Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:00:28.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Party Activists, Interest Groups, and Polarization in American Politics

from PART I - POLARIZATION AMONG VOTERS AND ACTIVISTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

David Karol
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
James A. Thurber
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Antoine Yoshinaka
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Buffalo
Get access

Summary

  1. • Parties are more than their formal structures. They cannot be understood without attention to the role of both activists and party-aligned interest groups.

  2. • The policy preferences of activists and interest groups are both shaped by and shape the behavior of elected officials. Sometimes activists and lobbies take cues from politicians, but their actions also reinforce and contribute to polarization in important ways.

  3. • The polarization of Democrats and Republicans reflects the incorporation of new groups in party coalitions since the 1970s.

Polarization is visible in many aspects of American politics, from Congress to the courts to state legislatures and even the electorate. The common thread linking all of these settings is political parties. Polarization is a party story. Yet understanding American parties is a challenging endeavor. Parties, unlike the branches of government or even the electorate, are not well-bounded entities. Individuals and groups with no formal role or place on the organization chart play important roles in parties.

In this chapter, I argue that activists and interest groups are key elements of political parties. Activists and party-aligned interest groups work within parties to advance their policy goals via candidate selection and lobbying elected officials. Unlike the formal party structure and some elements closely linked to it, activists and interest groups are a force for polarization. I review delegate and donor surveys as well as trends in interest group campaign contributions revealing evidence of polarization among activists and lobbies. Elected officials’ relationships with party activists and interest groups are not one-sided. Even more than highly informed voters, activists take cues from politicians, and interest group leaders are subject to pressure from elected officials. Still, evidence suggests that activists and party-linked interest groups promote polarization.

AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES: REVIVED AND POLARIZED

American political parties, once seen to be in terminal decline, have been reinvigorated in recent decades. In the same period that polarization emerged, party organizations have grown far better funded and staffed (Herrnson 2013). Mann and Corrado (2014) find that in the 1976 campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised $52.8 million, $4.1 million, and $3.8 million, respectively (all sums are in 2012 dollars). By 2012, the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC raised $290.4 million, $145.9 million, and $183.8 million in 2012 dollars, respectively.

Type
Chapter
Information
American Gridlock
The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization
, pp. 68 - 85
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans and Zaller, John. 2012. ”A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Jonathan, and Dominguez, Casey B.K.. 2003. “Candidates and Candidacies in the Expanded Party.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 165–169.Google Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G. 2009. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Boatright, Robert. 2013. Getting Primaried. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam 2011, “Small Donors and Polarization.” Boston Review, July 22.
Broockman, David, and Skovron, Chris. 2014. “What Politicians Believe about Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions and Prospects for Constituency Control.” Unpublished MS, University of California, Berkeley.
Brown, Clifford W., Hedges, Roman and Powell, Lynda W.. 1980. “Belief Structure in a Political Elite: Contributions to the 1972 Presidential Candidates.” Polity 13 (1): 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Woods, James. 2002. “The Role of Party Activists in the Abortion Issue.” Political Behavior 24 (4): 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q.. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6 (2): 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Martin. 2005. “Moral Victories: Cultural Conservatism and the Creation of a New Republican Congressional Majority.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008a. “The Invisible Primary in Presidential Nominations, 1980–2004.” In Mayer, William G., ed., The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2008. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008b. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dark, Taylor E. 2001. The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dominguez, Casey B.K. 2011. “Does the Party Matter? Endorsements in Congressional Primaries.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (3): 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, Ryan, and Hersh, Eitan. Forthcoming. “Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem.” American Political Science Review.
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferrell, Robert H. 1994. Choosing Truman: The Democratic Convention of 1944. Columbia : University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., with Abrams, Samuel J.. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard, and Lawless, Jennifer. 2010. “If Only They'd Ask: Gender, Recruitment and Political Ambition.” Journal of Politics 72 (2): 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francia, Peter L., Green, John C., Herrnson, Paul S., Powell, Lynda W., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2005. “Limousine Liberals and Corporate Conservatives: The Financial Constituencies of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” Social Science Quarterly 86: 762–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Lee, Frances E., and Parrott, Michael. 2014. “Business Interests and the Party Coalitions: Industry Sector Contributions to U.S. Congressional Candidates.” American Politics Research 42: 1034–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, Marie. 2000. The Shadow Welfare State: Labor, Business and the Politics of Health Care in the U.S. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2005. Off-Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2013. “National Parties in the 21st Century.” In Brewer, Mark D. and Maisel, L. Sandy, eds., The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns. th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 131–160.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 2009. “The Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections.” Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1207–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchliffe, Kelsey, and Lee, Frances. 2014. “Party Competition and Conflict in State Legislatures.” Paper Presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association.
Hollibaugh, Gary E. Jr. Forthcoming. “The Political Determinants of Ambassadorial Appointments.” Presidential Studies Quarterly.
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4): 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karol, David. 2014a. “Parties and Leadership in American Politics.” Paper prepared for Conference on “Leadership in American Politics.” Miller Center, University of Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia, June 2–3, 2014.
Karol, David. 2014b. “Parties Revised and Revived: Democrats and Republicans in the Age of Reagan, 1980–2000.” In Hershey, Marjorie, ed., CQ Guide to U.S. Political Parties. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, Robin. 2000. “Electoral Partnerships: Political Consultants and Political Parties.” In Thurber, James A. and Nelson, Candace J., eds., Campaign Warriors: Political Consultants in Elections. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kull, Steven, and Destler, I.M.. 1999. Misreading the Public: The Myth of a New Isolationism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J., and Wiltse, David L.. 2012. “Don't Blame Donors for Ideological Polarization of Political Parties.” American Politics Research 40 (30): 501–530.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 324–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2013. “An Irresponsible Two-Party System? Problems of Governance in a Time of Uncertain Majorities.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Oxford Conference on Governing in Polarized Politics, Oxford University, April 17, 2013.
Mann, Thomas E., and Corrado, Anthony. 2014. “Party Polarization and Campaign Finance.” Report of the Center for Effective Public Management. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Martin, Cathie Jo. 1995. “Stuck in Neutral: Big Business and the Politics of National Health Reform.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 20 (2): 431–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayhew, David. R. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, Hoffman, Paul, and O'Hara, Rosemary, 1960.“Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers.” American Political Science Review 54: 406–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miler, Kristina C. 2010. Constituency Representation in Congress: The View from the Hill. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” The American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1983 Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, K.L., and Abramowitz, A.I.. 2004. Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate. American Politics Research 32: 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph. 1984. “On the Theory of Party Organization.” Journal of Politics 46 (2): 369–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Mildred. 1990. The Party Network: The Robust Organization of Illinois Republicans. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Shaiko, Ronald G. 1998. “Reverse Lobbying: Interest Group Mobilization from the White House and the Hill.” In Cigler, Allan J. and Loomis, Burdett A., eds., Interest Group Politics, edition. Washington DC: CQ Press, 259–267.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Lowry, William R.. 2001. “Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (2): 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2006. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Richard. 2007. More than Money: Interest Group Action in Congressional Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan. 2007. “The Allocation of Campaign Contributions by Interest Groups and the Rise of Elite Polarization.” Unpublished MS, Stanford University.
Weir, Margaret. 1995. “Institutional and Political Obstacles to Reform.” Health Affairs 14 (1): 102–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, Nancy. 1983. Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. “Explaining Women's Rights Realignment: Convention Delegates, 1972–1992.” Political Behavior 24: 237–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×