DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 9 Political Parties Prior to the 1990S, As Had Been True For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER 9 Political Parties Prior to the 1990s, as had been true for many years in the past, there were more persons in America who called themselves Democrats than there were people who identified with any other group.But the gap between the two parties had narrowed; the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans had increased since the 1980s. In addition, close to a third of the voters called themselves independents. What Is A Party? A broadly based coalition that attempts to gain control of the government by winning elections in order to exercise power and reward its members Party Elements Voters Party Activists Party Leaders Outside of Government Party Leaders In Government Voters A majority of them consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans Party activists Do person to person campaigning Engage in get out the vote activities Help raise campaign funds Operate local party organizations Party leaders outside of government They frequently control the party machinery and sometimes have important power bases Party leaders in the government The political office holders. The Development of American Political Parties In Federalist No. 10 James Madison predicted that Americans would divide up into political factions. George Washington, in his farewell address, warned the country against formation of political parties. The Federalist party, organized by Alexander Hamilton, was the first national political party in the country. An opposition party, the Democrat-Republicans, was formulated by Thomas Jefferson. In 1800 the Republicans replaced the Federalists in the White House when Jefferson was elected president. By the 1810s the Federalist party had declined significantly as a national party. The Republicans expanded their power from 1812 to the 1820s as the only major party. An Era of Good feeling prevailed. The Second American Party System, which began with the election of Democrat (formerly Republican party) Andrew Jackson in 1828, continued until the Civil War. It was rivaled by the Whigs who by the 1840s were a major party and were able to elect William Henry Harrison as president. By the 1850s the Whigs were divided into several wings and the Democrats were split between northern and southern wings. In 1854 a new party – the Republicans – emerged. With the coming of the new Republican party to power and the Civil War, the Democratic party was not to win a national presidential election again until 1884 with Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was elected president again in 1892, but after that the Republicans controlled the presidency until 1912 . However, in the 1880s and 1890s new political factions emerged. Shortly after the turn of the century Republican Theodore Roosevelt was elected president from 1901 to 1909. After sitting out from 1909 to 1912 Roosevelt ran again as a third party candidate. The Republican split of 1912 allowed a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, to be elected president. He served two terms until 1920. Under Wilson America fought in World War I. Wilson was followed in the presidency by two more Republicans, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. During Hoovers’s presidency America suffered a major stock market crash. This helped Democrat Franklin Roosevelt to win in 1932. FDR was elected for an unprecedented four times to the presidency. He died shortly after the beginning of his fourth term. Vice president Harry Truman replaced him. It was Truman who approved use of the atomic bomb against Japan. Truman was elected on his own as president in 1948 even though white Southern Democrats opposed him. In 1952 he was followed by former Army general Ike Eisenhower. Eisenhower served two terms as president. In 1960 his vice president, Richard Nixon, and Massachusetts Senator Jack Kennedy were the party nominees. Kennedy narrowly won the election. On November 22, 1963, JFK was assassinated in Dallas, TX. His successor was Lyndon B. Johnson, a Texan and long time Washington politician, having served in both houses of Congress. LBJ was elected president in 1964 and could have run in 1968 but decided not to do so. This time Nixon, who was again the Republican nominee, was able to win the election. Nixon was reelected in 1972 but resigned from office in August 1974 to avoid possible impeachment. His successor was Gerald Ford, who lost the bid for election in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. President Carter had difficulty winning broad public support for his leadership. The Iranian hostage situation drained his efforts. He sought re-election but was defeated by Ronald Reagan. President Reagan promised to reduce the size of government. He took a hard line position at first toward Russia. In the end he failed to reduce government expenditures but did see Communism begin to crumble. President Georege Bush won high public approval ratings for the defeat of Iraq in Desert Storm but economic stalemate in the United States ultimately weakened his pubic support considerably. He sought re-election but was defeated by Bill Clinton. Clinton and his wife Hillary were both under attack during his administration on numerous grounds. Yet he was re-elected in 1996 and even after impeachment had a strong public approval rating. In 2000 Democrat Al gore won the popular vote by some 500,000 votes but he was narrowly defeated by Republican George Bush in the Electoral College as a result of a highlydisputed vote recount in Florida. In 2004 President Bush narrowly defeated Democrat John Kerry. The Two-party System Minor Parties and Independent Candidates America has had hundreds of minor or thrid parties over its politcal history. V 0. Key, Jr. has suggested that minor parties fall into two broad categories. Those formed to propagate a particular doctrine and transient third-party movements that briefly appear on the American scene and then disappear. Among the transient third-party movements, Key perceived two types: Parties of economic protest (Populist Party - 1890s) "Secessionist parties" that have split off from one of the major parties (Dixiecrats -1948) In certain states minor parties have gained a powerful position; nationally, however, minor parties have never consistently enjoyed much power or influence. In 1968 George Wallace, segregationist governor of Alabama, formed the American Independent party and ran for president outside the two-party framework. In 1972 Eugene McCarthy, a liberal Democratic U.S. Senator, ran for president as an independent and as a protest candidate against the Vietnam War. In 1980 Republican Congressman John B. Anderson won a place on the ballot in every state as an independent. 1992 Ross Perot ran as an independent and received 20 percent of the popular vote, although he received no Electoral College vote. Perot ran again in 1996 as the nominee of the People First party which he was instrumental in founding. He received less than 10 percent of the popular vote. In 2000 Green Party candidate Ralph Nader very likely cost Al Gore the presidency by getting enough votes in several large electoral states to prevent Gore from winning. The Roots Of Dualism America has been a two party nation. Reasons for this are: (1) Lack of Ideological Division Between Parties and (2) A majority of the American voters take the middle ground on many issues of American politics. As a result, political candidates try to appeal to the great mass of voters in the ideological center. Consequently, it may appear that there is very little difference between the two major parties. Party Differences Do Exist A study of national convention delegates in the 1960s found Democratic and Republican leaders did differ sharply on many issues. Republican leaders identified with business, free enterprise, and economic conservatism in general. Democrats were friendly toward labor and government regulation of the economy. In more contemporary times issues that have come to dominate American politics such as abortion, health care concerns and federal spending policy have made policy differences more public and have led to more divisive political campaigns. Thus, party differences have become more evident. In one study of changes in American political parties, Everett Carl Ladd, Jr. and Charles D. Hadley suggested the emergence of a "two tiered" party structure. They argued that middle-class white voters have tended to express their resistance to social change by voting for Republican presidential candidates but for Democrats for congressional and state offices. The Decline Of Party Loyalties And Party Influence The fading of party loyalties among many voters has been one of the most visible features of American politics in recent years.There has been a long-term decline of party allegiance and a dramatic drop-off over the last decade. Of course, candidates and issues, not just party affiliations, influence voters; but the diminishing influence of parties is a significant change from the past. Reasons for the decline of party ties: A more educated electorate, Less dependence on parties for guidance, An increase in "split-ticket" voting, The increasing importance of television and the news media generally, The breaking up of the old loyalties and alignments within the major parties. The Democrats Democrats have been more willing to appropriate federal funds for social action, and it has often been the party of social innovation. The Democrats have traditionally been seen as the party of organized labor. Historically, the Southern wing of the party was much more conservative, but with the coming of black participation it has undergone more liberal change. The Republicans Republicans tend to see themselves as middle class. Republicans believe less in the ability of government to solve social problems. Republicans see themselves as insiders who represent the core of American society and are the carriers of its fundamental values. Democrats claim the Republicans are controlled by big business. From middle-class America the Republicans get their votes; from the executive leadership and from the families of the great enterprises they get their funds.
Recommended publications
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
  • American Federalism: More Than Two Centuries of Political Tension

