A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System

A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Rosenfeld, Sam Hoffmann. 2014. A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12274614 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System A dissertation presented by Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld to The Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2014 © 2013 Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Lizabeth Cohen Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System Abstract This dissertation offers an intellectual and institutional history of party polarization and ideological realignment in the postwar United States. It treats the construction of an ideologically sorted party system as a political project carried out by conscious actors within and around the Democratic and Republican parties. The work of these activists, interest groups, and political elites helped to produce, by the last decades of the twentieth century, an unpredicted and still-continuing era of strong, polarized partisanship in American politics. In tracking their work, the dissertation also account for changing ideas about the party system over time, starting with an influential postwar scholarly doctrine that cast bipartisanship as a problem for which polarization would provide the solution. National politics at mid-century involved high levels of bipartisanship in government given the presence of significant liberal and conservative factions within both parties; weak and federated party structures; and mass partisan attachments defined more by affective ties of tradition and communal affiliation than by issues and ideology. National politics at century’s end involved levels of partisan discipline in Congress unseen since the Gilded Age; robust national party organizations; and an electorate that had followed political elites in sorting itself ideologically among the two parties. The movement from the first era to the second is the subject of this project, which argues that, during these decades, America’s two-party system gained a programmatic cast and logic long considered alien to the country’s political traditions. Long-term technological and demographic developments undergirded the rise to predominance of issue-driven party activism, while southern realignment provided a key electoral engine iii Dissertation Advisor: Lizabeth Cohen Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld driving ideological sorting. But these processes took specific form through the work of activists and party elites, and they drive the dissertation’s narrative. The project contributes a historical narrative and context to the popular and scholarly discussion of contemporary party polarization, by identifying the origins of modern polarization in developments dating to the early postwar period and by historicizing Americans’ longstanding debates over partisanship. By restoring parties as institutions to the forefront of an analysis of postwar political history, moreover, the project helps to recast key historiographic themes relating to the rise of the right and the decline of the New Deal order. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS --- Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 Part I: The Bipartisan Era, 1948-1968 Chapter One 32 The Idea of Responsible Partisanship Chapter Two 53 Democrats and the Politics of Principle Chapter Three 104 A Choice, Not an Echo Part II: Redrawing the Lines, 1968-1980 Introduction to Part II 169 Chapter Four 175 The Age of Party Reform Chapter Five 247 The Making of a Vanguard Party Chapter Six 320 Liberal Alliance-Building for Lean Times Conclusion 385 Polarization Without Responsibility Bibliography 404 v For Erica vi Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of a great many people. Thanks begin with my dissertation committee. My advisor, Lizabeth Cohen, has been a crucial part of this dissertation from its inception, continually providing detailed substantive feedback, wise counsel on all academic matters both pragmatic and philosophical, and invaluable encouragement to think big in conceiving and executing the project. Only in retrospect do I fully realize how much I came over the years to draw both reassurance and renewed energy from the invariable capper she would include in her comments on each new chapter draft I gave her: “Onward!” At an important, precarious point late in the process, moreover, Liz helped to ensure that I was in a position to complete the project free of major logistical and financial disruption. Along the way she has provided a daily model of what good scholarship, conscientious academic citizenship, and supportive and constructive mentoring looks like. She has my profound gratitude. Lisa McGirr provided incisive and challenging feedback throughout the drafting of this project, and in doing so did much to help influence its framing and argument. She has consistently provided warm encouragement for my professional development, and has also served as an invaluable interlocutor regarding the place of political history in contemporary scholarship and the directions in which the subfield is headed. Daniel Carpenter has provided much-needed perspective and feedback from his vantage point within political science, and he deserves special thanks for his willingness to cross disciplinary divides in serving as a member of my committee. Both his own exemplary work in American Political Development and the conversations we have had about my project have proven instrumental to my efforts to make this work speak to interdisciplinary audiences. vii My interest in recent changes in the American party system dates back to the time I spent working as a writer and editor at The American Prospect magazine in Washington, DC. I want to thank my editors there, Michael Tomasky, Harold Meyerson, Robert Kuttner, and Paul Starr, for their intellectual and professional encouragement. Scott Lemieux served as a helpful early guide to political science scholarship on American politics and policy. In an email that he has no doubt long forgotten but that I have kept for seven years, Mark Schmitt actually suggested a version of this project as a good idea for a dissertation. As if that alone does not deserve thanks, Mark’s encyclopedic knowledge and profound insight into developments in later twentieth- century American politics have been continual sources of inspiration. Matthew Yglesias deserves special thanks for being both a good friend and a seemingly bottomless font of intellectually stimulating ideas over the years, which have influenced this project immensely. Many scholars have offered insightful and constructive feedback on this project during my years at Harvard, including Leslie Brown, Nancy Cott, Peter Hall, James Kloppenberg, Gary Reichard, Bruce Schulman, Jeffrey Selinger, and James R. Stoner. I have been privileged to benefit from both the friendship and the insights of a number of junior scholars in political science, including Julia Azari, Devin Caughey, Celia Paris, and Daniel Schlozman. Danny’s unfailing encouragement and his passion for both the study and practice of American party politics warrant special mention, as does the profound gift of his introducing me to barbeque season at Formaggio. Special thanks also go to Julian Zelizer. The intellectual debt I owe to his work is evident in the pages that follow. But throughout the development of this project, Julian has proven exceedingly generous with his time in sharing his thoughts and advice on my work. I thank the participants in the workshops and conferences at which I presented portions of this project, including the American Politics Research Workshop in Harvard’s Government viii Department; the American Political History Graduate Student Conference at Boston University; the Policy History Conference; and the annual meeting of the New England Political Science Association. The key incubator for this project, along with so many others, has been Liz Cohen’s Twentieth Century Dissertation Group, an invaluable workshop and supportive community of Americanist scholars. I thank all of its participants over the years, and in particular, I thank my good friends and unfailingly supportive colleagues, Brian Goldstein, Theresa McCulla, and Elisa Minoff. Graduate school is surely unsurvivable without friends. In addition to Brian, Theresa, and Elisa, Ross Mulcare and Erin Quinn deserve profound thanks for being such fantastic companions, co-commiserators, and, more recently, neighbors. The research for this project would not have been possible without the aid and support of many people and organizations. My sincere thanks go to the archivists, too numerous to list here by name, who demonstrated such diligence and professionalism in helping to excavate holdings and brainstorm further avenues of inquiry for me in dozens of libraries across

Load more