What Happened to the Vital Center?

Presidentialism, Populist Revolt, and

the Fracturing of America Nicholas
Jacobs
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/what-happened-to-the-vital-center-presidentialism-po
pulist-revolt-and-the-fracturing-of-america-nicholas-jacobs/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Law, Insecurity And Risk Control: Neo-Liberal

Governance And The Populist Revolt 1st Edition Edition
John Pratt

https://ebookmass.com/product/law-insecurity-and-risk-control-
neo-liberal-governance-and-the-populist-revolt-1st-edition-
edition-john-pratt/

The Rural Voter: The Politics of Place and the

Disuniting of America Jacobs

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-rural-voter-the-politics-of-
place-and-the-disuniting-of-america-jacobs/

Tell Me What Really Happened 1st Edition Chelsea Sedoti

https://ebookmass.com/product/tell-me-what-really-happened-1st-
edition-chelsea-sedoti/

What Happened to Governance in Kashmir Aijaz Ashraf

Wani

https://ebookmass.com/product/what-happened-to-governance-in-
kashmir-aijaz-ashraf-wani/
Populism and Populist Discourse in North America Marcia
Macaulay

https://ebookmass.com/product/populism-and-populist-discourse-in-
north-america-marcia-macaulay/

Tell Me What Really Happened Chelsea Sedoti

https://ebookmass.com/product/tell-me-what-really-happened-
chelsea-sedoti/

How to read a financial report: wringing vital signs

out of the numbers Ninth Edition Tracy

https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-read-a-financial-report-
wringing-vital-signs-out-of-the-numbers-ninth-edition-tracy/

Sentience: The Invention of Consciousness 1st Edition

Nicholas Humphrey

https://ebookmass.com/product/sentience-the-invention-of-
consciousness-1st-edition-nicholas-humphrey/

Always the First to Die R.J. Jacobs

https://ebookmass.com/product/always-the-first-to-die-r-j-
jacobs-2/
What Happened to the Vital Center?
What Happened to the
Vital Center?
Presidentialism, Populist Revolt, and the
Fracturing of America

N IC HO L A S F. JAC O B S A N D SI D N EY M . M I L K I S

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​760352–​9 (pbk.)
ISBN 978–​0–​19–​760351–​2 (hbk.)

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197603512.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by LSC Communications, United States of America
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
 Contents

Preface  vii

1. Populism and American Democracy  1

2. The American Party System and Populist Upheaval: Mediating
Anger and Discontent, 1800–​1945  37
3. Origins of Executive-​Centered Partisanship and the Quest for
Responsible Party Government  95
4. Liberalism Transformed: The Democratic Party Since 1960  131
5. Conservatism Transformed: The Republican Party Since 1960  179
6. Culminating Developments: Presidential Power, Liberalism,
and Conservatism in the 21st Century  228
7. Conclusion: Executive-​Centered Partisanship and the Future
of American Democracy  262

Notes  295
Index  341
 Preface

The book grew out of a relationship formed at the University of Virginia,

where the professional ties between mentor and student evolved into warm
friendship and fruitful collaboration. We began to collaborate when Nick was
working on his PhD under Sid’s supervision. But we quickly learned that we
shared strong philosophical and empirical interests in presidents and polit-
ical parties—​a curiosity that focused on the convergence of executive power
and partisanship from the 1930s to the present. Our determination to parse
executive-​centered partisanship rose to near desperation when an icono-
clastic reality television star captured the Republican Party—​a dangerous
culmination of political developments that had been wending through po-
litical life in the United States for almost a century. We wrote the final words
of this book in the aftermath of the post-​election assault on the Capitol—​the
first time a president had sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
Our academic arguments had come perilously close to realization.
Donald Trump’s right-​wing populism confirmed antinomian strains that
Sid had been warning about for three decades; but his alliance with Nick
opened exciting new avenues of inquiry into the critical and fraught relation-
ship between populism and party politics that added historical depth and
institutional nuance to the story of how the vital center fell apart. The tension
between mediating institutions like parties and populist uprisings is a haz-
ardous but inevitable feature of a democracy. But the combustible interac-
tion between gatekeepers and insurgents has changed dramatically over the
past six decades. Our core argument is that the expansion of executive power
since the 1930s combined with the rise of movement politics during the tur-
bulent sixties to unleash an unmediated form of populism that denigrated
political parties as collective organizations with a past and a future. The re-
sult is a disruptive form of executive-​centered partisanship—​animated by
the unlikely joining of presidential prerogative and social activism—​that has
fractured the nation and weakened national resolve. As scholars of American
political development, we argue that the righteous demands for racial jus-
tice and the hazardous infatuation with right-​wing authoritarianism that
currently roil American democracy are best understood when placed in this
viii Preface

broad historical context. There is little hope of remedying the pathologies of

what many of our colleagues have identified as a “Cold Civil War” without
understanding how we got to this stage of development in the first place.
We are deeply grateful to all the friends and colleagues who helped and in-
spired us to complete this project. The seeds for the book were planted when
Sid gave a talk on the 2016 election at his alma mater, Muhlenberg College.
The warm welcome he received from his host Chris Borick, his former
teacher Lud Schlecht, and the political science faculty and students was truly
memorable—​and motivation to keep seeking the answer to the core ques-
tion of this lecture, which became the title of this book: What Happened to
the Vital Center? To Nick goes the credit of offering incisive comments on
the “draft” of this talk—​and having the vision for a book-​length treatment of
Sid’s very preliminary thoughts. Sid had the opportunity to further test these
ideas in delivering various iterations of the “What Happened to the Vital
Center?” talk at Trinity College, where he was hosted by a former student
Kevin McMahon, and the Tocqueville Forum, which gave him the opportu-
nity to share ideas over a sumptuous dinner with several of the distinguished
faculty from Georgetown University’s Government Department. Nick had
the good fortune to present many of the ideas on party and governmental
centralization at a symposium on the political economy of Vincent and
Elinor Ostrom at George Mason University. He is especially grateful for the
incisive comments from Bobbi Hertzberg, Brian Kogelmann, Peter Boettke,
and Jan Volger.
The ideas and evidence that were essential to fleshing out these thoughts
were marinated in stimulating and productive collaboration with our
colleagues and friends: Laura Blessing, Sean Beienburg, Jordan Cash, Emily
Charnock, Connor Ewing, Boris Heersink, Jeffery Jenkins, Desmond King,
Michael Nelson, Jesse Rhodes, James Savage, and Daniel Tichenor. Our
interlocuters at the University of Virginia and Colby College also helped
us confront the thorny issues that emerge in the process of writing: Lawrie
Balfour, James Ceaser, George Klosko, Rachel Potter, Barbara Perry, Guian
McKee, Mark Selverstone, Russel Riley; Tony Corrado, Carrie LeVan, Sandy
Maisel, Joe Reisert, and Dan Shea. Special thanks go to William Antholis,
the CEO and president of the Miller Center, who gave our research stead-
fast support and, with the able assistance of communications director
Howard Witt, projected our work on executive-​centered partisanship into
the public sphere. Sidney Tarrow, a great friend and generous colleague,
read the manuscript in draft form and gave several chapters the “Tarrow
 Preface ix

