Podcast Summary

New Books Network

Episode: Natasha Piano, "Democratic Elitism: The Founding Myth of American Political Science" (Harvard UP, 2025)
Host: Moteza Hajizadeh
Guest: Dr. Natasha Piano
Date: November 1, 2025

Overview

This episode centers on Dr. Natasha Piano's new book, Democratic Elitism: The Founding Myth of American Political Science. The interview delves into how early 20th-century Italian political thinkers—often labeled "elitists"—challenged the widely-accepted notion that competitive elections alone define a functioning democracy. Dr. Piano contends that these theorists were deeply concerned with plutocracy and argued that true democracy requires more than voting: it needs institutions that prevent economic and elite capture of politics. The discussion traces how these ideas were absorbed, transformed, and sometimes misinterpreted in American political science, revealing both historical depth and striking contemporary relevance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Motivation for the Book

[02:49-05:42]

• Dr. Piano describes her background as a democratic theorist and historian focusing on the Italian tradition and its reinterpretation in America.
• The inspiration for the book arose from the cognitive dissonance in how Americans talk about democracy—narrowly equated with elections when everyone suspects democracy is "something more.”
• She traces this narrow electoral definition back to American political science’s origins but shows that Italian thinkers offered a more nuanced, skeptical approach.
• Key Quote:

  “The Italian thinkers that we often label elitists actually saw things very differently. ... They were warning us that elections alone can’t protect democracy.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [04:40]

2. Wilfredo Pareto and Elite Circulation

[07:37-14:13]

• Introduction of Pareto: Economist, famous for the "Pareto principle," but more influential in his concern for inequality and corruption.
• His claim: Electoral systems can facilitate plutocratic control rather than open democracy.
• Pareto’s "circulation of elites" is explained through the metaphor of a river—elites are inevitable, but renewal from the masses is critical for legitimacy and stability.
• Key Quote:

  “He was really concerned with elite corruption, and he was specifically concerned with how electoral regimes in themselves facilitate plutocratic corruption.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [09:54]

• Notable Metaphor:

  “...even a river must eventually return to its bed ... When the ruling class becomes too detached from the wider public ... the political current gets blocked.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [15:07]

3. Gaetano Mosca, Economic Inequality, and "Democratic Impulse"

[16:39-27:01]

• Mosca, now largely forgotten, was once central to US political science and a critic of blindly importing British parliamentary models to Italy.
• He warned that regional and economic inequalities would entrench elite alliances, undermining both representation and public faith in elections.
• Mosca’s "democratic impulse": True renewal of elites must stem from institutions (like education and local self-government) that connect directly with ordinary citizens, not just from open elections.
• Key Quote:

  “He really focused on how to be honest about the tendency for elections to become corrupted by severe regional economic inequality and how addressing regional economic inequality was necessarily a political problem that helped address the limitations of elections.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [20:42]

• Discusses how technocrats and local institutions can provide accountability outside electoral mechanisms.

4. Robert Michels and the "Iron Law of Oligarchy"

[29:24-37:24]

• Robert Michels, a German who became associated with the Italian school, developed the "iron law of oligarchy": all organizations, even the most progressive, tend toward hierarchical, oligarchic structures.
• Michels' deterministic view: Bureaucratic and oligarchic tendencies are inevitable both in parties and in the state. More pessimistic than Pareto or Mosca.
• Piano explains how this shift led to misreadings in American political science—especially conflating democracy entirely with the existence of elections, which carries significant risks (plutocracy & demagoguery).
• Key Quote:

  “They [Pareto and Mosca] were worried about these two twin threats, the plutocratic threat and the demagogic threat, and how that could eventually just kill a whole entire representative government.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [36:37]

5. Joseph Schumpeter’s Redefinition of Democracy

[37:24-43:19]

• Schumpeter, writing in 1939, proposed that democracy be defined strictly as competitive elections—sidestepping the "will of the people" debate.
• His redefinition gave American political scientists a way to sharply distinguish liberal democracies from fascist and communist states, especially during the Cold War.
• Piano argues Schumpeter was read selectively: part of his work warns of elites’ threats to democracy, but this was often ignored in favor of a narrower, procedural definition.
• Key Quote:

  “American political scientists only read part four of that book and really ran with it.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [43:10]

6. Reception and Transformation in American Political Science

[44:04-48:34]

• After WWII, American scholars fundamentally altered the Italian school's critique. The focus on the Cold War, a burst of postwar equality, and optimistic outlooks meant plutocratic dangers raised by Italians were downplayed or misunderstood.
• Over time, Italian warnings about plutocracy and elite control were turned instead into a “celebration of elite competition.”
• Key Quote:

  “So many layers of American misreading ... it's kind of like a game of telephone ... to the point where it's totally different than what the original person said.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [44:16]

7. Lessons for Contemporary Democracy

[49:24-53:56]

• Piano urges a return to a deeper, broader understanding of democracy as “people power” (“demos” + “kratia”), not just a regime type or election procedure.
• She advocates for institutions and norms that are actively anti-plutocratic, encourage accountability, and are responsive to the majority—not just representative through periodic elections.
• Democracy requires mechanisms beyond elections to prevent elite and plutocratic capture.
• Key Quote:

  “If there's ever been a moment to revise our conception of democracy, I think it's now, where we could plausibly exit this phase of democracy as competitive election and expand our horizons.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [53:41]

Memorable Moments & Quotes (with Timestamps)

• On the Book’s Core Argument:

  “These Italian thinkers that we usually assume were elitists weren't trying to exclude the masses. They were warning us that elections alone can't protect democracy.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [05:17]

• On Pareto’s Elite Circulation:

  “When the ruling class becomes too detached from the wider public ... the political current ... gets blocked, and that process of circulation ... brings elites back to a majoritarian source.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [15:07]

• On Mosca’s Democratic Impulse:

  “He wanted elites to form some kind of cohesive class ... but in a way that was accountable and connected to ordinary citizens ... designed institutions that fostered real contact between citizens and their local representatives.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [22:41]

• On Michels and Misinterpretation:

  “Michels tried to impose this false equivalence where bureaucratic hierarchy of the party is the same as ... the state. And Mosca said, that's wrong ... you shouldn't project what happens onto the party, one for one, into what happens in a state, even though there are oligarchic tendencies in both.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [32:52]

• On the American Reception:

  “American political scientists ... were allergic to criticizing electoral institutions because they didn't think that was necessary or salutary for their maintenance. Whereas the Italians were like, yeah, you criticize it ... so that people don't lose faith in it.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [47:34]

• On Reimagining Democracy Today:

  “That shoehorning democracy into one regime type is where we get into theoretical and political trouble ... that's a broader understanding that goes beyond elections, obviously.”
  —Dr. Natasha Piano [49:59]

Important Segment Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |---------------------------------------|------------| | Introduction & Motivation | 02:49-05:42| | Pareto & Elite Circulation | 07:37-14:13| | Mosca & Democratic Impulse | 16:39-27:01| | Robert Michels & Oligarchy | 29:24-37:24| | Schumpeter’s Redefinition | 37:24-43:19| | American Reception & Transformation | 44:04-48:34| | Lessons for Today | 49:24-53:56|

Conclusion

Dr. Natasha Piano's scholarship compels listeners to reconsider foundational definitions of democracy—challenging the equating of elections with democracy and urging a reevaluation of American political science’s inherited assumptions. The Italian "elitists" were, in fact, warning us that democratic resilience requires not just competitive elections, but vigilant attention to plutocracy, elite renewal, local institutions, and democratic accountability mechanisms that lie beyond the ballot box.