Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship

  • Katherine Krimmel (a1)

Abstract

Why have group-party alliances become more common since the mid-twentieth century? To address this question, I develop a continuum of group-party relationships, running from fluid, unstructured interactions, akin to political pluralism, to highly institutionalized alliances, as we might see in a firm. Drawing on pluralist scholarship and theories of firm formation and evolution, I explore the costs and benefits of different arrangements and explain why we might expect to see movement along the continuum over time. On the one hand, pluralism offers flexibility to parties and groups, and alliances have little value when parties are too weak to discipline their members in Congress. On the other, institutionalized alliances offer significant efficiency and security gains, which are especially valuable during periods of growth. I demonstrate the plausibility of this organizational theory by examining the evolution of group-party relations in the executive branch from the Nixon through Reagan administrations using archival documents collected at four presidential libraries.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Footnotes

Hide All

Many thanks to Ira Katznelson, Robert Lieberman, Nolan McCarty, and Gregory Wawro for their guidance on this project. Thanks also to Brian Balogh, Alan Brinkley, Paul Frymer, Daniel Galvin, Fredrick Harris, Jeffrey Jenkins, David Karol, Seth Masket, David Mayhew, Sidney Milkis, Daniel Stid, my co-fellows at the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Report of the Committee on Political Parties,” supplement, The American Political Science Review 44 (1950).

2. See, e.g., Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences,” Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006): 83110 . Scholars of parties, like Byron Shafer and Nelson Polsby, have also noted the enhanced role that party reforms of the late 1960s and early 1970s afforded party activists. Polsby, Nelson W., Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Shafer, Byron E., Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Convention (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).

3. Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org.

4. Ibid.

5. Heaney, Michael T., Masket, Seth E., Miller, Joanne M., and Strolovitch, Dara Z., “Polarized Networks: The Organizational Affiliations of National Party Convention Delegates,” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (2012): 1654–77.

6. Key, V. O. Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 5th ed. (New York: Crowell, 1942); Truman, David, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951); Blaisdell, Donald, American Democracy under Pressure (New York: Ronald Press, 1957); Holtzman, Abraham, Interest Groups and Lobbying (New York: Macmillan, 1966); Greenstone, J. David, Labor in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969). Greenstone focused on the alliance between the Democratic Party and organized labor. However, he also noted that this was an exceptional case. For the most part, he observed, groups were not closely aligned with parties at this time.

7. Key, Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 212.

8. Truman, The Governmental Process, 295.

9. Tichenor, Daniel J. and Harris, Richard A., “The Development of Interest Group Politics in America: Beyond the Conceits of Modern Times,” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (2005): 266 .

10. Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 10 (2012): 571–97. Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

11. Karol, David, Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

12. For example, Christopher Baylor details the role that interest groups (especially the NAACP and CIO) played in party realignment on civil rights. They worked together to push Democrats to include support for civil rights in their platform and push opponents of civil rights out of the party. Brian Feinstein and Eric Schickler have also shown interest groups’ role in the development of parties’ positions on civil rights, and Geoffrey Layman et al. have shown their influence on parties’ positions on abortion. Christopher Baylor, A., “First to the Party: The Group Origins of the Partisan Transformation on Civil Rights, 1940–1960,” Studies in American Political Development 27 (2013). Feinstein, Brian and Schickler, Eric, “Platforms and Partners: The Civil Rights Realignment Reconsidered,” Studies in American Political Development 22 (2008): 226 . Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John, Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn, “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics,” American Political Science Review 104 (2010).

13. The two books complement each other very well, as Galvin examined party building by presidents (i.e., electoral victors), and Klinkner examined organizational developments following electoral losses. Together, they form a rich history of party building since the mid-twentieth century. It is important to note that party-building efforts were not even over this period. Galvin showed that Democratic presidents, enjoying the strength of their New Deal Democratic coalition, were much less interested in party building than their rivals. Galvin, Daniel J., Presidential Party Building: Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010); Klinkner, Philip, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees 1956–1993 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994).

14. Mayhew, David, Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974).

15. I visited the Clinton Presidential Library, but was not able to collect many materials because very little has been processed for research so far.

16. Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Schlesinger, Joseph A., Political Parties and the Winning of Office (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).

17. Aldrich, John, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

18. Bawn et al., “A Theory of Political Parties,” 571–97. Cohen et al., The Party Decides.

19. Schlozman, Daniel, When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 3 .

20. Noteworthy examples of linkages that stop short of anchor status include the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party, and environmental groups and the Democratic Party.

21. Frymer, Paul and Skrentny, John David, “Coalition-Building and the Politics of Electoral Capture during the Nixon Administration: African Americans, Labor, Latinos,” Studies in American Political Development 12 (1998): 131–61.

22. This may happen, for example, if appealing to the group could reduce the party's appeal to other groups.

23. I have not included Key's last category of “parties-in-the-electorate.” As Aldrich argued persuasively, even strong partisans tend to view parties as something separate from themselves. Thus, people in the electorate are better viewed as consumers rather than elements of parties. Since I am concerned with party agency, I focus on the two parts of the tripartite framework over which party elites have direct control. Aldrich, Why Parties?; Key, Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups.

24. As noted earlier, in Party Position Change in American Politics, Karol departed from the classic group-centered theory by arguing that politicians manage the coalition of groups. He also acknowledged that groups vary significantly in the strength of their attachment to parties, and that such attachments can change over time. Examining this variation is beyond the scope of the book, however.

25. Greif, Avner and Laitin, David D., “A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change,” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 636 .

26. Polsby, Nelson W., “How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative,” Journal of Politics 22 (1960): 481 .

27. Truman, The Governmental Process, 282.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1942).

31. Truman, The Governmental Process, 285.

32. Ibid., 296–97.

33. Nolan McCarty and Lawrence Rothenberg, “A Positive Theory of Group-Politician Alliances: The Logic of Cooperation,” paper presented at Public Choice Society, San Diego, CA, March 14, 2002.

34. Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties, 35.

35. Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties; Key, Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups; Truman, The Governmental Process; Hansen, John Mark, Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

36. There has been some disagreement within the political science literature about whether parties have become stronger or weaker over time. In his classic book on parties, Aldrich argues that that when scholars note the decline of parties, they are generally talking about parties-in-the-electorate—today, fewer people identify as Democrats and Republicans (i.e., more identify as independents). As organizations and in government, however, the two major parties have become stronger (Aldrich, Why Parties?).

37. Skinner, Richard M., More than Money: Interest Group Action in Congressional Elections (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).

38. Grossman, Gene M. and Helpman, Elhanan, Special Interest Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001), 22 .

39. Morris, Aldon D., “Black Southern Student Sit-in Movement: An Analysis of Internal Organization,” American Sociological Review 46 (1981); Oldfield, Duane, The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996).

40. Coase, R. H., “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica 4 (1937): 386405 .

41. Eggertsson, Thrainn, Economic Behaviors and Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 48 ; Coase, “The Nature of the Firm.”

42. Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962), 31 .

43. Williamson, Oliver E., “The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes,” Journal of Economic Literature 19 (1981): 1537–68.

44. Ibid., 1548.

45. Hansen, Gaining Access.

46. Ibid. Hansen also argued that a group is more likely to become allied with a party when there exists an opposing group that would appeal to the opposing party. This argument is not emphasized here because it is orthogonal to the logic of firm expansion, and explaining variation across groups is not the focus of the present analysis.

47. Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties, 3.

48. Skocpol, Theda and Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism,” Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 681–99.

49. Chandler, Strategy and Structure.

50. As Joseph Pika noted, responsibility for group liaison was “unsystematically scattered among staff members” from the Roosevelt through Johnson administrations. Joseph A. Pika, “The White House Office of Public Liaison,” White House Transition Project, (2009), 2, www.whitehousetransitionproject.org.