    American Federalism: More Than Two Centuries of Political Tension

    CHAPTER ONE American Federalism: More Than Two Centuries of Political Tension efore one explores the components and particulars of the BConnecticut polity, it is important to first discuss the features of American federalism, as well as the ongoing tension between federal and state authority throughout the course of American history. This general overview should demonstrate the centrality of state governments within the context of the American federal system, and why this work has special relevance in the twenty-first century. One of the bedrock principles of the United States Constitution is that the power of government should be limited and restrained. Heavily influenced by the writings of classical liberal philosophers, most notably the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), the Founding Fathers devised an ingenious constitutional system in which power would never be concentrated in one branch or one level of government.1 Limited government was viewed as a prerequisite to individual liberty and more generally the preservation of the newly- formed republic. The Founding Fathers’ deep belief in a system of limited government is clearly reflected in the principle known as federalism. Drafted during a swelteringly hot summer in Philadelphia more than two hundred years ago, the Constitution of the United States established a governing system in which power would be divided between two levels of government, national and state. The principle of federalism is among the several distinguishing features of the American constitutional framework. 2 AMERICAN FEDERALISM Federalism and Divided Power The Constitution, written in response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation (1781-88), provides the national govern- ment with both enumerated and implied powers.
  • A History of the Virginia Democratic Party, 1965-2015