Treatment”: detailed comments that were unflinchingly honest and unfail-

ingly perceptive. The broader contours of this work owe to conversations
over the years with generous and brilliant friends: Marie Gottschalk, Cathie
Martin, Bruce Miroff, Jim Morone, Stephen Skowronek; Emile Lester, Kal
Munis, and Anthony Sparacino.
It has been a great pleasure to work with Dave McBride, senior editor at
Oxford University Press. Dave expressed an interest in this project from the
beginning, solicited very helpful reviews at the critical incubating stage of
our journey, and waited patiently for us to reach a destination. It is no mean
feat to navigate an ambitious manuscript through a peer review process in
the middle of the pandemic, and we are very grateful that Dave managed
the task with panache. We are also very appreciative of the highly construc-
tive reviews provided by the anonymous readers Dave enlisted. At Oxford
University Press, we are thankful that Patterson Lamb, Emily Benitez, and
Jeremy Toynbee were there to guide our work to final publication.
Finally, we are deeply thankful for the constant love and support of our
families, even as they occasionally tired of the countless hours that we
spent laboring on this book. It is only fitting that we dedicate this work to
them: Carol, Lauren, David, and Jonathan Milkis (and the center of the
family’s attention, our beagle Iverson); and Rachel and Benjamin Jacobs.
Benji was born during the final tortuous stage of our writing—​a blessing
that helped both of us put our work, no matter how devoted we are to it, in
perspective.
Nicholas F. Jacobs
Vassalboro, Maine
Sidney M. Milkis
Charlottesville, Virginia
 1
Populism and American Democracy

By the time he formally declared his candidacy for president, every

American already knew his name. For decades, he made national headlines
by defying the conventional wisdom and deriding the political establish-
ment—​attracting the ire of sitting presidents, disgusting the intellectual elite,
and capturing the media’s attention. His name was synonymous with a pro-
vocative style, distinguished by a thick accent, a clear sign to his followers
that he was not a conventional politician. He claimed to speak for the “for-
gotten” American—​the Americans who felt left behind by seismic cultural,
economic, and political change.
In running his campaign, he trashed leaders of both parties and na-
tional heroes. In front of large banners reading “Stand Up for America!” he
taunted bureaucrats, shouting that we needed to “take away their briefcases
and throw them in the Potomac River!” He spoke of crime in the streets and
promised that “if we were president today, you wouldn’t get stabbed or raped
in the shadow of the White House, even if we had to call out 30,000 troops
and equip them with two-​foot-​long bayonets and station them every few feet
apart.”1 His rallies were staged spectacles. Campaign staffers ensured that a
couple of demonstrators would always be able to sneak in, so that they could
shout down the candidate as a fascist and a neo-​Nazi. These protesters were
pawns in staged political theater, allowing the leader of “real Americans” to
play the strongman his followers craved: “Come on down, I’ll autograph your
sandals” he would yell back. “All you need is a good barber!” “That’s right
honey; that’s right sweetie pie. Oh, I’m sorry, I thought ‘he’ was a ‘she!’ ”2
George Wallace wanted to be president. And in 1968, nearly 10 million
Americans—​13.5% of voters—​supported him.
Wallace’s assault on the “establishment” echoed a rallying cry that is en-
demic to American politics. As bitter and divisive as modern American pol-
itics appears, such eruptions have frequently roiled the country. Farmers in
Western Pennsylvania mobilized in the 1790s and violently attacked federal
tax collectors who were implementing the new government’s excise tax on
distilled spirits; rage spilled over this controversial tax issue and galvanized
2 What Happened to the Vital Center?

a mob of nearly 7,000 men who marched on Pittsburgh determined to raze

the American “Sodom” and loot the homes of its merchant elite.3 Fifty years
later in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, the largest riot in American his-
tory broke out in New York City in response to Congress’s new draft order.
White working-​class residents—​many of them new, impoverished Irish
immigrants—​were enraged by the provision that allowed wealthy citizens to
buy substitutes for the draft at the cost of an average workingman’s yearly
salary.4 Anger swelled as the mob torched the homes of prominent politicians
and lynched Black residents throughout Manhattan.5 A century later, in the
1950s, anti-​communist hysteria swept the nation. Lesser-​known politicians,
including a young congressman, Richard Nixon, took advantage of new tel-
evision audiences, fabricated lists of suspected communist agents in high-​
level positions throughout government and society, and subjected them to
vindictive hearings on Capitol Hill. Suspicion seeped out of Washington, and
by the beginning of the 1960s, 100,000 dues-​paying members had joined the
John Birch Society—​an organization formed to fight communism’s spread
as evidenced by developments such as the United Nations, water fluorida-
tion, civil rights laws, and even President Eisenhower, whom they considered
“a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.”6 The anger of
Wallace and his followers was animated by the civil rights reform and an-
tiwar movement of the 1960s. But like all populists, they were tapping into a
deep strain of unmediated protest, which has defined the American experi-
ment in self-​government since the beginning.
Donald Trump is just the latest manifestation of populist rage. No doubt
many readers who considered the opening lines to this book recognized
some of the impulses and rhetoric of George Wallace in 1968, perhaps mis-
taking it for positions taken in more recent presidential campaigns. Certainly,
there are important ideological differences between Wallace and Trump, and
between the state-​building motivations of 19th-​century populists, and the
anti-​tax, agrarian rebellions of the late 1700s. But populist politics is as much
a matter of style as substance. While scholars have gone to great lengths to
try to categorize populism’s various iterations—​reactionary versus progres-
sive, conservative versus liberal, coercive versus democratizing—​we see a
common refrain. Throughout American history, politicians have routinely
exploited the pervasive belief that the country’s political system is rigged and
illegitimate. The politically ambitious ride those periodic waves of anger, be-
cause in tearing down the institutional constraints that stifle the will of the
“People,” it aids their own selfish aspirations. Populism is an ancient threat to
 Populism and American Democracy 3