51. One might be concerned that reliance on party archives could bias the analysis, and that materials from group archives might tell a different story. In particular, one might worry that members of the party in government would exaggerate their own agency in transforming group-party relations. They might not want to acknowledge that they were acquiescing to group pressure. While this might be the case to some degree, this problem is unlikely to undermine the argument that parties contributed to the evolution of group-party relationships. First, most of the materials buttressing this analysis were not public documents at the time of their creation. Most are internal memoranda, notes, and planning materials, not press releases or other public statements. While the authors of these materials were likely aware that their work would ultimately be available to the public through archives, it seems unlikely that this would have strongly affected their plans or communications with one another. Surely other concerns were more salient, especially considering that presidential libraries do not open until years after the administration has left office. Thus, it seems they would have little incentive to downplay the degree to which they were acquiescing to group pressure. Moreover, I am not arguing that parties were the sole or even necessarily the primary drivers of the transformation of group-party relationships; I am arguing simply that they had incentives to play a proactive role, and that they followed these incentives. While it would of course be ideal to have archival materials from a range of groups as well, the high costs associated with collecting archival materials make this ideal very difficult to achieve. And the administration's archives still provide valuable information about what the party in government was thinking and doing with respect to group-party relationships. I am confident that this is sufficient to show that groups were not the sole drivers of change.

52. Galvin, Presidential Party Building.

53. Ibid.

54. Frymer and Skrentny, “Coalition-Building and the Politics of Electoral Capture during the Nixon Administration.”

55. Pika, “The White House Office of Public Liaison,” 3.

56. For more on group-party relationships in the pre-Nixon era, see Pika, “The White House Office of Public Liaison.”

57. Jeb S. Magruder to the Attorney General and H. R. Haldeman (memo), January 21, 1971, Republican National Committee folder [7 of 10], Box 25, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection: Jeb Stuart Magruder Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

58. C. W. Colson to H. R. Haldeman (memo), November 6, 1969, HRH Memos 1969–1970 (complete) folder [2 of 3], Box 1, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

59. Handwritten notes, HRH Memos 1969–1970 (complete) folder [1 of 3], Box 1, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

60. Video oral history interview with Charles Colson, August 17, 2007.

61. Draft presentation with notes, Notes on Voter Blocs and Voter Bloc Presentation, Voter Bloc Presentation folder, Box 30, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Frederic Malek Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

62. Thomas B. Evans, Jr. to Jeb S. Magruder (memo), March 17, 1971, JSM Republican National Committee folder [5 of 10], Box 25, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Jeb Stuart Magruder Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

63. Jeb S. Magruder to the Attorney General (memo), December 16, 1971, JSM Republican National Committee folder [1 of 10], Box 24, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Jeb Stuart Magruder Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

64. Jon M. Huntsman to Gordon Strachan (memo), November 19, 1971, JSM Republican National Committee folder [3 of 10], Box 24, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Jeb Stuart Magruder Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

65. Barry Mountain to Tom Evans (memo), June 10, 1971, JSM Republican National Committee folder [4 of 10], Box 24, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Jeb Stuart Magruder Papers, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

66. Ibid.

67. Budget Recommendations to Nelson Gross for the Catholic Campaign, Citizens—Catholic Vote folder [1 of 2], Box 27, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Frederic Malek Papers: Series III: Citizen Groups, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

68. George T. Bell to Charles W. Colson (memo), January 19, 1972, Aging folder, Box 29, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson: Subject Files, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

69. Barry Mountain to Tom Evans (memo), June 10, 1971; L. J. Evans, Jr. to Chuck Colson (memo), February 28, 1972, Aging folder, Box 29, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson: Subject Files, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

70. Cyril F. Brickfield to Charles W. Colson (letter), January 23, 1970, American Association of Retired Persons/National Retired Teachers Association folder, Box 31, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

71. L. J. Evans, Jr. to Fred Malek (memo), May 24, 1972, Citizens—Older Americans folder [6 of 8] II, Box 33, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Frederic Malek Papers: Series III: Citizen Groups, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

72. Handwritten notes, March 17, 1972, Citizens—Catholic Vote folder [1 of 2], Box 27, Committee for the Re-Election of the President Collection (CRP): Frederic Malek Papers: Series III: Citizens Groups, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

73. Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 139.