    A History of the Virginia Democratic Party, 1965-2015

    A History of the Virginia Democratic Party, 1965-2015 A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation “with Honors Distinction in History” in the undergraduate colleges at The Ohio State University by Margaret Echols The Ohio State University May 2015 Project Advisor: Professor David L. Stebenne, Department of History 2 3 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Mills Godwin, Linwood Holton, and the Rise of Two-Party Competition, 1965-1981 III. Democratic Resurgence in the Reagan Era, 1981-1993 IV. A Return to the Right, 1993-2001 V. Warner, Kaine, Bipartisanship, and Progressive Politics, 2001-2015 VI. Conclusions 4 I. Introduction Of all the American states, Virginia can lay claim to the most thorough control by an oligarchy. Political power has been closely held by a small group of leaders who, themselves and their predecessors, have subverted democratic institutions and deprived most Virginians of a voice in their government. The Commonwealth possesses the characteristics more akin to those of England at about the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 than to those of any other state of the present-day South. It is a political museum piece. Yet the little oligarchy that rules Virginia demonstrates a sense of honor, an aversion to open venality, a degree of sensitivity to public opinion, a concern for efficiency in administration, and, so long as it does not cost much, a feeling of social responsibility. - Southern Politics in State and Nation, V. O. Key, Jr., 19491 Thus did V. O. Key, Jr. so famously describe Virginia’s political landscape in 1949 in his revolutionary book Southern Politics in State and Nation.
  • Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election

    Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election

    University of Mississippi eGrove Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College) Spring 5-9-2020 Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election Cameron N. Regnery University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Regnery, Cameron N., "Y'all Like Ike: Tennessee, the Solid South, and the 1952 Presidential Election" (2020). Honors Theses. 1338. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1338 This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Y’ALL LIKE IKE: TENNESSEE, THE SOLID SOUTH, AND THE 1952 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by Cameron N. Regnery A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford April 2020 Approved by: __________________________________ Advisor: Dr. Darren Grem __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Rebecca Marchiel __________________________________ Reader: Dr. Conor Dowling © 2020 Cameron N. Regnery ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my parents for supporting me both in writing this thesis and throughout my time at Ole Miss. I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Darren Grem, for helping me with both the research and writing of this thesis. It would certainly not have been possible without him.
  • Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: the Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 James R

    Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: the Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 James R

    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons History Faculty Publications History 1982 Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: The Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 James R. Sweeney Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Sweeney, James R., "Rum, Romanism, and Virginia Democrats: The aP rty Leaders and the Campaign of 1928" (1982). History Faculty Publications. 6. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs/6 Original Publication Citation Sweeney, J. R. (1982). Rum, Romanism, and Virginia democrats: The ap rty leaders and the campaign of 1928. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 90(4), 403-431. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Virginia Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY ft Vol. 90 October 1982 No. 4 w *fc^?i*L> U&J*L> U*lJfcL> OfoJtU U&JRj im4b <J*IJ?L> ?J?im^ U&J&> 4?ft,t~JD* RUM, ROMANISM, AND VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS The Party Leaders and the Campaign of 1928 hy James R. Sweeney* 'The most exciting and most bitterly fought State-wide campaign held in Virginia since the days of General William Mahone and the Readjusters." In these words the Richmond Times-Dispatch described the just-concluded campaign on election day morning, 6 November 1928. Democratic nomi- nees had carried Virginia in every presidential election since 1872; how- ever, in predominantly agricultural, dry, Protestant Virginia a political upheaval was a distinct possibility in 1928.
  • Apush Review Packet

    Apush Review Packet

    APUSH REVIEW PACKET The Exam: • The exam is 3 hours and 5 minutes in length and consists of two sections. In section I, students answer 80 multiple choice questions in 55 minutes. In section II, students are given 15 minutes to plan and 45 minutes to write an essay on the document-based question (DBQ), and 70 minutes to answer two essay questions. Suggested time to be spent on each of the essay questions is 5 minutes planning and 30 minutes writing. Scoring: • The DBQ & two FRE are scored on a scale of 1-9 – Basis of a thesis, argument, and supporting evidence (including documents for DBQ) • The M/C counts for 50%, the Essays 50% – DBQ counts for 22.5%, FRE 27.5% ea. • 180 possible points – [# correct] x 1.125 = _________ MC – # out of 9 x 4.50 = ________ DBQ – # out of 9 x 2.750 = _______ FRE 1 – # out of 9 x 2.750 = _______ FRE 2 DBQ: • Requires you to answer by using documentary evidence AND your outside knowledge • READ QUESTION • BRAINSTORM!! • READ DOCUMENTS – Not statements of FACTS; descriptions, interpretations or opinions; READ THE SOURCE! • WRITE YOUR ESSAY Writing an Essay: • Thesis Paragraph – Addresses the QUESTION!! – Contains Thesis (what is YOUR theme) – Organizational Categories (set up your following paragraphs) • Supporting Paragraphs – Topic sentence – Specific factual information – Interpretive commentary – Documentation (DBQ)* – Clincher sentence • Conclusion – Supports, sums up Level of Questions Level One: questions are the facts of history. They can be answered from the text or other resources Level Two: questions require students to make inferences as to how and why the factual information has an impact in the historical context in which it occurs.
  • APUSH Unit 3: Revolution and Republican Culture, 1754-1800 (Chapters 4-7)

