Competing for the platform: How organized interests affect party positioning in the United States (original) (raw)

The Coalitional Politics of U.S. Parties

Social Science Research Network, 2014

From Friends to Family: How Groups Decide to Ally with a Party First, since most (perhaps all), interest groups claim to be non-partisan, this paper argues that political scientists need to develop ways of empirically evaluating whether or not a group is partisan. Here, we attempt to articulate a definition of partisanship that allows us to tell where a group sits on the partisan-non-partisan spectrum. Ours is an electorally-focused definition: groups that are part of the party coalition are those that try to help only one party’s candidates win elections, across elections and over time. The less a group takes those steps, the less partisan we should consider the group. Second, we try to explain why there has traditionally been very limited research on the group-party relationship. We offer a simple qualitative model of the strategic choices that organized groups make about whether to become involved in electoral and partisan politics. This description suggests that only very few in...

Party Animals: Asymmetric Ideological Constraint Among Democratic and Republican Activists

Political Research Quarterly

Existing literature shows that Republicans in the mass public demonstrate greater ideological inconsistency and value conflict than Democrats. That is, despite a commitment to the conservative label and abstract belief in limited government, Republican identifiers’ substantive policy attitudes are nonetheless divided. Conversely, Democrats, despite registering lower levels of ideological thinking, maintain relatively consistent liberal issue attitudes. Based on theories of coalition formation and elite opinion leadership, we argue that these differences should extend to Democratic and Republican party activists. Examining surveys of convention delegates from the years 2000 and 2004, we show that Democratic activists’ attitudes are more ideologically constrained than are those of Republican activists. The results support our hypothesis and highlight that some of the inconsistent attitudes evident among mass public party identifiers can be traced to the internal divisions of the major party coalitions themselves.

A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics

Perspectives on Politics, 2012

We propose a theory of political parties in which interest groups and activists are the key actors, and coalitions of groups develop common agendas and screen candidates for party nominations based on loyalty to their agendas. This theoretical stance contrasts with currently dominant theories, which view parties as controlled by election-minded politicians. The difference is normatively important because parties dominated by interest groups and activists are less responsive to voter preferences, even to the point of taking advantage of lapses in voter attention to politics. Our view is consistent with evidence from the formation of national parties in the 1790s, party position change on civil rights and abortion, patterns of polarization in Congress, policy design and nominations for state legislatures, Congress, and the presidency.

Parties in Miniature: Where Factions Fit in U.S. Party Coalitions

Partisan conflict is a defining feature of contemporary U.S. politics. Much of this conflict has occurred between the two parties, as is documented in a sizable literature on partisan polarization. Recent intra-party disputes direct our attention to another form of partisan conflict: party factions. We know surprisingly little about factions, including where they fit in party coalitions, why they might form in an era of polarized parties, or their impact on inter-party dynamics. In this paper I develop a theory of party factions. I build on earlier accounts of parties as long coalitions of policy demanders to explain what might incentivize low-influence groups to form miniature parties (factions) within their parties. To illustrate the empirical implications of this theory, I draw on original data about the Tea Party. I demonstrate how Tea Partiers sought to increase their influence in the Republican coalition by forming a sub-party organization that pressured the Republican Party and took over its electoral machinery.

Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics

Perspectives on Politics, 2015

Scholarship commonly implies that the major political parties in the United States are configured as mirror images to each other, but the two sides actually exhibit important and underappreciated differences. The Republican Party is primarily the agent of an ideological movement whose supporters prize doctrinal purity, while the Democratic Party is better understood as a coalition of social groups seeking concrete government action. This asymmetry is reinforced by American public opinion, which favors left-of-center positions on most specific policy issues yet simultaneously shares the general conservative preference for smaller and less active government. Each party therefore faces a distinctive governing challenge in balancing the unique demands of its base with the need to maintain broad popular support. This foundational difference between the parties also explains why the rise of the Tea Party movement among Republicans in recent years has not been accompanied by an equivalent ...