Book: Drift and Mastery

Overview
Walter Lippmann presents a diagnostic account of early 20th-century American social and political turmoil, framing the moment as a conflict between "drift" and "mastery." "Drift" describes a society left to impersonal forces, industrialization, urbanization, mass immigration, and market dynamics, while "mastery" names the capacity for conscious, collective control through organized public institutions and skilled leadership. The book situates the unrest of the period as the predictable consequence of rapid change outpacing civic structures.
Lippmann treats the problem as both practical and moral: a mismatch between complex social realities and inadequate tools for democratic governance. He refuses simple nostalgia for older forms of order, insisting instead on deliberate institutional reform that brings knowledge and foresight to public life.

Main Themes
The central contrast between drift and mastery organizes a set of interrelated themes: the erosion of traditional social bonds, the rise of anonymous economic forces, and the insufficiency of popular political instincts to manage large-scale collective problems. Lippmann contends that passive adjustment to change produces dislocation and resentment, which then fuel political instability and demagoguery.
At the same time, he champions the possibility of mastery through deliberate effort: the development of administrative competence, public-minded expertise, and mechanisms that translate specialized knowledge into democratic action. Mastery is portrayed not as technocratic dominance but as a civic art that blends professional skill with accountable institutions.

Diagnosis of Causes
Lippmann identifies industrial capitalism, concentrated private power, rapid urban growth, and the breakdown of local civic networks as drivers of drift. These transformations create new social needs and dependencies that traditional political forms cannot easily accommodate. The mass character of contemporary society also complicates public deliberation, as individual citizens lack the time and information to form competent judgments about complex policy issues.
He highlights how sensational journalism, partisan agitation, and simplistic slogans exploit widespread uncertainty. Instead of fostering thoughtful debate, public opinion becomes volatile, reactive, and easily manipulated in a context of institutional weakness.

Proposed Remedies
The remedy Lippmann advocates centers on institutional reform and the cultivation of expertise. He calls for professional civil service, scientific management of public utilities, investment in education and civic training, and mechanisms to gather and apply empirical knowledge to policy problems. Democratic participation should be restructured so that citizens can make meaningful choices informed by reliable information and competent administration.
Lippmann stresses the need for balance: experts and administrators must be effective but remain accountable, and democratic processes should channel public sentiment into constructive demands rather than episodic outbursts. He envisions a politics of prudent leadership, where responsible elites work with civic institutions to steer society toward collective purposes.

Tensions and Critiques
The book acknowledges the tension between expertise and democratic equality. Emphasizing mastery risks elitism and the marginalization of popular voices; underlining democratic responsiveness risks reducing policy to reactionary impulses. Lippmann navigates this tension by advocating institutions that institutionalize expertise without insulating power from public scrutiny.
Critics might read his proposals as technocratic, but Lippmann insists that mastery requires democratic consent and moral imagination as much as technical skill. The real challenge lies in designing institutions that combine competence, legitimacy, and adaptability.

Legacy and Relevance
Lippmann's diagnosis became a touchstone for Progressive-era reformers and for later debates about the role of the administrative state and expert knowledge in democracy. His concerns about information, public opinion, and institutional capacity anticipated 20th-century discussions about bureaucracy, media influence, and policy expertise. Contemporary debates over technocracy, populism, and the limits of democratic knowledge continue to echo the tension between drift and mastery.
The book remains a provocative reflection on how modern societies can harness knowledge and organization to pursue collective ends while preserving democratic accountability and responsiveness.