    APUSH Unit 3: Revolution and Republican Culture, 1754-1800 (Chapters 4-7)

    APUSH Unit 3: Revolution and Republican Culture, 1754-1800 (chapters 4-7) Key Theme: British imperial attempts to reassert control over its colonies and the colonial reaction to these attempts produced a new American republic, along with struggles over the new nation’s social, political, and economic identity. Key Concepts 3.1 — British attempts to assert tighter control over its North American colonies and the colonial resolve to pursue self-government led to a colonial independence movement and the Revolutionary War. I. The competition among the British, French, and American Indians for economic and political advantage in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War), in which Britain defeated France and allied American Indians. II. The desire of many colonists to assert ideals of self-government in the face of renewed British imperial efforts led to a colonial independence movement and war with Britain. 3.2 — The American Revolution’s democratic and republican ideals inspired new experiments with different forms of government. I. The ideals that inspired the revolutionary cause reflected new beliefs about politics, religion, and society that had been developing over the course of the 18th century. II. After declaring independence, American political leaders created new constitutions and declarations of rights that articulated the role of the state and federal governments while protecting individual liberties and limiting both centralized power and excessive popular influence. III. New forms of national culture and political institutions developed in the United States alongside continued regional variations and differences over economic, political, social, and foreign policy issues. 3.3 — Migration within North America and competition over resources, boundaries, and trade intensified conflicts among peoples and nations.
  • The Power of Modern Partisanship

    The Power of Modern Partisanship

    The Power of Modern Partisanship The Aligning of Social and Political Identity and Its Effects An Our Age of Uncertainty paper by Chris Jackson Ipsos Presents Age of Uncertainty The Power of Modern Partisanship The Power of Modern Partisanship The Aligning of Social and Political Identity and Its Effects Politicians, pollsters, and social scientists all seek to understand and predict how people will respond to events. To this end, we have found that identity—or, more precisely, how people define themselves—is a powerful predictor of behavior. This is an outgrowth of using demographics in social sciences as proxies for a wider range of socio-cultural beliefs. Since people have many different ways of characterizing themselves in different circumstances, contexts, or times, researchers have traditionally relied on context-specific identifiers. For instance, someone may behave like a parent at home but an employee at work. However, one particular type of identity—political partisanship—has become the lens for many Americans in how they relate to the world around them. This has problematic implications, not just for government, but for civil society and the economy, as party identification has an increasingly zero-sum logic of “with us or against us.” Political partisanship is not a new phenomenon. It has When people hear of “increased partisanship,” as they often existed since the establishment of the American Republic do today, they may think that an ever-larger proportion of when Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party Americans are closely identifying with either of the two faced off against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party.
  • Symmetric Constitutionalism: an Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post-Kennedy Supreme Court

    Symmetric Constitutionalism: an Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post-Kennedy Supreme Court

    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2019 Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post-Kennedy Supreme Court Zachary S. Price UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Zachary S. Price, Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post- Kennedy Supreme Court, 70 Hastings L.J. 1273 (2019). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1736 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 70.5-PRICE (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2019 9:48 AM Symmetric Constitutionalism: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Post- Kennedy Supreme Court † ZACHARY S. PRICE Following Justice Kennedy’s retirement and the bitter fight over Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, increasingly polarized views about constitutional law in general, and specific constitutional cases in particular, threaten to undermine courts’ legitimacy, degrade their institutional capacity, and weaken public support for important civil liberties. To help mitigate these risks, this Essay proposes that judges subscribe to an ethos of “symmetric constitutionalism.” Within the limits of controlling considerations of text, structure, history, precedent, and practice, courts in our polarized era should lean towards outcomes, doctrines, and rationales that confer valuable protections across both sides of the nation’s major political divides, and away from those that frame constitutional law as a matter of zero-sum competition between competing partisan visions.
  • Of Belligerent Humor: the End of Alexander Hamilton's Political