democratic politics and an obstinate problem in the practice of representa-

tive government in the United States.
While populism cuts a deep current through American political history,
so too does its antithesis. Standing in its path is a form of constitutional pol-
itics—​the practice of persuasion, negotiation, and compromise, the art of
acknowledging irreconcilable differences, of appreciating diversity in how
people want to live their own lives, and of recognizing the limits to collec-
tive action. Populism is vindictive, spurred by the desire to seek revenge
on those in power because of a sense of prolonged injustice. Followers are
uncompromising in their beliefs, and distrustful of those who do not share
their vision of a remade future. As much as cynicism and suspicion are the
hallmarks of the populist, faith in institutions and desire to persuade are nec-
essary ingredients of spirited republican debate and resolution. Leaders of
populist movements exploit the anger of disaffected citizens and offer simple
solutions to complex questions. Patient, sober statesmanship is drowned out
by the fury of self-​righteousness that makes wise citizens look cowardly, and
foolish ones courageous.
Donald Trump’s presidency was fueled by a visceral disregard for consti-
tutional politics. The January 6, 2021, assault on Congress to disrupt the le-
gitimate, fair, and peaceful transition of presidential power—​one of the most
celebrated features of constitutional democracy—​may be the most evoc-
ative image of the present populist moment. Trump’s power, like all popu-
list leaders, emanated from a widespread belief among his followers that the
rules of the game were fundamentally rigged against them. Minutes before
rioters broke through the windows of the Capitol building, the lame duck
president drove home this fundamental point: “If you don’t fight like Hell,
you’re not going to have a country anymore.” “When you catch somebody
in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” “You’ll never take
back our country with weakness.” It was a startling call to arms anticipated
by remarks he delivered four years earlier at his inaugural address, when the
newly inaugurated president sought to rally the “people” to reclaim control
over their government: “For too long a small group in our nation’s capital
has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians
prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment
protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.”7
To some progressives, even as they abhor his America First vision, Trump’s
image of politics accurately portrays an “establishment” that denigrates
4 What Happened to the Vital Center?

American democracy. The only way to defeat Trump, or a would-​be emu-

lator, they believe, is to beat him at his own game: to denounce more fiercely,
mobilize more effectively, and in effect, fight fire with fire. Populism is on
the rise in the United States, and globally.8 Leaders imbued with a populist
ethos have taken the reins of power across the world, sometimes inspired by
Trump’s own assault on constitutional norms and institutions. Right-​wing
populism has a long history in Europe; but it is startling to see this author-
itarian tradition move from the margins of what was once thought to be a
moderate constitutional republic to the mainstream of American politics.
George Wallace never became president; Donald Trump did. In capturing
power and using it aggressively, he and his followers have left an indelible
print on the pages of history, charting the path forward for future movements
that want to discredit any governing constraints that stand in their way.
As shocking as his presidency and its tumultuous aftermath has been, we
do not view Trump or this most recent uprising of populist furor as the cause
of the contemporary crisis of American democracy. Trump is a symptom.
He and the insurgents who follow him are but the latest eruption in long-​
standing developments that have transformed politics in the United States.
Although unique in many ways, his candidacy and presidency are the con-
sequence of eroding institutional bulwarks that traditionally have contained
populist impulses. Moreover, because Trump is a product of deeply ingrained
features of American politics, we are certain that he will not be the last popu-
list leader to denounce the “establishment” on behalf of the “people.” Always
a threat to the existing order of things, populism might now be a more reg-
ular feature of politics and government in the United States, because the
institutions and processes that once restrained democratic politics from its
worst tendencies have been hollowed out over the last fifty years. And in this
vacuum of unfiltered democracy rests the potential for another enterprising
leader ready to “flatter [the people’s] prejudices to betray their interests,” as
Alexander Hamilton once warned.9
Because Trump will not be the last, and because the forces that breed
demagogues and populist uprisings have only swelled in recent years, this
book is our effort to recover the lost idea of a “vital center” in American poli-
tics. We seek to understand why a shared consensus and a belief in American
institutions that prevailed from the end of World War II until the late 1960s
has devolved into a state of distrust and false hope. In this search for the lost
promise of a “vital center,” we draw on Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s classic book
of the same title, published in 1949. Schlesinger promoted the idea of a vital
 Populism and American Democracy 5

center to champion the emergence of a new consensus that would buttress

America’s experiment in self-​ government against the debilitating anxi-
eties of economic industrialization and globalization.10 It was written at a
time when Schlesinger feared that support for fundamental principles was
fraying, not only on the right but on the left as well. Schlesinger’s vital center
was a powerful, theoretically rich account of democratic politics rooted in
what Louis Hartz called America’s “liberal tradition”—​that is, the norms of a
polity uncommonly dedicated to individualism, diversity, rights, and private
property.11
Schlesinger’s notion of American consensus—​along with the hundreds of
texts it inspired—​is an impressive defense of the virtues traditionally associ-
ated with liberalism and the need to contemplate the character of democratic
leadership in a “modern” industrialized democracy.12 However, Schlesinger
and others who defended the post-​war consensus paid inadequate attention
to the institutional framework that sustained liberal virtues amid the rising
forces that threatened to pull the center apart.13 In our own time, there is a
similar crisis of faith—​globalization, technological automation, and material
advances have brought wondrous prosperity to millions of Americans and
others worldwide; at the same time, these developments have been joined
to an unlimited global war on terror; growing inequalities; and the persist-
ence of racial, gender, and nativist prejudice. It is no wonder that today, as
in Schlesinger’s day, many believe that their “lives are empty of belief. They
are lives of quiet desperation.”14 But if present political conditions do pose a
threat to the country’s cultural and social commitments—​and if a particular
method of politicking does disregard and offend some widespread, popular
consensus about how pubic officials should behave—​we need to place specific
actions in a larger context, to take account of what institutional conditions
gave rise to the erosion of established traditions. Indeed, intrinsic to this in-
quiry is a presumption of political development—​that a shared consensus
on political norms did at one point exist, that institutions once buttressed
these shared commitments, and that the onset of centrifugal forces caused
the center to fall apart.
We are not alone in contemplating the renewal of a vital center. Joining
the clarion call to redefine a “new center” in American politics is a bipartisan
alliance, well represented by the partnership of William Galston, a former
policy advisor to President Clinton, and William Kristol, the former editor
of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard. By the authors’ own ad-
mission, theirs is an unlikely pair, but they joined hands to express a “shared
6 What Happened to the Vital Center?

