforms and solutions to reinvigorate democratic practices. It serves as a vital resource for understanding the current state of democracy and the pressing issues that threaten its stability.

This book was incredible. I have never read anything so thought-provoking and well-written. I highly suggest that you read this book to fully understand the transition from membership to management in American Civic Life. Enjoy it.

Received book in good order. No problem there. However, the book is boring and overlong, with no conclusion. Readers on this subject can safely skip it.

A very nicely written book that raises several speculations. The author points out that in the 19th century, many of the local groups that people joined were chapters of national or transnational organisations. This was part of their attractiveness. Joining a local group gave comradely ties with others across the nation, that you had never met, and probably would never meet. How peculiar was this to the US, as compared with the European countries from which many of these people recently left? Is there any way to quantify this? A little unfair to ask, perhaps, because of the sheer amount of research needed to flesh it out. But the above questions arise naturally out of the research summarised in the book.Historians have asked if the US was qualitatively different from other countries. ("Vineyard of liberty" etc.) The issues raised by the book give us another way to address the question. Perhaps Americans were more inclined to join such nation spanning groups because as an immigrant, footloose people, if they did not have centuries of binding to the same soil and neighbours, they wanted some other and multiple means of belonging? Was the striking success of the groups in some part due to such inchoate urgings?Another way to test would be to look into the history of similar groups in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.Skocpol also points out that from the 1960s onwards, the membership of such groups in the US fell significantly. She advanced several reasons. But there is one possible reason for some of the decline that she did not mention. From the mid 1950s, TV became pervasive. Remember that joining a volunteer group is done in your recreational time. TV is a notorious competitor for that time, due to its convenience and cheapness. Plus, and more specifically, if one of your reasons (possibly unconscious) for joining a national group is to be part of a larger world, then TV assuages that to some extent. Granted, some of this may be illusory, but so what?