    Of Belligerent Humor: the End of Alexander Hamilton's Political

    2I%HOOLJHUHQW+XPRU 7KH(QGRI$OH[DQGHU+DPLOWRQ¶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¶V &ROOHJH &ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ 1HZ <RUNDWRQO\IRXUWHHQ\HDUVROG+HZRXOGHYHQWXDOO\MRLQWKH5HYROXWLRQ DV D PHPEHU RI :DVKLQJWRQ¶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
  • Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate

    Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate

    Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington∗ September 17, 2016 Abstract A long-standing debate in political economy is whether voters are driven primar- ily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives such as ethnocentrism. Using newly available data, we reexamine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democ- racy: Southern whites' exodus from the Democratic Party, concentrated in the 1960s. Combining high-frequency survey data and textual newspaper analysis, we show that defection among racially conservative whites explains all (three-fourths) of the large decline in white Southern Democratic identification between 1958 and 1980 (2000). Racial attitudes also predict whites' partisan shifts earlier in the century. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats \lost" the South. JEL codes: D72, H23, J15, N92 ∗We thank Frank Newport and Jeff Jones for answering our questions about the Gallup data. We are grateful to Alberto Alesina, Daron Acemoglu, Bill Collins, Marvin Danielson, Claudia Goldin, Matt Gentzkow, Alex Mas, Adrian Matray, Suresh Naidu, Jesse Shapiro, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Gavin Wright and seminar participants at the University of Chicago, Middlebury, NBER Summer Institute's Political Economy Workshop, the National Tax Association, NYU, Pomona, Princeton, Stanford SITE, University of Toronto, UBC, UCLA and Yale's CSAP Summer conference, par- ticularly discussants Georgia Kernell, Nolan McCarthy and Maya Sen for valuable comments and feedback. Khurram Ali, Jimmy Charit´e,Jos´ephineGantois, Keith Gladstone, Meredith Levine, Chitra Marti, Jenny Shen, Timothy Toh and Tammy Tseng provided truly exceptional research assistance.
  • President's Trip to Atlanta 1/20/78

    President's Trip to Atlanta 1/20/78

    President’s Trip to Atlanta, 1/20/78 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: President’s Trip to Atlanta, 1/20/78; Container 60 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf .................. I "'trt••• ....(JIG ... THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON '~ ' VISIT TO ATLANTA, PLAINS, AND SAINT SIMONS ISLAND, GEORGIA January ·20 - 23, · 1978 FRIDAY - JANUARY 20, 1978 DAY # 1 Departure: 2i05 P.M. From: · Tim .Kraft SEQUENCE 2:05 p .·m. You board helicopter on South Lawn and depart en route Andrews Air Force Base.' PRESIDENTIAL GUEST James Mcintyre,· Director, OMB 2:25 p.m. Helicopter arrives Andrews AFB. Board Air Force One. PRESIDENTIAL GUESTS Ambassador and Mrs. Robert Strauss. Senator Wendell H. Ford Senator Sam Nunn Senator James R. Sasser Senator Herman E. Talmadge Congressman James c. Corman '~' . Congressman Billy Lee Evans Congressman Edgar L. Jenkins ,· ,.· _secretqry James Schlesinger Mr • HUbert ··L _. 'ffarr is . ·~~· ·- ---,·~· .. , Jr. ... J1~~~~ry Beazley .~r-...: Ben Brown . __ -··-·. - ... ) ..- !>ir. Charles Manatt Ms. Nancy Moore L ·~ :... ... lhiriia.~-..- J .. ~ .......pa •• 2. <:. ·FRIDAY - JANUARY 20, 1978 -··C-Ontinued 2":.3p .P•,ll•, .. · -:-:-., 9 , .·• ,..,., il~¥" Eo~c_~: ,One departs Andrews Air Force --~ .. •·....... :..;_., • • •• , • ..J ..... ,·sase en.route Dobbins Air Force Base, "i. '?;'.' ~::-.t· -~ J ,G..-: ..:~~~~-~f~·~.;- ,. :_. ·c.·· .. r ·-. ···-(Flying Time: l hour, 35 minutes) V0l.F-C.~~·:.:. [''-i.: r1·""; • '4:05 p.m •.. l.. ·'J,·~c .:.; ' ~ ~..;..fcrl'9X:~ One arr1.ves Dobbins Air Force Base. _,. h ...... 1 :: -;· !..'f~ ...... _,· -~·h ... ::~ ., :;.~9\l,Wi~l be met by: ... ~..:.. ..,~:· -~ 'c.~·~~ '.: ~'1 ...... ..;' J •. ~~·.:~.. : : . .. ~.r- -~ r· --~; ·· __ ·.. ; ... 1~Y~~'?r·. ~9rge Busbee ., ~ ~ ..