concern that the basic institutions and principles of liberal democracy are
under assault.”15 Bringing to mind the refrain, attributed to Mark Twain,
that “history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” there is deep theo-
retical agreement between the Galston-​Kristol “new center,” predicated on
“Opportunity, Security, Accountability, and Ingenuity,” and Schlesinger’s
more than 60-​year-​old rendition of the vital center.16 Like Galston and
Kristol, we believe that some essential element of our politics has gone awry.
But unlike these public intellectuals and the many others who are attempting
to renew American democracy—​and for that matter, Schlesinger—​we argue
that the maladies that fracture the nation and weaken national resolve are
badly aggravated, if not caused by, the decline of America’s two-​party system.
Our central argument is that party politics can help produce an energetic
democratic politics that nourishes the vital center. We defend this by detailing
the collapse of the American party system during the last 50 years, which
once sustained the New Deal political order. The vitality of both political
parties and the party structure as a whole have a fundamental bearing on the
type of politics we can practice in the United States. To the extent that many
believe there is no principled alternative to the intransigent calls of the far
left and the far right, we suggest that such a resolution will be born, not from
a soulless splitting of the differences between Democrats and Republicans,
but rather from the spirited debate between competing party organiza-
tions. Robust party institutions, properly structured, have, and can again,
give forceful, but responsible, animation to the country’s inevitable political
disagreements. Robust parties can encourage candidates running for state
and national office to build geographically vast and inclusive coalitions—​a
necessary ingredient to ensure that all communities are included in the con-
versation. Robust parties require diffuse leadership; when power is shared by
multiple officials within an organization, parties maintain a sense of a col-
lective past and a shared future—​both within the halls of Washington and
among the public. Finally, robust parties nourish responsible, meaningful,
and fulfilling citizen engagement.17
To be sure, party organizations have not always provided a salutary check
on populist movements; this book does not argue for a return to some golden
age of party politics. Sometimes, as during the Civil War, social movements
have arisen that raise such fundamental grievances, and seek to resolve these
injustices with such dedicated attention to institutional reform, that the party
system has been rightfully remade. We reference the Republican Party—​an
insurgent third party—​that arose amid the conflagration over slavery, as a
 Populism and American Democracy 7

party that gave effect to, rather than “stabilized” the timeless struggle over
America’s original sin. We are also deeply attentive to the Democratic Party’s
“Faustian Bargain” with segregationists, which made it a particularly “effec-
tive” institution for blunting the long civil rights movement and maintaining
the status quo. These struggles over national identity, in particular, have
resulted in heated party contests—​reckonings—​that cannot be resolved by
party organizations alone.
One chief aim of our book, however, is to distinguish this variant of move-
ment politics, which has animated democracy in the United States, from the
anti-​institutionalist strain of protest that diminishes the vital center. There
must be a role for the average citizen, and the traditional form of party or-
ganization in American political development has not always encour-
aged active participation. But far from the movement-​style politicking that
advantages those voices at the extremes of society—​be they intellectual elites
or those who outwardly disdain liberal values—​party leaders can bring more
voices into politics, so long as they have the financial capacity and personnel
to, at the same time, remove themselves from all the shouting. Politicians
must be able to respond to public demands but also to broker compromise,
practice cooperation, and cope with inevitable disagreement in society. In
short, a reconstituted partisanship—​bounded by the renewal of party organ-
izations—​can in fact serve as a safeguard against current and future populist
challenges to constitutional government.
Aside from a relatively small circle of scholars with an uncommon appre-
ciation of institutions, few believe a strengthened party system is the solu-
tion to raw and disruptive partisanship.18 Most scholars warn that parties
have become too strong in the 21st century. Yet, as Daniel Schlozman and
Sam Rosenfeld have argued, our polarized age is one of partisan revival
within a “hollow” party system. In the mass electorate, “party identification
predicts voting behavior better than any time since the dawn of polling.” In
government, “interparty antagonism and intraparty discipline have reached
unprecedented levels.” And yet, they point out, “parties do not feel strong.”
Aside from raising money and offering voters helpful labels on Election Day,
party organizations seem inadequate to the tasks of building enduring and
stable coalitions and providing a vital connection between the electorate and
representatives.19 We share the view of Schlozman and Rosenfeld that the
solution to the puzzle of weak parties and heightened partisanship is the de-
cline of party organizations. Vital party organizations, in fact, have histori-
cally mediated populist demands and moderated party conflict. Strong party
8 What Happened to the Vital Center?

organizations have the capacity to “mobilize popular participation, to inte-

grate disparate groups, interests, and movements, and to foster meaningful
choice and accountability in policymaking.”20 In V. O. Key’s formulation, the
decline of party organizations has also weakened party loyalties in the elec-
torate and diminished the ability of party leaders in Congress and the states
to coopertatively govern.21
We do not believe, however, that the return to a “responsible partisanship”
will come by restoring the status of party organizations alone. As Dan Shea
has explained, recent efforts to revitalize party organizations have uninten-
tionally turned voters away from the political process altogether; revitaliza-
tion has made the two increasingly centralized organizations more likely to
go negative, give priority to campaign contributions, emphasize scandal, and
deliberately diminish the size of the electorate so that it can be more man-
ageable. “Party scorecards tally only wins and losses after election day,” he
argues, “rather than any long-​term cultivation of voters.”22 So, while strong
party organizations do indeed have the capacity to mobilize popular support,
forge broad coalitions, foster choice, and transform election promises into
government action, more attention needs to be placed on the broader polit-
ical context in which they operate.
One major part of the political environment, largely neglected among
students of party politics, is the central contribution that presidents
have made to polarization. We argue that the major problem facing both
Republican and Democratic party organizations is that presidents, armed
with the tools of the administrative presidency, make a powerful claim to
mobilize and lead movement-​politics. Presidents do not broker; they do
not value prudence. They lead their parties, but they are not, in the tradi-
tional sense, party leaders. Without accounting for the fusion of executive
power and partisanship, party organizations will remain in the shadow of a
presidency-​centered democracy.
As the chapters below show, the emergence of presidential partisanship
had its origins in the cataclysmic developments of the 1960s. Sparked by
populist revolts on the left and right against an establishment tarnished by
the stubborn tumor of racial injustice and imperialist adventures, polar-
izing conflicts based on culture, race, ethnicity, and sexuality emerged that
scorned party politics. These social developments raised the stakes of party
politics and cast a moral shadow over contests for the White House, person-
alizing the institution, and diminishing the incentives presidents once had
to manage disagreement. Consequently, as Nancy Rosenblum and Russell
 Populism and American Democracy 9

