Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T09:04:18.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in the American Party System, 1948–721

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Peter Fotheringham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM, LONG CONSIDERED TO BE DOMINATED by two decentralized, non-programmatic and non-governing parties, is once again at the heart of empirical and normative arguments about the adequacy of government in the United States. Political developments since 1948 have revitalized the longstanding debate about the causal links between the constitutional and social bases of American politics, the definitive features of the party system and the attributes and outcomes of the governmental process.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1973 , pp. 217 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Lubell, S., The Hidden Crisis in American Politics, Norton, New York, 1971 Google Scholar, for a respected journalist's view of ‘crisis’ in contemporary American politics.

3 Burns, J. M., The Deadlock of Democracy, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1963, p. 7 Google Scholar.

4 Lowi, T., ‘Party, Policy and Constitution in America’ in Chambers, W. N. and Burnham, W. D. (eds.), The American Party Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, 1967, p. 241 Google Scholar. A favourable view of American parties is also offered by L. D. Epstein in his comparative study, Political Parties in Western Democracies, Praeger, New York, 1967.

5 Pomper, G., ‘Toward a More Responsible Party System? What, Again?’ in The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, 1971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Burnham, W. D., Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics, Norton, New York, 1970, pp. 132–3Google Scholar.

7 F. J. Sorauf, ‘Political Parties and Political Analysis’ in W. N. Chambers and W. D. Burnham, op. cit., p. 55. See also Sorauf, F. J., Party Politics in America, 2nd ed., Little Brown, Boston, 1972 Google Scholar.

8 Phillips, K., The Emerging Republican Majority, Anchor Books, New York, 1970 Google Scholar.

9 Hamilton, R. F., Class and Politics in the United States, Wiley, J., New York, 1972 Google Scholar.

10 For amplification of this point see Epstein, op. cit., Chapter V.

11 See the section which follows below on ‘Party Reform’, and Wolfinger, R., ‘Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts’, Journal of Politics, 05 1972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Nicoll, Donald E., ‘How to Open Up the Democratic Party’, The New Republic, 5 and 12 08 1972 Google Scholar.

13 See T. Wicker, JFK and LBJ, Part I, Penguin, Baltimore, 1970, for an account of the difficulties facing an active president in Congress.

14 See Turner, J. and Schneier, E. V., Jr., Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress, rev. ed., The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1970 Google Scholar and Shannon, W. W., Party, Constituency and Congressional Voting, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1968 Google Scholar.

15 Turner and Schneier, ibid., p. 239.

16 See Lowi, in Chambers and Burnham, op. cit., Chapter IX, especially pp. 238–41 and pp. 274–6.

17 The US News and World Report's‘Guide to the '72 Elections’ published in 1972, but presumably written in late 1971, listed four ‘Top Democrats’, including Senators Kennedy and Jackson but not Senator McGovern.

18 Brightman, S. C., ‘The Democrats Open the Door’, The Nation, 3 05 1971 Google Scholar.

19 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. XXX, No. 28, p. 1661.

20 Axelrod, R., ‘Where the Votes Come From: An Analysis of Electoral Coalitions, 1952–1968’, American Political Science Review, Vol. LXVI, No. 1, PP. 14–15 Google Scholar.

21 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. XXX, No. 32, p. 1918.

22 The regions referred to in this article are defined as follows:

South: (i) Deep South – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina

(ii) Outer South – Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia

Border: Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and West Virginia

North–East: (i) New England – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont

(ii) Mid–Atlantic – Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania

Mid–West: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin

Farm Belt: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota

Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming

Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington

23 De Vries, W. and Torrance, V. L., The Ticket‐Sputter: A New Force in American Politics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1972, p. 31 Google Scholar.

24 In 1972 Nixon won his biggest share of the popular vote in three Deep South states: Mississippi (79 per cent), Alabama (73 per cent), and Georgia (75 per cent).

25 G. Pomper, op. cit., p. 294.

26 The Democratic majority is calculated against Republican Representatives only; the few ‘other’ parties represented in the House until 1952 are not considered.

27 W. W. Shannon, op. cit., p. 116.

28 See De Vries and Torrance, op. cit., p. 143.

29 Campbell, A. et al., The American Voter, Wiley, J., New York, 1964, pp. 90–2Google Scholar.

30 Boyd, R. N., ‘Popular Control of Public Policy: A Normal Vote Analysis of the 1968 Election’, American Political Science Review, Vol. LXVI, No. 2, p. 434 Google Scholar.

31 Burnham, op. cit., p. 10.