THE AMATEUR REPUBLICAN: THE LEADERS OF THE TEXAS YOUNG REPUBLICAN FEDERATION by CURTIS I. FORSBACH, JR., B.S.
A THESIS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved
Accepted
May, 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am deeply indebted to Professor Roland E. Smith for his direction of this thesis and to the other members of my committee. Professors John H. Burnett and Albert K. Karnig, for their advice and criticism. Thanks are due also to Professor Gordon G. Henderson, now of Tougaloo College, who taught me the art of survey research and was of ImmeasurcdDle assistance in the early stages of this project. I would like to express my appreciation to the Political Science Department and to the Graduate School of Texas Tech University for their financial assistance. The Department of Political Science kindly provided funds for the printing and distribution of the research instrument, and during the summer of 1971, a research grant from the Graduate School permitted me to engage in the coding and analyses of the data. Finally, special thanks are due those Young Republicans who gave so willingly of their time and energy. Without their interest and cooperation this thesis would not have been possible.
11 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS li LIST OF TABLES vi CHAPTER I. THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ... 1 Introduction 1 Party Auxiliary Groups 3 The Youth Auxiliaries 6 The Focus of the Study 7 The Student Politics Perspective 9 The Leadership Recruitment Perspective 10 The Research Setting 11 The Background of Texas Politics 11 One-party Politics in Texas ... 14 Origins of the Young Republicans 17 Origins of the Texas Young Republican Federation 19 Summary 21 Footnotes 22
111 II. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 26 The Questionnaire 26 The Subjects 27 Procedures 30 A Cautionary Note 33 Footnotes 35 III. THE SOCIALIZATION HYPOTHESIS 36 Explanations of Student Activism ... 36 Explanations of Student Activism: The Evidence 39 Socioeconomic Status 39 Religious Backgrounds 42 Political Orientations 44 Characteristics of Young Republican Leaders 48 Socioeconomic Status 49 College Major 54 Religious Backgrounds 54 Political Orientations 56 Summary 68 Footnotes 70 IV. MOTIVATIONS 74 The Amateur Style 74 Incentive Systems 77 Motivational Reorientation of the Amateur 78
IV Exchange Theory and the
Amateur Style 80
Findings 85
Original Motives 85
Sustaining Motives 89
Motivational Reorientation ... 93
Summary 97
Footnotes 100
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 103
Findings 103
Background Characteristics . . . 10 3
Original Motives 107
Sustaining Motives 10 8
Discussion 109
Limitations 109
Future Research Ill
Conclusion 113
Footnotes 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY 117
APPENDIX 133 LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Questionnaire Returns by Office 33 3-1 Incomes for Young Republicans' Families Compared to Anglo Family Income Levels for Texas 50 3-2 YR Parents' Occupations Compared to Occupations of Texas Anglo Males and Texas Anglo Females 52 3-3 Parental Education Levels Compared to Education Levels for Texas 5 3 3-4 College Majors for Young Republicans Compared to Earned Degrees for all Texas Undergraduates, 1970-1971 55 3-5 Religious Preference 57 3-6 Party Identifications of Young Republicans, Their Parents and Texas Anglo Voters 59 3-7 Respondent's Party Identification by Father's Party Identification 60 3-8 Respondent's Party Identification by Mother's Party Identification 62 3-9 Ideological Orientations of Young Republicans, Their Parents, and Texas Anglo Voters 64 3-10 Orientation of Respondent by Father's Orientation 66 3-11 Orientation of Respondent by Mother's Orientation 67 4-1 Original Motivations 87
VI 4-2 Original Motivations ^^ 4-3 Sustaining Motivations ^^ 4-4 What Would Be Missed ^2 4-5 Current Motive By Original Motive .... 94 4-6 Disillusionment by Motivational Type ... 98
Vll CHAPTER I
THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction Citizen participation lies at the heart of a demo cratic society. Sidney Verba and Norman Nie write that "if democracy is interpreted as rule by the people, then the question of who participates in political decisions becomes the question of the nature of democracy in a society." Americans have been found to exhibit higher levels of political participation than citizens else- 2 where, and Verba and Nie report that the rate of citizen participation in the U.S. may indeed be even higher than has previously been supposed. With respect to organized participation, for example, they discovered that 8 percent of their 1967 sample of adult Americans were members of "political groups, such as Democratic or Republican clubs, and political action groups, such 3 as voter's leagues." They note that 8 percent is not an especially high proportion but add that membership in political organizations ... is not so low either when compared with other types of organizations. Membership in political organi zations rank fifth out of sixteen in frequency. Only labor unions, school service groups such as the PTA, fraternal orders, and sporting groups have more members than political clubs and organizations. When trcinslated into raw frequencies, this 8 percent amounts to something in the neighborhood of ten million adult Americans who are involved in some type of explicitly organized political activity. Perhaps even more significant is the finding by Verba and Nie that "political groups are one of only four types that have a rate of active membership exceeding 65 percent. That is, although labor unions and sports groups have more members than political organizations, a much larger proportion of their members are inactive." Concerning the study of political participation, Milbrath writes that since the manner in which citizens participate in their political process is integral to the manner