74. Evans to Magruder (memo), March 17, 1971.

75. L. J. Evans, Jr. to Charles W. Colson (memo), August 7, 1972, Aging folder, Box 29, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson: Subject Files, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

76. George T. Bell to Charles W. Colson (memo), August 18, 1970, General Federation of Women's Clubs folder, Box 67, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson; Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA; Fred Malek to Chuck Colson (memo), June 10, 1971, [Barbara] Franklin—Memos folder, Box 29, Barbara Franklin Reference File—Office File, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

77. Evans to Malek (memo), May 24, 1972.

78. L. J. Evans, Jr. to Chuck Colson (memo), January 24, 1972, Aging folder, Box 29, White House Special Files: Staff Member and Office Files: Charles W. Colson: Subject Files; Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, CA.

79. Phillips-Fein, Kim, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009).

80. Miscellaneous planning materials, Public Liaison Office—Concepts folder, Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

81. Points to be covered in Cabinet Presentation on Public Liaison Office, undated, Public Liaison Office—General folder [1], Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

82. Points to be covered in Cabinet Presentation on Public Liaison Office (notes), undated, Public Liaison Office—General folder [1], Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

83. Interview with William J. Baroody, Jr., Assistant to the President, November 1974, Public Liaison Office—General folder [2], Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

84. Background material on the Office of Public Liaison, undated, Public Liaison Office—Concepts folder, Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

85. Meeting with Selected Members of Executive Committee of the Committee on Resolutions (Platform) (notes), August 15, 1976, Republican Platform—1976: Platform Committee Negotiations folder [2], Box 23, Michael Raoul-Duval Papers, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

86. William J. Baroody to President Ford (memo), May 31, 1974, Office of Public Liaison folder [1], Box 19, Theodore Marrs Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

87. Background material on the Office of Public Liaison, undated, Public Liaison Office—Concepts folder, Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI; background material on ‘Tuesday Meetings,’ undated, Public Liaison Office—General folder [1], Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

88. Background material on the Office of Public Liaison, undated.

89. Press Conference of William J. Baroody, Jr., November 7, 1974.

90. Ibid.

91. See, e.g., “Ford Tries to Run an ‘Open’ Shop,” Denver Post, March 1, 1975, Scrapbook Materials folder [4], Box 13, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI; “Mr. Clean in the White House,” Miami Herald, February 23, 1975, Scrapbook Material folder [4], Box 13, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

92. See, e.g., “Selling of a President: Publicity Expands Under Ford,” New York Times, March 17, 1975, Scrapbook Material folder [4], Box 13, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI; “Selling Ford as Right for Job,” Houston Post, May 18, 1975, Public Liaison Office—General folder [4], Box 10, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

93. “Ford's Image Machine,” New Republic, Scrapbook Material folder [4], Box 13, William Baroody Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

94. William J. Baroody, Jr. to President Ford (memo), May 31, 1974, Office of Public Liaison folder [1], Box 19, Theodore Marrs Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

95. “Question for Today: Is the Nation Ready to be ‘Baroodied’?” Wall Street Journal, February 25, 1975, Office of Public Liaison folder [3], Box 19, Theodore Marrs Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

96. Galvin, Presidential Party Building.

97. “Remarks of the President at the 18th Biennial National Federation of Republican Women's Convention” (speech), September 13, 1975, District of Columbia 9/17/76 National Federation of Republican Women Reception folder, Box 4, Gwen Anderson Files, Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI.

98. Highlighting the depth to which the party had fallen, Klinkner noted, “At the January 1977 meeting of the RNC, John East, then national committeeman and later senator from North Carolina … suggested that the Republican label had become an albatross and that the committee should consider changing the party's name” (Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 134). East was not alone in these sentiments; prominent Senator Jesse Helms and even Ronald Reagan also discussed a potential name change.

99. Points to be covered in Cabinet Presentation on Public Liaison Office, undated.

100. Anne Wexler Interview, Exit Interview Project, December 12, 1980, https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/research/oral_histories#exit.]

101. Interview with Anne Wexler (with Michael Chanin, Richard Neustadt, and John Ryor), Carter Presidency Project, Miller Center of Public Affairs, Presidential Oral History Program, February 12–13, 1981; Wexler Exit Interview 1980.

102. Wexler Exit Interview 1980.

103. Ibid.

104. Ibid.

105. Wexler Oral History 1981.

106. Wexler Exit Interview 1980.

107. Wexler Oral History 1981.

108. Ibid.

109. Ibid.

110. Video oral history interview with Charles Colson, August 17, 2007.

111. Pika, “The White House Office of Public Liaison.”

112. Peterson, Mark A., “The Presidency and Organized Interests: White House Patterns of Interest Group Liaison,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 617 .

