Party Coalitions, Interest Groups and the Limits of Unidimensionality in Congress By David Karol dkarol@Berkeley.edu Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science UC Berkeley COLLOQUIUM IN AMERICAN POLITICS Institute for Governmental Studies October 17,2005 Abstract Scholars have long sought to understand the structure of voting among Members of Congress (MCs) and the reasons for it. They generally agree that voting in the contemporary Congress is characterized by a unidimensional left- right cleavage that can be disrupted only by cross-cutting or off-dimensional issues or ends against the middle voting. Yet I show that a bill bundling issues which are NOT cross-cutting when considered separately can still disrupt normal voting patterns if it moves policy leftward in one issue area and rightward in another. This will occur when MCs with similar spatial locations on the left-right continuum differ in weighing the importance of particular provisions in forming their overall evaluation of a bill. Such heterogeneity in assessment of the relative importance of different aspects of a proposal may stem from variation in MCs' closeness to different party constituencies or legislators' own ideological priorities. Proposals provoking such conflict may stem either from heresthetic tactics or real-world factors that bundle factors inescapably in a way that pits party constituencies with generally orthogonal concerns against each other, disrupting longstanding coalitions. Empirically, I focus on two cases from the 107th Congress: Bankruptcy Reform and Permanent Normal Trade with China. In both cases the unidimensional spatial model of voting performed badly because GOP MCs were cross-pressured by two factions within their coalition: business and Christian conservatives. Such cases reflect the multidimensional attitudinal structure among voters and the potential divides beneath the surface of coalitions such as the contemporary Republican Party. More broadly, they support understandings of unidimensional ideological polarization in Congress and American politics generally as a social construct rather than a result of innate human traits. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1-4, Washington D.C.
If a man does not make new acquaintance as he advances through life, he will soon find himself left alone. A man, Sir, should keep his friendship in constant repair.Dr. Johnson, quoted in Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson
Supplemental material, _online_supp_-_BCKS-Supplemental_Information_File_061520-Final_Version for #PolarizedFeeds: Three Experiments on Polarization, Framing, and Social Media by Antoine Banks, Ernesto Calvo, David Karol and Shibley Telhami in The International Journal of Press/Politics
In this book I have sought to highlight major changes in the positioning of American political parties in the last 50 years and to identify an underlying logic that would enhance our understanding of parties. As a result, my emphasis has been on change. Yet it is worth recalling that amid all the change in the policies and coalitions of the Democrats and Republicans there is much stability as well. The essential nature of American political parties, election-oriented coalitions of groups with intense preferences on distinct policies managed by politicians, has remained constant. Important continuities in party coalitions are also visible. Republicans' alignment with the business community, evident already in Lincoln's day, is one example. The parallel alignment of organized labor with the Democrats is more recent, but still in its eighth decade. A host of relative party policy positions consistent with the stable preferences of these coalition components, such as on labor-management relations and the welfare state, have remained in place for generations.
The 2008 presidential nominations were unprecedented in many ways. Marking another step in the democratization of the selection process and a surprising loss of control by party elites, the contests in both parties were unusually competitive and the outcomes belied the predictions of experts. This book offers a fresh look at the role of parties, the constraints of campaign finance, the status of front-runners, and the significance of rules, race, and gender in the post-reform era. In this volume, leading scholars assess the state of the process with original research about money, scheduling, superdelegates, and the role of race and gender in voting. Original analyses show how changes in campaign finance and the scheduling of primaries and caucuses helped determined the outcomes in both parties. Race, once thought of as a handicap, proved an asset for the Obama campaign. 2008 marked another milestone in the democratization of the nominations process with expanded participation by rank and file voters in donating money, voting, and using the Internet. This timely book provides a glimpse into the future of party nominations and elections.
The 2008 presidential nominations were unprecedented in many ways. Marking another step in the democratization of the selection process and a surprising loss of control by party elites, the contests in both parties were unusually competitive and the outcomes belied the predictions of experts. This book offers a fresh look at the role of parties, the constraints of campaign finance, the status of front-runners, and the significance of rules, race, and gender in the post-reform era. In this volume, leading scholars assess the state of the process with original research about money, scheduling, superdelegates, and the role of race and gender in voting. Original analyses show how changes in campaign finance and the scheduling of primaries and caucuses helped determined the outcomes in both parties. Race, once thought of as a handicap, proved an asset for the Obama campaign. 2008 marked another milestone in the democratization of the nominations process with expanded participation by rank and file voters in donating money, voting, and using the Internet. This timely book provides a glimpse into the future of party nominations and elections.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions.William Jennings Bryan, “Cross of Gold Speech,” 1896
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
This Element explores the growing party divisions on the environment in the United States. It draws upon quantitative and qualitative data from several decades of national and state politics. The study contributes theory to the party position change literature, showing that interest groups change parties, but in turn are changed by them. In the 1970s the characteristics that predicted voters' attitudes on the environment also predicted legislators' votes. Yet as environmentalists and their opponents aligned with parties, officials had incentives to set their own views aside to represent new party constituencies. Influence flowed in both directions, however. Environmentalists were drawn to the Democrats as they confronted GOP-linked business lobbies. Environmentalists' resulting need to cooperate with other groups close to Democrats led them to change their positions. Although environmentalists were long unwelcoming to minorities, they embraced immigration reform, allied with unions on trade, and worked with civil rights lobbies and labor in battles over judicial nominations. The Element concludes with discussion of how the current party alignment on the environment might change.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)