in which the system functions, the question of how and why persons become involved in politics is germane to the concerns of every man, as well as to the curious probings of social scientists. Even though social scientists in general, and political scientists in particular, have been quite concerned with how and why people participate in politics, some groups in the political process have received more attention than others. In 1961, for instance, Dwaine Marvick observed that two of the most studied groups were those which constitute the decision-making elite and the politicized mass publics. Neglected, he noted, were the "middlemen of politics," people who comprise the "interstitial components—the cadre: those who man the machinery of government and q the apparatuses of politics." This "cadre" links the top elites to the mass publics. The significance of these middlemen to the political parties derives from the various supportive functions which they perform for 9 the parties. Party Auxiliary Groups Among the groups which perform a middleman func tion are the various party auxiliary groups such as the Young Republicans (YR), the Young Democrats (YD), and the Republican and Democratic women's organizations. These groups function as adjuncts to the parties them selves, often reflecting the same conflicts and sometimes competing with the formal party organizations for influ ence. They exist as on-going organizations and assist the party on a day-to-day basis by performing many of the less glamorous tasks such as staffing party head quarters, manning telephone networks, and performing other organizational chores. During Ccimpaign periods they frequently perform ccunpaign-related duties such as canvassing. Two aspects of party auxiliary groups distinguish them from other political organizations. First, they are largely autonomous organizations and function as quasi-official sub-units of their parties in what can be termed a loose, often stormy, alliance. Second, they operate on a continuous basis as opposed to groups which are formed for ad hoc purposes and then are dissolved. Hence, party auxiliary groups are not to be confused with the various ad hoc organizations "activated or improvised at campaign time such as Citizens for Eisenhower." Little attention has been devoted to the study of party auxiliary groups, although what evidence exists suggests that they perform several important functions in the political process. Two of these functions have been noted above: they provide an important avenue of citizen participation in the political system, and they provide important supportive services to their parties by way of campaign work, organizational chores, and so forth. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that auxiliary groups perform a "feeder" function for the political parties by serving as important vehicles for the recruitment of members and leaders for the parties, amd of candidates for public office. In a study of previous office-holding among county leaders in Oklahoma, for example, Samuel Patterson found that auxiliary party posts were the second most frequently held prior office. Only precinct offices were reported to have been held more often. 12 Further evidence of the importance of auxiliary groups as feeder agencies is supplied by Samuel Eldersveld's study of party leaders in the Detroit metropolitan area. Like Patterson, he found that the most frequent mode of entry for upper echelon leaders was the regular precinct organization but that auxiliary party agencies constituted the second most frequent mode of entry to the upper levels of the party. Specifically, he found that 44 percent of the Democrats began their party activity in this fashion, and 34 percent of the Republicans were routed into the party through auxiliary groups. 13 Additional support for the importance of auxiliary groups as recruitment agencies is provided by Dan Nimmo's study of candidates for the Texas legislature. The study, conducted in 1966, surveyed sixty-three candi dates from the Houston, Texas, area. Nimmo found that over half (thirty eight) of the candidates were members of some type of political club, and nineteen were serving as officers of a club at the time of their candidacy. Of the ten Republican candidates, eight were members of a club and four of these were officers. Among the Democratic candidates, thirty were members, and half of these thirty were serving as officers of a political club.^^
The Youth Auxiliaries Two significant party auxiliary groups are the National Young Republican Federation and the Democratic Clubs of America. Although "young people have tradi tionally performed important cadre functions in American 15 political parties," virtually all of the recent research on youth and politics has focused upon the activities of young people outside of the traditional arenas of politics, i.e., the supposed aberrant behavior of the young people involved in protest activity during the 1960's. The resulting literature stems largely from the efforts of sociologists and psychologists and is consequently concerned with social background factors on the one hand, and various psychological determinants of activism, such as parental child-rearing practices, on the other hand. Curiously, political scientists have devoted little attention to the study of youth politics although, if nothing else, the sheer size of organizations such as the Young Republicans and Young Democrats would seem to merit attention. As Sorauf notes. each national organization said they had about 4000 state cmd local youth organizations in 1968; the Democrats claimed a million members, the Republicans 600,000. Even discounting for the usual inflation, these are impressive totals.^^ Given the significance of the Democratic and Republican youth auxiliary groups, the lack of research concerning them is surprising. The research reported here attempts to fill part of that void.