113. This includes interaction with any part of the Executive Office of the President (e.g., OPL, the Office of Management and Budget, etc.).

114. Galvin, Presidential Party Building.

115. Ibid., 123.

116. Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 147.

117. Trent Lott to The President (letter), May 21, 1981, Pro-Family—1982 folder, Box F008 (11), Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA; Stan Parris to President Reagan (letter), May 19, 1981, Pro-Family—1982 folder, Box F008 (11), Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA; Suggested Invitees to Small Meeting of the President and Conservative Leaders with the Most Political Clout, Conservatives—General folder, Box F001, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

118. Suggested Invitees to Small Meeting of the President and Conservative Leaders with the Most Political Clout.

119. Robert L. Livingston to President Reagan (letter), June 8, 1981, Pro-Family Activists folder [2], Box OA9081(12), Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

120. Letter from Lott to the President, May 21, 1981.

121. Proposal, January 28, 1982, Equal Rights Amendment folder [2], Box F002, F003, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

122. Schedule Proposal, Meeting with “Pro-Family” Activists, April 22, 1981, Pro-Family Activists folder [1], Box OA9081(12), Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

123. Morton Blackwell to Red Cavaney (memo), January 27, 1983, Conservatives—General—1982 folder [6], Box F001, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA; Notes on Meeting with Dr. Jerry Falwell, March 14, 1983, Moral Majority folder [3 of 9], Box 9, Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

124. Memo to Robert J. Thompson, July 11, 1982, Pro-Life II folder [5], Box OA9081(13), Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

125. Gary J. Bauer to Edwin L. Harper (memo), June 18, 1982, Pro-Life—Continued—\#2 folder [7], Box OA9081, 9082(14), Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA. Gary L. Bauer to Edwin L. Harper (memo), May 18, 1982, Pro-Life—Continued—\#2 folder [7], Box OA9081, 9082(14), Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA; Memo to Thompson, July 11, 1982.

126. Notes on various groups, Conservative Groups folder [1 of 4], Box 7, Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

127. Schedule Proposal, Meeting with Conservative Coalition Groups, February 11, 1981, Conservative Coalition Group Meeting folder, Box F026, F027 (31), Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

128. Notes on Meeting with Dr. Jerry Falwell, March 14, 1983, Moral Majority folder [3 of 9], Box 9, Morton Blackwell Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

129. Jack Burgess to Elizabeth H. Dole via Red Cavaney (memo), August 6, 1981, Tuition Tax Credits 1981 folder, Box F010 (16), Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

130. OPL Issues Travel Book, Travel—OPL Issues Travel Book folder [1], Box F010 (16), Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

131. Gary Bauer to Edwin Harper and Roger Porter (memo), March 3, 1982, Conservatives—General—1982 folder [2], Box F001, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA; Elizabeth H. Dole to Edwin Meese III, James A. Baker, III, Ed Harper (memo), March 9, 1982, Conservatives—General—1982 folder [2], Box F001, Elizabeth Dole Files, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA.

132. McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).

133. Bawn et al. conceive of parties differently than Aldrich, in that Bawn et al. view parties as coalitions of groups rather than coalitions of office seekers. Nevertheless, all of these scholars characterize parties as creatures that adapt to the needs of their members.

134. Bawn et al., “A Theory of Political Parties”; Masket, Seth, The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How They Weaken Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).

135. Schattschneider, , Party Government (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1942); Schattschneider, E. E., “Pressure Groups versus Political PartiesAnnals of the American Academy of Political Science 29 (1948): 1132 ; Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960).

Many thanks to Ira Katznelson, Robert Lieberman, Nolan McCarty, and Gregory Wawro for their guidance on this project. Thanks also to Brian Balogh, Alan Brinkley, Paul Frymer, Daniel Galvin, Fredrick Harris, Jeffrey Jenkins, David Karol, Seth Masket, David Mayhew, Sidney Milkis, Daniel Stid, my co-fellows at the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship

  • Katherine Krimmel (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed