Reviews of the Literature
Political theorists have at all times regarded their subject matter as one area of human behavior, and many of them have searched for the psychological laws which would best explain and predict what happens in politics, and also what ought to happen. These attempts have produced some of the narrowest and most distorted theories of human motivation and behavior, as in Hobbes's grand system, in Rousseau's, in Utilitarianism. Spokesmen for the irrational forces, from Mandeville to Bagehot and to some latter day authors, have erred as much through lack of thoroughness, as the rationalists did through excessive confidence in building comprehensive systems. Such diverse writers and statesmen, however, as Machiavelli, Burke, Tocqueville, J. S. Mill and Graham Wallas have left posterity invaluable observations and analyses of the motives and sentiments which influence politics, and on how they operate. The work of any one of them, or all of them together with yet others, could, perhaps, justly be presented for study as a psychology of politics. Yet, if the model of scientific discipline is the mensurational method and reproduceable experiment employed in the physicist's laboratory, then the body of political psychology built up by generations of historians, lawyers, philosophers and statesmen, is not science.