Book Reviews 161 concludes that those activists taking a broad view of politics as defining our common enterprise were ready to identify themselves as positively involved in the political life, while those taking a narrow view of politics as official roles and governmental actions denied the political motivations behind their activism. The involvement stories and examples drawn from the interviews provide interesting reading and good support for Teske's identity-construction model. However, fully using the wealth of communication studies on narrative would have allowed a deeper and more finely nuanced interpretation of the activists' own accounts—the announced goal of this book. Students of political participation on the individual and group level may find this book a useful addition to the scholarly literature. The use of long interviews to delve into motivations of political actors is part of a venerable tradition in political science and Teske's use of narrative will be of particular interest to rhetorical scholars. Kathy B. Smith Wake Forest University The Modern Political Campaign: Mudslinging, Bombast, and the Vitality of American Politics. By Richard K. Scher. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1997; pp. xi + 206. $51.95 cloth; $19.95 paper. Richard K. Scher tells readers that his purpose in writing this book "is to explain why campaigns take the form they do in modern American politics. Beyond this however, is an additional theme to be developed in the book: the modern political campaign is not dysfunctional to American democracy, and while it may often seem expensive and distasteful, it really does not do us any harm, either" (6). From his perspective as both an academic who studies political campaigns and a consultant who works in campaigns, Scher offers the reader a wide variety of insights on contemporary campaigning. The central theme of this book is that contemporary American values, beliefs, and behaviors are all reflected in modern political campaigns. Scher illustrates this first by providing readers with a brief history of past presidential campaigns. Focusing primarily on the campaigns of 1800, 1828, 1840, 1884, and 1896, he explains that the basic features of contemporary campaigns such as the use of issues, the stress on personalities , the importance of political organizations and money, and the use of media, all have their antecedents in nineteenth-century America. Moreover, he shows that a variety of what are often perceived as the negative aspects of contemporary campaigning such as substituting slogans for issue analysis, utilizing dirty tricks, and marathon length campaigns, also have antecedents in nineteenth-century America. Scher 's opening chapters suggest that no less than contemporary campaigns, those of the nineteenth century were not dysfunctional to American society and likely reflected the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of prior generations of 162 Rhetoric & Public Affairs Americans. Having set the stage, Scher proceeds to his examination of contemporary political campaigns. The last two thirds of this book are devoted to chapters which examine how candidates, issues, media, and money impact on contemporary campaigns. As he treats each of these topics Scher provides readers with a variety of insightful observations. Yet, in each case, his findings are remarkably similar, and reinforce his overall thesis that campaigns reflect our society. Are we displeased with the quality of contemporary political candidates? If so, Scher observes that perhaps part of the difficulty in attracting strong candidates is that the public "has a very dim view of, and perhaps is negatively predisposed toward, the enterprise they seek to enter"(86). Such an attitude is not likely to attract our best and our brightest. Are we displeased with the way issues are treated in contemporary campaigns? If so, Scher observes that issues are inherently divisive, and political candidates are inherently seeking to build a broad consensus. Hence, it is only natural that modern candidates and campaigns "talk in clichés and tell the public what it already knows" (110). Are we displeased with media treatments of campaigns? If so, are we not ignoring what Scher illustrates to be fundamental realities of contemporary America? Namely, that "most people, even voters, are not all that interested in candidates and their campaigns, and have limited patience and attention spans for them; the media are fundamentally...