The Focus of the Study This study examines the leadership cadre of the Texas Young Republican Federation (TYRF) in an effort to determine what types of people are likely to become involved in political activity of this kind and the reasons they give for their initial involvement. Addi tionally, an effort will be made to discover the reasons for their continued interest and activity in the Young Republican organization. Central to this study will be the hypothesis that political activists, young or old, are similar to each other with respect to several important characteristics and quite different from the general population.
In attempting to answer part of the research question, attention will be focused upon the social characteristics of Young Republican leaders and of their parents. Much empirical evidence suggests that those 8 persons who becaime politically active are likely, when compared to the general public, to possess certain distinctive characteristics: notably, they tend to be of high social-status. 18 Those characteristics typical of political activists in general, then, are likely to be shared by Young Republican activists. In addition, the bulk of the student politics literature suggests the same hypothesis with respect to left-wing activists, but, mainly due to a lack of research, there is some question as to whether or not the traditional rules of thumb also apply to conservatives such as the Young Republicans. Other aspects of the research question concern those factors which motivate Young Republiccuis to join the organization, on the one hand, and those factors which serve to insure their continued membership, on the other. In particular, attention will be given to the question of determining the extent to which Young Republicans are motivated by "ideological" reasons as opposed to other types of motivation, e.g., a need for social satisfactions. Previous studies of student politics have been concerned with determining the psycho logical underpinnings of activism, but have paid little attention to the reasons activists themselves give for their political involvement. With respect to the recruitment literature, a fair amount of inquiry has been devoted to ascertaining the motives for activism given by members of political parties. Of central concern has been the relative importance of ideological incentives versus social and material incentives as initial motives, as well as the question of motivational reorientation, i.e., do the motives of political activists change over time? These questions will be examined at length in Chapter IV.
The Student Politics Perspective The most obvious starting point for a study of the Young Republicans is provided by the literature subsumed under the rubric of "student politics." Aside from sheer intellectual curiosity, the study of youth, or student, politics is a worthwhile subject for social scientists since, as Lipset writes, studies of the forces which produce varying patterns of student behavior in both the indus trialized nations and in developing societies have important implications not only for social and educational policy, but as a means of studying the larger societies of which the students are an integral part.^^ The literature of student politics, however, is a "web of related factors which must be untangled in order to 22 investigate student activity." And, as Julian Foster observes. 10
the study of activism does not fit neatly into any of the disciplines as traditionally under stood; it has interest for the sociologist, the psychologist, the political scientist, the historian and those who teach "education," cind each of these can employ his professional tools upon it.^^ In a rather eclectic fashion, this study will select various aspects of the student politics literature 2uid, where appropriate, weave them into the tapestry of political science. Since certain findings of various studies of student activism are directly comparable to the data of this study. Chapter III will make considerable use of those studies in order to discover what types of individuals are likely to be attracted to an organization such as the Texas Young Republican Federation.