Muirhead have argued, parties dominated by combatants who not only disa-
gree on principle and policy but also consider their opponents enemies have
become unable to enforce “the discipline of regulated rivalry.”23
Parties have at various moments in American history fostered debate and
nurtured resolution. However, since the 1960s, Democrats and Republicans
have methodically chipped away at the norms, rules, and procedures that
sustain them as collective organizations with a past and a future, giving
rise to what we call “executive-​centered partisanship.”24 Both Democrats
and Republicans have adopted a faith in presidential power, which, while
promising to fulfill important party commitments, has in actuality sapped
both parties of their collective strength. It subjects partisans to the periodic
machinations of a single leader, ordained by a minority faction within each
party, who commands loyalty, not as a consensus builder but as the vanguard
of partisan objectives.
Executive-​centered partisanship sits at the crosscurrents of two related
phenomena in American political development, which are largely untethered
to contemporary policy debates between the left and right. First, the form of
party contestation we must now contend with is a consequence of organiza-
tional and electoral reforms that both the Democratic and Republican parties
embraced throughout the 20th century, undergirded by common pressures
to democratize party life. These populist incursions culminated with the
McGovern-​Fraser reforms, which established a system of open causes and
direct primaries by the early 1970s. Both parties altered the rules governing
the presidential selection process with the intention of giving more power to
“the people” in selecting candidates for office and in determining party prior-
ities. However, the effect of these reforms did not empower the median voter,
the average American, the vital center. Rather, the weakening of traditional
party organizations enhanced the influence of donors, interest groups, and
social activists who scorned the pragmatic politics and compromises hith-
erto credited with forging majority coalitions.25
The institutional consequences of those reforms were enhanced by a
second development: the creation of the Executive Office of the President,
comprising the White House Office (the West Wing) and important staff
agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget. Formed during the
New Deal pursuant to the 1939 Executive Reorganization Act—​the organic
statute of the modern presidency—​the White House grew in size and power
during the 1960s. The forging of an elaborate executive office has allowed the
White House to form alliances with activists and outside groups who disdain
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
under lock and key. Alternate sections are assigned to a class to avoid congestion
and confusion.
The cost of the building several years ago was $3,500. Local carpenters built the
demonstration theater, lumber rack, cabinets, etc. The demonstration bench cost
$27; the stain and glue tables approximately $4.50 per running foot; and the
cabinets for unfinished work $12 per section.

16. Size of Classes. It should be noted that the building was

planned originally for twenty benches and that it now contains
twenty-four. Twenty benches ought to be the maximum number so
far as the giving of proper instruction is concerned. When more are
given the instructor the conditions for the most efficient work are not
good. This problem of accommodating twenty-four boys will have to
be met, and may as well be planned for just so long as school
directors insist upon crowding fifty pupils in the regular classroom
when the teacher ought to have but thirty-five or forty to do her best
work. Then, too, it frequently happens that a room contains more
boys than girls. Some of these boys might be sent to another and
adjoining center. It is best to plan to care for twenty-four boys,
however, where the regular room enrolment runs above average. In
this case the dimensions of the building as given in the preceding
text should be changed. Enlarge the width of the building by six feet.
This will permit the placing of the extra demonstration seats upon the
platform and also allow sufficient floor space near the lumber rack for
cutting out stock, and about the finishing table, etc.
In placing benches, plan to have the light enter over the back and
the left end of the bench. That is, when standing at his bench, the
light should strike the pupil in the front and left.
An amphitheater is very desirable both in the high school and the
grade school shop. In large classes it is a necessity. With small
classes it is possible to make use of desk stools arranged about a
bench. Many manual training centers, in fact, most manual training
centers, do not have the amphitheater. This is no argument against
its desirability. It simply means that the boys get but an imperfect
understanding of the demonstration and that their work must suffer
accordingly.
17. Lockers. The locker problem is one that has been a source
of trouble. The arrangement described in connection with the
description of the Montclair shop is by far the best solution of this
problem that has come to the author’s attention. The extreme length
of pieces that can be accommodated is 34″. A few pieces will be
longer than this. These can be accommodated outside the locker or
the locker sections may be planned large, say 40″ in the clear.
The grindstone is best suited for pupils’ use in sharpening edge
tools. Where a small motor is used for power, it is very desirable to
have a small dry emery grinder for the use of the instructor. Ten
dollars will cover its cost and it will pay for itself quickly. It can be
placed near the grindstone.
Unless the centers have frequent delivery of lumber supplies, or if
there is no central cutting-up station, it may be found advisable to
add to the building described a small room for the storage of quantity
lumber with, possibly, a power saw in it.
18. Bench and Tool Equipment for Grade Center. The
individual bench is to be preferred to the two- and four-pupil bench.
Aside from the fact that the double benches are not conducive to
good order and system, it is next to impossible to get such benches
to remain rigid without going to an initial expense that would be
sufficient to purchase the individual bench. Unless they are rigid, it is
an injustice to ask a boy to return accurate work. The effect that
violent work at one side of a double bench will have upon fine or
accurate laying out by some boy on the other side of that bench is
not difficult to imagine. The only argument in favor of a double bench
is economy of space. If space must be economized, it is better to
place the individual benches back to back with just enough space
between them to keep them from touching and thus shaking each
other.
The rapid-acting vise is desirable, if it is a good one. Some rapid-
acting vises now on the market are not as desirable as the old
fashioned continuous metal screw vise. A vise is in almost constant
use and should be most carefully investigated before being
specified.

INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT.
Bench, open frame without drawer, glued up top 23 in. by 52 in. $ 10.00
 tool rack, rapid-acting vise, approximate cost
Jack-plane, Stanley or Bailey No. 5, each 2.09
Wooden mallet, Stanley No. 1 .13
Rule, Stanley No. 34 .17
Hammer, Maydole bell-faced claw, 13 oz. .50
Wing Dividers, P. S. W., 6″ .23
Chisels, socket firmer, Buck Bros., 3⁄8″ and 3⁄4″ both .83
Marking-gage, Stanley No. 62 .12
Try-square, Stanley No. 20, 6″ .21
Saw, Bishop Handy Saw, 12″, No. 9 .75
Swedish Sloyd Knife No. 7 .40
Bench Brush, No. 2A, Orr & Lockett .30
Bench-Hook .25
Chisel-Board .00
Total $ 5.89

GENERAL TOOLS FOR 24 PUPILS.

