Consensus and Ideology in American Politics

TLDR

Consensus has traditionally been viewed as a cornerstone of democracy, yet recent scholarship suggests that democratic vitality may depend more on the views and actions of a politically active elite than on widespread popular agreement. Empirical studies by Prothro and Grigg, Dahl, and Stouffer indicate that agreement on democratic fundamentals is limited, varies with political engagement, and that stability may rely on elite acceptance rather than mass consensus.

Abstract

The belief that consensus is a prerequisite of democracy has, since deTocqueville, so often been taken for granted that it is refreshing to find the notion now being challenged. Prothro and Grigg, for example, have questioned whether agreement on “fundamentals” actually exists among the electorate, and have furnished data which indicate that it may not. Dahl, reviewing his study of community decision-makers, has inferred that political stability does not depend upon widespread belief in the superiority of democratic norms and procedures, but only upon their acceptance . From the findings turned up by Stouffer, and by Prothro and Grigg, he further conjectures that agreement on democratic norms is greater among the politically active and aware—the “political stratum” as he calls them—than among the voters in general. V. O. Key, going a step further, suggests that the viability of a democracy may depend less upon popular opinion than upon the activities and values of an “aristocratic” strain whose members are set off from the mass by their political influence, their attention to public affairs, and their active role as society's policy makers. “If so, any assessment of the vitality of a democratic system should rest on an examination of the outlook, the sense of purpose, and the beliefs of this sector of society.”