The Leadership Recruitment Perspective Chapter IV will be concerned with examining the Young Republicans from the perspective of leadership, or elite, recruitment. Lester Seligman writes that "in any political system, political roles must be defined, filled and vacated. Elite recruitment refers to the 24 process whereby such 'staffing' takes place." For the actives themselves, recruitment involves two processes: "(1) the transformation from non-political roles to eligibility for influential roles; and (2) the assign ment and selection of people for specific political 11 25 roles." Elite recruitment encompasses both "eligi bility for elite status and further selection or assign- ment to specific elite positions." 2 6 Furthermore elite recruitment is concerned not only with an individual's initial induction into politics, but also with his "in-role socialization," or the way in which he is" socialized into new values, attitudes, and skills" after his initial induction. 27 Specifically, Chapter IV will focus on the reasons Young Republicans give for their initial involvement in the political arena and on the question of whether or not their initial motives are subject to change as a result of adopting new values, and with the consequences of that change for their continued political involvement.
The Research Setting
The Background of Texas Politics^^ A colorful description of Texas politics was penned over twenty years ago by V. O. Key when he wrote that the "Lone Star State is concerned about money and how to make it, about oil and sulfur and gas, about cattle and dust storms and irrigation, about cotton and 29 ... banking and Mexicans." But Texas politics is more than this. Texas is a large and diverse state, whose 12
population "is more racially and ethnically mixed than that of the nation or any other heavily populated state." Of a total of over eleven million Texans, 12.5 percent are black cind an even higher percentage (18.4) are of Spanish surname. The remaining 69 percent are "almost entirely of European origin and are often referred to as the 'Anglo' majority." 31 About 80 percent of the population lived in urban areas in 1970, and nearly three- fourths of the state's residents lived in one of Texas' twenty-four standard metropolitan statistical areas. In fact, about 40 percent of the 1970 population lived in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston area megalopo- lises, . . 32 In 1972 Texas' per capita income ranked thirtieth in the nation with a medicui annual per capita income of $4045. But the income distribution varies considerably among the different ethnic groups. Whereas 32.7 percent of the black families and 31.4 percent of the Mexican- American families had incomes below the poverty line according to the 1970 census, only 8.3 percent of the 33 Anglo majority families fell below the poverty line. Educational attainment follows the same pattern. Among adult blacks in 1970, 3.3 percent had completed no years of school, and 43.6 percent had not progressed beyond the eighth grade. For Mexican-Americans those 13 with no years of school totaled 14.5 percent and 60.2 percent had not gone beyond the eighth grade. But among the adult Anglo majority, only 0.8 percent had no years of school, and only 21.6 percent had only an eighth- grade education. 34 The political "culture" of Texas has been described as a combination of the "traditionalistic" and the 35 "individualistic" cultures. In the latter, government is popularly viewed "as a marketplace in which policies emerge from the bargaining of individuals and groups 36 acting out of self-interest." Politics is perceived as primarily a means for the social and economic improve ment of the individual, and government intervention in "private" matters is severely limited. On the other hand, the traditionalistic type of culture, also charac teristic of Texas politics, is based on the assumption that political power is reserved for a small and self- perpetuating elite with a 'right' to govern because of family or social position, the role of govern ment is to preserve the established social order, the preference is for a single political party . . . and the average citizen is not expected to participate in politics (not even to vote), but to accept passively the will of the ruling oligarchy. "^^ Various aspects of Texas politics fit the pattern of a traditionalistic-individualistic culture: the one-party political system, low voter turnout for elections, and 14 the "overrepresentation of established interests in making political demands," for example.^^ Of these, the most important to our study is very probably the first— Texas' one-party political system.