6 Nailsets, cup pointed, assorted sizes, @ 10c. $ .60
6 Try-squares, Stanley No. 20, 12″, @ 36c. 2.16
3 Turning-Saws and Frames, 18″, @ $1.00 3.00
6 Spokeshaves, Bradshaw and Field or Stanley No. 84, 21⁄2″, nut
adjusted @ 59c. 3.54
3 Gouges, 1″, No. 8, outside bevel, Buck Bros., @ 43c. 1.29
2 Ratchet Braces, Barber No. 33, 8″ sweep, @ $1.45 2.90
2 Plain Braces, Barber No. 13, 8″ sweep, @ $1.08 2.16
3 Crosscut-saws, Bishop No. 89, 22″, 10 pt., @ $1.55 4.65
3 Rip-saws, Bishop No. 89, 24″, 8 pt., @ $1.65 4.95
2 Planes, Jointer 22″, Bailey No. 7 or Stanley, @ $3.03 6.06
2 Rose head Countersinks, Buck Bros., @ 23c. .46
2 Screwdriver bits, Buck Bros., @ 17c. .34
4 Screwdrivers, 4″ blade, fluted handle, @ 25c. 1.00
2 Auger-bits, 11⁄4″, R. J., @ 80c. 1.60
4 Auger-bits, 1″, R. J., @ 60c. 2.40
2 Auger-bits, 3⁄4″, R. J., @ 50c. 1.00
4 Auger-bits, 1⁄2″, R. J., @ 35c. 1.40
4 Dowel-bits, 3⁄8″, R. J., @ 27c. 1.08
4 Dowel-bits, 1⁄4″, R. J., @ 27c. 1.08
4 Dowel-bits, 3⁄16″, Morse, @ 12c. .48
 1 T-bevel, Stanley No. 18, 8″, @ 44c. .44
1 Monkey Wrench, Coes, 8″, @ 50c. .50
1 Pair Combination Pliers, 6″, @ 40c. .40
2 Combination India Oilstones, 6″ × 2″ × 1″, in iron boxes, @
$1.00 2.20
1 Oil-can, 1⁄4 pt., @ 18c. .18
6 Handscrews, No. 812, @ 40c. 2.40
2 Steel Bar Carpenter Clamps, 21⁄2 ft., @ $1.69 3.38
1 Set Steel Figures, 3⁄16″, @ $1.88 1.88
1 Shellac Can, 1-qt. .78
1 Kerosene Glue Heater, 2-pts. 1.50
1 Steel Framing-Square 1.00
200 Individual plane-irons, @ 25c. 50.00
6 Coping-saws with Blades, @ 25c. 1.50
2 Brad-awls, @ 15c. .30
2 Scribe-awls, @ 15c. .30
List price $108.83

SUMMARY.
24 Benches, @ $10.00 $240.00
1 Demonstration Bench 27.00
25 Sets of Tools, @ $5.89 147.25
General Tools 108.83
List price $523.08

Less 10% $470.68

This estimate does not include lockers, shelving, machinery, etc.

The cost of lockers, shelving, etc., can be roughly estimated by
noting the price per foot as given in the description of the Montclair
shop. A grindstone with motor power can be purchased for $30.00
for stone and $60.00 for motor.
Where the instructor must do much grinding, a No. 101 Cortland
Corundum Wheel Co. Grinder, cost with tool rest and two grinding
wheels complete ready to belt $10.00, will be found an extremely
satisfactory investment.
 Where power is not obtainable a Pyko Peerless Dry Emery
Grinder, cost $6.00 with tool rest attachment, will give excellent
service. It cuts much more rapidly than a grindstone and is therefore
not so tiring on the one who turns it.
In justice to other makers of tools it must be explained that the
mentioning of the firm names is due to the fact that indefinite
specifications are worthless. There are other tools as good as those
named, some of which are preferred by some manual training men
to those mentioned. Those mentioned are first class in every respect
and will serve to give the dealer an idea of the class of goods you
want. It will be for the purchaser to see that he gets equal quality. By
all means, avoid the poor grade tool whatever its price. Were it not
for limited space the author would like to list other makers of first
class tools. If one is not conversant with the different brands let him
consult some of his mechanic friends.
The prices given are list price for 1911-12, Chicago. A discount of
at least 10 per cent. will be allowed for quantity purchase.
19. Individual Tools. The individual plane-iron is not absolutely
necessary. It is very desirable since the plane is in constant use. To
make use of the same irons class after class is unjust to the good
worker. He will spend a good part of the period getting his iron in
condition only to find when he comes again the next week that it all
has to be done over again. It puts a premium on slovenliness. True,
the same argument holds for the chisels, and it would be well if
individual chisels could be provided. The chisel is not used nearly so
much as the plane-iron and can, therefore, be used in common
much better than the plane-iron.
No machinery for cutting up stock, is included in the estimate. In
most cities the high school machinery can be used for this purpose.
According to the course outlined, there will be little stock cutting by
machinery required. What little there is might well be done as “busy
work” by the more rapid workers thruout the year. Such stock could
be stored away until needed.
20. Equipment for Mechanical Drawing, Grade Center. Since
the teacher of woodworking must also be the teacher of mechanical
drawing in the grade center, no special room for drawing is
advisable. With the first twelve weeks devoted to drawing, the
woodworking benches can be used as drawing tables, the
woodworking tools not being placed until all the drawing work is
completed. When the shop is properly cleaned during the summer
vacation there is no reason for its not being kept as clean as any
special drawing room during the drawing period of twelve weeks.
The benches should be scraped clean and shellaced.
A blackboard is needed for both drawing and woodwork and may
as well be placed in the woodworking shop.
For the most efficient presentation of drawing there will need to be
plenty of blueprints or plates from which the student may work.
These must be so well executed, as to technique, that the pupil will
have before him only the best as models. No one would think of
placing before the writing class other than the best models of style
and execution in penmanship, yet it is not infrequent to find
mechanical drawing students copying from blueprints that are far
below standard as to excellence.
In presenting the problems, models will be found of very great help
to the student in his efforts to interpret the conditions. Too much
dependence should not be placed upon models in the work of older
pupils.

INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT.
Drawing-boards, 16″ × 22″, basswood, each $ .70
T-squares, 22″, plain blade, fixed head, each .20
45° Triangle, 8″ each .16
30°-60° Triangle, 10″, each .15
Desk Stool, 24″, rubber tipped, each 1.25
Total
$ 2.46
Total for 25 sets, less 10%
$55.45

There will be needed in addition to the above a knife, scale,

compass, and sandpaper block. The knife and rule used in the
woodwork will serve equally well in the drawing. The sandpaper
blocks or pencil sharpening blocks can be made in the shop.
 In connection with these blocks, it will be found expedient to have
them so fastened to the bench that pupils cannot get them on top of
the bench in sandpapering a point on the pencil. This can be done
by fastening the block to the bench with a screw in such a way that it
can be revolved from under the top of the bench when wanted.
Otherwise beginners will have the bench top and then drawings
covered with the fine lead of the pencil.
In getting equipment avoid “baby” sets. A taboret drawing, to be
well made, must be on a scale of 1⁄4″. This, with marginal lines will
mean a paper of 12″ by 18″.
PERSONAL EQUIPMENT.
Excelsior or Eagle Pencil Compass.
Pencil, Dixon Manual Training, 2H.
Eraser, Ruby Pencil.
Envelope for holding drawings.
Thumbtacks, two.

