“The great advantage of the American,” Tocqueville once wrote, “is that he has arrived at a state of democracy without having to endure a democratic revolution….” Fundamental as this insight is, we have not remembered Tocqueville for it, and the reason is rather difficult to explain. Perhaps it is because, fearing revolution in the present, we like to think of it in the past, and we are reluctant to concede that its romance has been missing from our lives. Perhaps it is because the plain evidence of the American revolution of 1776, especially the evidence of its social impact that our newer historians have collected, has made the comment of Tocqueville seem thoroughly enigmatic. But in the last analysis, of course, the question of its validity is a question of perspective. Tocqueville was writing with the great revolutions of Europe in mind, and from that point of view the outstanding thing about the American effort of 1776 was bound to be, not the freedom to which it led, but the established feudal structure it did not have to destroy. He was writing too, as no French liberal of the nineteenth century could fail to write, with the shattered hopes of the Enlightenment in mind. The American revolution had been one of the greatest of them all, a precedent constantly appealed to in 1793.

World politics today is admittedly bipolar, and it seems destined to remain so within the foreseeable future. Beset by its sustained tension, Americans have been led to debate, sometimes acrimoniously, the proper foundations, scope, and content of an effective foreign policy. Since presumably the central theme and central purpose of this debate is the definition of what constitutes the American national interest, the first objective is to define the idea of national interest. Thereafter it is necessary to draw proper deductions relevant to the total world situation, and in turn to apply these deductions as policy to the forces there at work. These forces—political, economic, ideological, and military—in their interconnectedness collectively constitute the raw materials for assessment, judgment, planning, and action in our policy-making.

Resultant differences of opinion therefore can take place at different levels. Initially there are vastly divergent concepts of the characteristics of a nation, of the role of nations in the world, and of the nature of interests proper to a nation. The scope of these divergencies is often hidden by our tendency to find in the term “national interest” connotations of particularism, of exclusiveness, of the nation as against, or superior to, the rest of the world.

Contemporary studies of political power have often been based on the belief that the major determinants in the struggle for power may be ascertained by analyzing the social stratification of a society. This belief is supported by the following series of more or less tacit assumptions: The ideas and actions of men are conditioned by their social and economic position in society. When large number of individuals occupy a comparable social position, they may be expected to think and act alike. They are likely to share social and economic interests which are promoted—in competition or conflict with other social groups—through political organization and interest-representation. Hence, a study of politics should be concerned with the social composition of the members and leaders of different political organizations; this kind of knowledge will provide a clue to the power which such organizations can exert and to the political goals which their leaders are likely to pursue.

I wish to examine the relation between stratification and politics in four respects:

(1) How did Marx deal with the problem of social stratification and political power?

(2) What insight into the relation between stratification and politics can be gained from retrospective investigations?

(3) Does a knowledge of social stratification enable us to understand the development of totalitarian movements and their conquest of power?

The chief social values cherished by individuals in modern society are realized through groups. These groupings may be simple in structure, unicellular, so to speak, like a juvenile gang. Or they may be intricate meshes of associated, federated, combined, consolidated, merged, or amalgamated units and subunits of organization, fitted together to perform the divided and assigned parts of a common purpose to which the components are dedicated. They may operate out of the direct public gaze like religious organizations, which tend to have a low degree of visibility. Or they may, like Congress and many other official groups, occupy the front pages for weeks at a time. National organizations are usually conspicuous; indeed, so much is this so at times that they tend to divert the eye from the great number of groups which stand at the elbow of the citizen of every small town. Everywhere groups abound, and they may be examined at close range and from afar.

The literature of many disciplines agrees, as it does sometimes in little else, on the central importance of groups to an understanding of men in their relations with each other.

A good case could be made for the thesis that the election of 1951 was simply the second phase of the election of 1950. Not only were they near in point of time—nineteen months apart—but also the inconclusive nature of the 1950 results left all parties looking toward a second contest the moment the outcome of the first was known. In a sense the whole of the interval between February, 1950, and October, 1951, was a period of electoral campaigning. And to an extent unusual in British politics, the minds both of party leaders and of party members ran continuously on the contest ahead.

