50
RICE UNIVERSITY STUDIES
172. On the "end of ideology,” see the exchange between Joseph La Palombara
and Seymour Lipset in the American Political Science Review, LX. No. 1 (March,
1966). 5-18, 110-111. See also François Mauriac. De Gaulle (Paris. 1964), whose sole
regret regarding de Gaulle is that Gaullism seems to be focused mainly on material
progress (pp. 341, 344-345).
173. The concept of the “catchall” party is developed in Otto Kirchheimer, “The
Transformation of the Western European Party Systems,” in Joseph La Palombara
and Myron Weiner (eds.), Political Parties anil Political Development (Princeton,
1966), pp. 177-200. On the increasing resemblance between European and American
parties, see also Leon Epstein. Political Parties in Western Democracies (New York,
1967).
174. D. E. Butler and Anthony King, The British General Election of 1964 (Lon-
don, 1964), p. 296; Robert Alford. Party anil Society (Chicago, 1963), pp. 348-349;
and Arnold Heidenheimer, The Governments of Germany (2d ed., New York, 1966),
p. 108.
175. Stanley Hoffmann, "De Gaulle's Memoirs: The Hero in History," World
Politics, XHl, No. 1 (October, 1960), 145.
176. I would agree with Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell (Comparative Poli-
tics: A Developmental Approach [Boston. 1966] ) that the catchall party contributes
to interest aggregation. Even in Britain, however, the parties’ search for the maxi-
mum number of votes results in campaign pronouncements so vague that the real
task of compromising conflicting demands is left to ministers and civil servants.
Nonetheless, the American. British, and German catchall parties do provide channels
of access through which interests may make their case to parliamentary and govern-
mental leaders. On this question see Howard A. Scarrow, "The Function of Political
Parties: A Critique of the Literature and the Approach,” Journal of Politics, XXIX,
No. 4 (November, 1967), 782; Samuel Beer, British Politics in the Collectivist Age
(New York, 1965). especially Chapter 12; and Samuel Eldersveld. "American Inter-
est Groups,” in Henry W. Ehrmann (ed.), Interest Groups on Four Continents (Pitts-
burgh, 1958), pp. 173-196.
177. McKenzie, British Political Parties: and Gerhard Loewenberg, Parliament in
the German Political System (Ithaca, N. Y., 1966), especially Chapter 6.
178. On authority patterns in French society, see Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic
Phenomenon (Chicago. 1964); and Stanley Hoffmann, "Heroic Leadership: The Case
of Modern France,” in Lewis J. Edinger (ed.), Political Leadership in Industrialized
Societies (New York. 1967), pp. 108-154.
179. Sondages, No. 3 (1964). “Les Institutions et la vic politique,” pp. 35-36.
180. Ibid., No. 2 (1963), “La Vie politique de mai 1961 à septembre 1963,” p. 85.
181. Ibid., p. 86.
182. Ibid., No. 3 (1964), "La Vie politique d'octobre 1963 à octobre 1964,” p. 13;
and ibid., No. 4 (1965), Michel Brule. “Les Français et Ie mandat présidentiel,” p. 44.
183. See Mitterand’s statement to the Assises of the Convention des Institutions
Républicaines, in LM, March 26. 1968. On the importance of achieving a constitu-
tional consensus, see the perceptive articles of René Capitant, “Fonder une répub-
lique ou fonder un parti?” and "La Structure de la majorité.” in Notre République,
February 11 and 18, 1966.
184. Karl W. Dcutsch et al., France, Germany and the Western Alliance (New
York, 1967), pp. 41, 44-56.
185. Lawrencc Wylie, "Social Change at the Grass Roots,” in Hoffmann et al., In