Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 5, 2018

Groups Agendas as the Root of Party Position Change

Christopher Baylor EMAIL logo
From the journal The Forum


One dimension of party realignment – party position change – has been debated extensively in recent political science literature. This article reviews recent evidence presented to explain position change: candidates, politically active groups, and ideology. Based on historical case studies, I make the case for treating politically active groups as the most important factor in party change. A clear understanding of these factors can help us understand whether recent changes in both parties are harbingers of long term trends.


Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882731Search in Google Scholar

Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226012773.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Baylor, Christopher. 2017. First to the Party: the Group Origins of Political Transformation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812294514Search in Google Scholar

Bawn, Kathleen, Marty Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands, and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–597.10.1017/S1537592712001624Search in Google Scholar

Carmines, Edward and James Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691218250Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Marty. 2005. “Moral Victories.” University of California, Los Angeles: unpublished dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226112381.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Converse, Philip E. 2006. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74.10.1080/08913810608443650Search in Google Scholar

DiSalvo, Daniel. 2012. Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868–2010. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199891702.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Search in Google Scholar

Gerring, John. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174992Search in Google Scholar

Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (4): 814.10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814Search in Google Scholar

Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, John Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104: 2.10.1017/S000305541000016XSearch in Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane. 1993. “Self-interest and Political Transformation.” In Reconsidering the Democratic Public, edited by George E. Marcus, Russell L. Hanson, 91–109. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Masket, Seth. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.349912Search in Google Scholar

Masket, Seth. 2016. The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and how They Weaken Democracy. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190220839.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Mayhew, David. 2002. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617201Search in Google Scholar

Noel, Hans. 2006. “The Coalition Merchants: How Ideologues Shape Parties in America Politics.” PhD dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.Search in Google Scholar

Noel, Hans. 2007. “Listening to the Coalition Merchants: Measuring the Intellectual Influence.” The Forum 5 (3).10.2202/1540-8884.1198Search in Google Scholar

Noel, Hans. 2014. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139814775Search in Google Scholar

Riker, William H. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74 (2): 445.10.1007/978-94-009-7380-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1942. Party Government. Transaction Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Schickler, Eric. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691153872.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Schlozman, Daniel. 2015. When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400873838Search in Google Scholar

Sundquist, James. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System:Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tichenor, Daniel and Richard A. Harris. 2002. “Organized Interests and American Political Development.” Political Science Quarterly 117 (4): 587–612.10.2307/798136Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-3-5

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 8.12.2022 from
Scroll Up Arrow