The personal equipment to be uniform should be purchased by the

school and sold to the pupils.
While this personal equipment may be kept in the woodworking
lockers, some instructors prefer to have a special case of drawers to
hold the drawing envelopes, and blocks of wood with suitable holes
for holding the pencils, erasers, and tacks, monitors being appointed
to look after them.
The paper used need not be as expensive as that of the high
school where problems are to be inked. A manilla paper such as is
used in the regular or freehand drawing classes will answer
admirably and can then be provided by the school. Such paper is
usually purchased in sizes 12″ by 18″ and 9″ by 12″. The former is
the desired size for the eighth grade work and the latter for the
seventh grade. A 6″ by 9″ size will be found suitable for stock bills,
where printed blanks are not to be provided.
In the matter of paper, it is possible to practice economy without
detracting from the drawing. All that are not wanted at the close of
the year should be kept and the reverse sides made use of where
experimental penciling is required.
Drawing equipment will be stored when woodwork is begun.
 21. High School Joinery Shop. The general plan of the wood
shop for the high school will depend so greatly upon its relation to
other shops in which wood is worked that the most that can be
hoped by discussing it is that the plan offered may offer a starting
point from which to work. In some communities the one shop will be
all that is needed both for cabinet work, first year joinery, and
pattern-making with, possibly, wood-turning. In other communities
the number of students taking the work may warrant separate shops
with full machine equipment for each. In still others it may be
advisable to have adjoining shops but still necessary to make use of
the same machinery. Some schools plan to have all the classes in
one big room, sometimes having as many as seventy boys with
three instructors. If this latter plan is followed, tho it is not advised,
there should certainly be provided an adjoining demonstration room
where the instructors may talk to the boys without the competing
noises of other classes.
Fig. 11 is a suggestive sketch. It provides for lockers similar in
make-up to those discussed in connection with the grammar school.
 1. GLUE TABLE 9. TOOL AND SUPPLY CASES
2. GRINDSTONE 10. EXHIBIT CASE
3. BAND SAW 11. LUMBER RACKS
4. JIG SAW 12. CUT-OFF SAW AND TABLE
5. LOCKERS FOR UNFINISHED 13. CIRCULAR SAW
WORK 14. PLANER
6. WALL RACKS 15. JOINTER
7. FINISHING TABLES 16. INDIVIDUAL LOCKERS
8. TEACHER’S DESK 17. GRINDER

Fig. 11. SUGGESTED FLOOR PLAN FOR HIGH SCHOOL SHOP.

General tools are to be kept in a tool room which may be placed in

charge of a student assistant. Each boy is then to be provided with
metal checks. When a tool is asked for the assistant will hang the
student’s check in the place of the tool taken out. Upon the return of
the tool the check will be returned.
First year students may be safely taught to use the band-saw and
jig-saw, with proper safe guards about the former. Other machines
are best kept in a separate room.
Since high school pupils ought to be taught how to apply more
difficult finishes, such as rubbed varnish, than those taught in the
grammar schools, a special room will be necessary in order to avoid
the shop dust. This room should be made fire proof, if possible, and
should have racks about the walls upon which to place work being
finished.
22. High School Bench and Tool Equipment. The benches for
the use of high school pupils are best when of the cabinet type
having drawers below in which each student may keep his individual
edged tools. Such a bench with drawers enough to accommodate all
the boys that will be able to make use of the bench during the day,
with a hinged or revolving board upon which may be fastened the
general tools that belong to that bench will cost approximately thirty
dollars. This includes a first class rapid-acting vise. The individual
bench in the high school is as desirable as it is in the grades.
Where a high standard of technique is to be demanded of the
pupils, the following tools should be added to those specified for the
grammar school bench equipment:
 INDIVIDUAL TOOLS.
Smooth-Plane, 13⁄4″ cutter, 8″ long, Stanley $1.66
Jointer-Plane, 2 ⁄8″ cutter, 22″ long, Stanley
3 3.03
Screwdriver, 6″, Stanley .35
T-Bevel, 6″, Stanley .40
Combination India Oilstone, 1″ × 2″ × 6″ 1.10
Oil-Can .18
Crosscut-saw, 20″, 10 pt., Bishop No. 89 1.40
Rip-saw, 22″, 8 pt., Bishop No. 89 1.55
Spokeshave, 2 ⁄2″ blade, Bradshaw and Field
1 .57
In place of the Bishop Handy Saw specified in the grammar school list,
substitute Bishop No. 8 Backsaw, 10″, cost 94c.
Provide for each drawer, that is, provide each boy with the following:
Chisel, 1″, bevel edged, firmer socket, Buck Bros. $ .57
Chisel, ⁄4″, bevel edged, firmer socket, Buck Bros.
1 .41
Chisel, 3⁄8″, socket mortise, Buck Bros. .40
Plane-iron for Jointer .29
Plane-iron for Jack-plane .25
Plane-iron for Smooth-plane .23
Spokeshave-iron .15
Sloyd knife, 2 ⁄8″
5 .40

This list presupposes that the mortising of the first year will be
done by chisel alone, no boring. If mortises are to be bored first, it
will be advisable to equip each bench with a Barber’s 8″ ball bearing
brace, cost $1.45.
In addition to the general tools specified for the grammar school,
make the following changes and additions:

GENERAL TOOLS.

Omit the rip- and crosscut-saws.

Omit the plain braces in case the bench is so equipped.
Omit handscrews and clamps, and glue heater.
Add 1 doz. Handscrews, No. 812, cost each 40c.
Add 2 doz. Carpenters’ Clamps, wood bar, 2-ft., @ 85c.
Add 1 doz. Carpenters’ Clamps, wood bar, 4-ft., @ 95c.
Add 1 Set Steel Letters, 3⁄16″, @ $1.88.
Add 1 Steam Glue Heater, O. & L. No. 9, @ $9.50.
Add 2 Draw-Knives, 8″, L. & I. J. White, @ 65c.
Add 1⁄2 doz. Steel Cabinet Scrapers, @ 10c.
Add 1 Set Auger-Bits in box, R. J. @ $4.00.

MACHINERY.

For the highest type of work the following machines should be

placed at the disposal of the first year high school classes:
Grindstone.
Scroll or Jig-saw.
Band-Saw.
These machines should have proper safety devices and should be
placed where they will be under the immediate observation of the
instructor. Machines for woodworking vary so greatly in price and
desirability that it is not thought wise to specify any particular make.
Only the experienced man will be called upon to equip with
machinery and such an one will have the information necessary to
make the purchase.
For the second year, or optional cabinet work, there should be
placed at the disposal of the students, and they should be taught
their use, the following machines in addition to those specified for the
first year work:
Circular-Saw.
Machine Jointer.
Planer.
Boring Machine and Mortiser.
Trimmer.
It is possible so to arrange these machines that the circular-saw
and planer may be used in getting out stock for other classes. The
floor plan given contemplates such use.

EQUIPMENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL MECHANICAL DRAWING.

A special room should be provided for the teaching of high school

mechanical drawing.
 A north light is best and the tables should be so placed that the
light may come upon the board from in front and the left. If artificial
light must be used, employ the inverted system.

