Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Forum

A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

Ed. by Disalvo, Daniel / Stonecash, Jeffrey

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.536

CiteScore 2017: 0.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.265
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.723

Online
ISSN
1540-8884
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 15, Issue 4

Issues

Groups Agendas as the Root of Party Position Change

Christopher Baylor
Published Online: 2018-03-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2017-0043

Abstract

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.

References

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

  • Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Baylor, Christopher. 2017. First to the Party: the Group Origins of Political Transformation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carmines, Edward and James Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

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 University of California, Los Angeles: unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar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

  • Converse, Philip E. 2006. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DiSalvo, Daniel. 2012. Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868–2010. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (4): 814.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Masket, Seth. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Masket, Seth. 2016. The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and how They Weaken Democracy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • Noel, Hans. 2007. “Listening to the Coalition Merchants: Measuring the Intellectual Influence.” The Forum 5 (3).Google Scholar

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

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

  • Schickler, Eric. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Tichenor, Daniel and Richard A. Harris. 2002. “Organized Interests and American Political Development.” Political Science Quarterly 117 (4): 587–612.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-03-05


Citation Information: The Forum, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 655–665, ISSN (Online) 1540-8884, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2017-0043.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in