This article is a critical description of developments in the governmental machinery for taking economic decisions in Britain between the end of the war in 1945 and October, 1951. The changes known to have been made by the Conservative Government between October, 1951, and May, 1952, are indicated near the end. The word “planning,” is used in the title for the sake of convenience only; there will be no discussion of whether or not the degree of state economic intervention in Britain has been sufficient to qualify as “planning” in a strict sense. The term has now become too much the subject of British party wrangles to have any generally accepted single meaning. However, to use neutral terms, we may say that the machinery to be investigated is that for taking high policy decisions on economic matters in which the Government has decided to intervene, including machinery for seeing that these decisions are compatible with each other.

Less than six years have passed since the Constitution of the Fourth Republic was put into operation, yet every political group in France with the exception of the Communist Party, which has its own special plans for France's future, is currently participating in a movement for constitutional revision. Since July, 1950, no candidate for the post of Prime Minister has neglected to assert in his ministerial declaration the need for constitutional reform. The parties of the Third Force majority of the first legislature of the Fourth Republic set into motion for the first time, in November, 1950, the machinery for the amendment of the Constitution. The momentum which the revisionist movement had already gathered was given greater impetus by the elections of June, 1951, which reinforced markedly the political groups opposed to the Constitution at its inception. These groups had been able to muster only 106 votes in the Second Constituent Assembly of 1946. Later, in the first legislature but after the formation of a Gaullist parliamentary group, their strength rose to approximately 160 seats. And as a result of the elections of June, 1951, the same groups now command 300 seats in the second legislature.

On March 1, 1951, the Administrator of General Services certified that the proposed presidential tenure amendment submitted to the states by Congress in 1947 had been ratified by thirty-six states, thus making it a part of the United States Constitution. Adoption of this proposal, which becomes the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, disposes of an issue that has agitated American politics periodically since the establishment of the Presidency. Hereafter no person will be eligible for a third term as President if he has served two full elective terms or one full elective term plus more than one-half of another term through succession to the office. President Truman, who would otherwise be rendered ineligible for reëlection following completion of his current term, is exempted from the ban by a qualifying clause which excludes from coverage “any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress.”

Hostility to long continuance in office, particularly for executive officers, has been a prominent feature of American political thinking since Revolutionary times. Seven of the original state constitutions, all of which were formulated prior to adoption of the federal Constitution, carried clauses limiting reeligibility of the state chief executive.

The Natural Gas Act of 1938, as amended in 1942, requires natural-gas companies subject to the act to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Power Commission before transporting or selling natural gas in interstate commerce, as well as before acquiring, constructing, or extending facilities for those purposes. The issuance of such certificates is a conventional function of public-utility regulatory bodies, and the Commission has administered it in a conventional manner. The tests developed by the Commission to determine the “public convenience and necessity,” relating primarily to the adequacy of natural gas reserves, physical facilities, financial resources, and market demand, are commonplace standards, framed in the public-utility tradition to fit the economic and physical characteristics of the natural-gas industry. The real importance of the certificate power under the Natural Gas Act lies in the fact that issues raised in proceedings pursuant to it have transcended the scope of these standards, involving no less than an attempt to redefine in the broadest terms the public interest in respect to natural gas.

This report is based upon a survey of research in progress in political science departments of American universities in the spring of 1950. Undertaken jointly by the Committee on Research of the American Political Science Association and the Division of Higher Education of the United States Office of Education, the survey was essentially an analysis of questionnaires sent to the chairmen of 112 departments of political science believed to be in a position that would enable them particularly to emphasize research. Seventy-five of the 112 chairmen replied to the questionnaire, fourteen merely to state that no research was being conducted in their departments. Although several leading institutions did not reply, it is a fair guess that at least seventy-five per cent of the research being conducted by or in departments of political science was reported and subsequently analyzed.

The review is republishing below the findings and recommendations included in the Report recently prepared by the Special Committee on Service Voting of the American Political Science Association and presented to the President of the United States, who submitted it to Congress. The Committee was composed of the following members: Paul T. David, chairman, Robert Cutler, Samuel J. Eldersveld, Bertram M. Gross, Alexander Heard, Edward H. Litchfield, ex officio, Kathryn H. Stone, and William B. Prendergast, secretary.

In a letter of April 7, 1952, to Luther Gulick, President of the Association, President Truman expressed his appreciation for the work of the Committee and of the Association in the following words:

I wish to thank you, and the members of the Special Committee on Service Voting of the American Political Science Association, for the outstanding report on “Voting in the Armed Forces” which you sent me with your recent letter. This report more than fulfills my request to the American Political Science Association for an analysis of the progress made on soldier voting, and recommendations for steps to be taken to see that a maximum number of servicemen vote this year.