Fig. 12. TABLE FOR MECHANICAL DRAWING.

Tables have much to commend them over the pedestal. They are
easily swept around and keep a room looking orderly. Fig. 12 shows
a type of table that is commendable. On the left are drawers for
keeping the students’ instruments. On the right is a drawer for
keeping general equipment that is used by the boys in common.
Below this drawer is the cabinet for holding the drawing-boards.
These boards are so locked that only the board belonging to the boy
with the key can be released. Such a table with a top 24″ by 48″ and
41″ high will cost $30, list price. Estimate for individual equipment will
be as follows:

TABLE EQUIPMENT .
1 Table $30.00
1 Stool 3.50
5 Boards, of size to fit cabinet, @ $1.50 7.50
5 Sets Instruments, German Silver, @ $5.00 25.00
1 Scale, @ 38c .38
1 T-square, 24″, celluloid lined 1.50
1 45° Triangle, 8″, celluloid .48
1 30°-60° Triangle, 10″, celluloid .48
1 French Curve, .20
1 Bottle Ink .25
Total
$69.29
PERSONAL EQUIPMENT.
Sheets Paper.
Heavy Manilla Envelope for holding drawings.
Thumbtacks.
Eraser.
Pencil, hard, 4H.
Pencil, soft, H.
GENERAL EQUIPMENT.
1 Roll Blueprint Paper, (not to be purchased until ready to be used).
1 Blueprinting Frame, 18″ by 24″.
1 Roll Tracing Cloth.
Blackboard Triangles, Straight-edge, Compass.

There will also need to be cases in which to file the envelopes in

which the students keep their completed drawings. If much
blueprinting is to be done, there should be a suitable room with sink
and running water. Where models are used, there should be a case
for storing them when not in use.
Practice varies greatly as to the amount of material provided by
the school. Some schools require the pupils to furnish their own
instruments, as well as paper and other supplies. The advisability of
requiring much or little will have to be determined by the social
conditions of the community it is intended to serve.
 PART II.
LESSON OUTLINES.
 CHAPTER VI.
LESSON OUTLINES FOR GRADE VII.

GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 1.
Introductory Talk—
The purpose of manual training.
Explanation of signal bells—beginning, five minute rest, closing.
Regulations concerning drinking fount, lavatory, toilet.
Responsibility for tools; care of bench top.
Shop deportment. To and from shop.
Ownership of finished work.
Preparation for Demonstration; Assignment for Lesson 2—
Essentials of Woodworking, Appendix III, Sections 1 and 4.
Demonstration—
The essential points in making Introductory Drawing.
Instruments, lines, angles, lettering.
Sharpening pencil—sandpaper.
Work—
All pupils begin Introductory Drawing.
Note:—Copies of drawings from which pupils are to work should
be in the hands of the pupils while demonstration is being given.

GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 2.
Recitation—
Working vs. perspective drawings?
Drawing instruments (T-square, etc.) How held?
Kind of lines (vertical, oblique, etc.) How drawn?
Angle defined. How measured? Does extending the sides change the value?
The angles of the triangles? How avoid inaccuracies at the vertex in drawing?
 How many degrees in a circle? In the sum of the angles about a point?
How would you draw an angle of 75 degrees?
The order of procedure in putting on border and cutting lines?
Why have a cutting line?
Letters and figures, how proportioned? (Test pupils at black board.)
After the proportions are once learned, how lay out for lettering?
Preparation for Demonstration; Assignment for Lesson 3—
Essentials, Appendix III, Sections 2 (relating to scale), 3, and 6.
Demonstration—
The essential points in making Drawing for Woodwork Group I. (Cutting-
board.)
Order of procedure; scale; blocking out; placing and spacing views; simple
dimensioning.
Work—
Complete Introductory Drawing.
Make drawing for Woodwork Group I.
Rapid workers measure, draw, and dimension three views from a rectangular
block. (Blocks used in the study of woods.)

GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 3.
Recitation—
Scale? Figures on the drawing vs. size of the drawing.
Projection and relation of views—The four principles developed.
Order of procedure—Determining the size and spacing; blocking out vertically;
horizontally; dimensioning; lettering; inking; if not to be inked?
Preparation for Demonstration; Assignment for Lesson 4—
Essentials, Appendix III, Section 2. (That part relating to lines, etc.)
Demonstration—
The essential points in making Drawing for Woodwork Group II.
(Counting-board, key-rack, hat-rack.)
Foreshortening.
Work—
Complete drawing for Woodwork Group I.
Make drawing for Woodwork Group II. Counting-board.
Rapid workers make another drawing in Group II.
 GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 4.
Recitation—
The conventions—Seven kinds of lines—how made and their meanings?
What part of a mechanical drawing is made freehand?
A broken view? Why used?
Section drawing? Cross-hatching?
Preparation for Demonstration; Assignment for Lesson 5—
Essentials, Appendix III, Section 5.
Demonstration—
The essential points in making Geometric Sheet.
Circles.
Work—
Make the geometric drawing first.
Complete unfinished drawings for Woodwork Group II.
Rapid workers make other drawings for this latter group.

GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 5.
Recitation—
The hexagon? How made?
The six point star?
The octagon?
The ellipse?
Assignment for Lesson 6—
Review Essentials, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in Appendix III.
Demonstration—
The essential points in making drawings for Woodwork Group III. (Ring toss,
game-board, laundry-register, spool-holder.)
Hidden edges.
Work—
Complete drawings for Woodwork Group II.
Make drawings for Woodwork Group III.
Rapid workers make other drawings in Group III.
 GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 6.
Recitation—
Perspective vs. working drawing?
Instruments, their uses?
Scale drawing?
Seven kinds of lines? Their meanings?
The freehand part of a mechanical drawing?
Broken view?
Cross-section? Cross-hatching?
Four principles of projection?
Spacings of letters and figures?
Hexagon? Octagon? Six point star? Ellipse?
Order of procedure in making mechanical drawing?
Assignment for Lesson 7—
Essentials, Introduction, and Section 25.
Demonstration—
The essential points in making drawings for Woodwork Group IV. (Sleeve-
board, bread-board, cake-board, scouring-board, coat-hanger.)
Center and section lines, cross-sections, tangents, points of tangency,
dimensioning circles.
Work—
Complete drawings for Woodwork Group III.
Make drawings for Woodwork Group IV.
Rapid workers make other drawings in Group IV.

GRADE VII.
(Mechanical Drawing)

Lesson 7.
Recitation—
Sharp, clean tools, why?
Care of bench top?
Care of tools not in immediate use?
Some of the more important results in manual training?
Take a rectangular block and name the terms used, length, etc.
Grain? “Against the grain?”