One-party Politics in Texas An overriding feature of Texas politics is the fact that it is conducted within a one-party context— and (as Texans are well aware) that one party is the Democratic party. But one-party politics has not always been the norm. Texas enjoyed a competitive party system until the latter part of the nineteenth century when "bitterness over Republican-sponsored Reconstruction and the black's place in politics and society wrecked 39 the Texas Republican Party. The result of this "demise" of the Republican party is the fact that, from about 1900 to 1950, the Democratic party had little competition and suffered few electoral defeats. In fact, one-party politics in Texas often degenerated into no-party politics. As a result, Texas politics fre quently revolved around specific issues cind oftentimes particular personalities, and
issues of deep meaning to the people of Texas, such as the level of public services to be under taken and the distribution of the costs for these services, were seldom the basis for contesting elections. A politics of the status quo pre dominated. Elected officials, lacking the support 15
of a meciningful party, were loath to raise basic and controversial issues. The absence of party support left them particularly vulnerable to pressures from such established economic interests as the state's oil, gas, and insurance industries.4 0
In the 1930's the era of largely personalistic politics began to fade and a new politics, formed around the economic issues of the New Deal, began to emerge. Indeed, the New Deal programs precipitated a liberal- conservative split in the Democratic party of such depth that V. O. Key would later write that "the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have real meaning in the Democratic politics of Texas," and that a modified class- based politics emerged not "because of an upthrust of the masses that compels men of substance to unite in self-defense, but because of the personal insecurity of men suddenly made rich who are fearful lest they lose their 41 wealth." -^ This liberal-conservative split in the Democratic party has resulted in the continuous dominance of Texas politics by the conservative faction of the Democratic party. Although there have been occasional liberal Democratic (and Republican) electoral victories, the record of the conservative Democratic faction has been impressive: "since the late 1930's every governor 42 elected has been supported by this faction." 16
The Republican Party, long insignificant in state politics, seems to be on the road to comeback, albeit slowly. Several factors appear to be responsible for a recent Republican resurgence. First, many conservative Democrats have left their traditional party home since they perceive it to be too liberally oriented at the national level. Second, as the proportion of white, urban, middle-class Texans has grown, the Republican party has been the beneficiary. In addition, as straight- ticket voting has declined Texans have increasingly looked beyond party labels to consider specific issues and candidates—often casting their votes for Republican candidates as a result. Last, court-ordered reappor tionment has given more seats to the state's metropolitan areas which tend to be Republican strongholds. 43 The resurgence of Republicanism is well illustrated by election results. In the 1952 Presidential election, Texas voted Republican for the first time in over twenty- years and did so again in 1956 and in 1972. In a 1961 special election. Republicans were able to elect conser vative John Tower to the U.S. Senate seat which he still retains. With respect to gubernatorial contests, the Repub lican increase is striking: Republicans have gone from achieving 10.4 percent of the gubernatorial vote 17 in 1954 to a respectable 46.6 percent in 1970. In 1972, Henry Grover, in a three way race, came close to opening the door to the governor's mansion for the Republican party: out of 3,409,501 votes cast, Grover garnered 1,533,986 (44.9 percent) compared to Democrat Dolph Briscoe's 1,633,493 (47.9 percent).
With respect to the future of the Texas party system, Anderson Murray, and Farley note the diminished strength of the conservative Democratic faction and cautiously predict an improvement in the fortunes of 44 the GOP. Clifton McCleskey observes that "the future of the Republican party in Texas depends not only upon improvements in organization and leadership and a broader appeal to the mass of the electorate, but also upon what happens in the Democratic party." McCleskey argues that if the liberal Democratic faction should break the back of the conservative hegemony, the Republican party would most likely be the destination of a vast exodus of conservatives from the Democratic partyi. . 45
Origins of the Young Republicans Early efforts to organize a Republican youth auxiliary began in 1931 when Robert H. Lucus, executive director of the Republican National Committee, arranged 18
a national conference of young Republicans.'*^ This conference, attended by three hundred young people, was transformed into the National Young Republican Organi zations for Hoover which, by organizing Young Republican groups in forty-five states, was responsible for the formation of the Young Republican National Committee. In 1935 the Young Republican National Committee launched the present-day national organization—the Young Repub lican National Federation (YRNF). The YRNF convention, held in June of 1936, was addressed by a Young Repub lican, Styles Bridges, then Governor of New Hampshire and later a U.S. Senator. 48 The Young Republican National Federation was more or less inactive during the Second World War. But, revived again in 1946, the organization was designated by the Republican National Committee as the party's official youth auxiliary and allocated office space in the Republican headquarters building. Thus, 1946 denotes the beginning of the Young Republican National Federation as it exists today. The Young Republican National Convention of 1951 marks the first strong indication of the present day factional alignments within the national federation. It was this convention which began the liberal-conservative split, a harbinger of the senior party's Taft-Eisenhower 19 battle of 1952. Although the conservative faction has dominated Federation politics during the last few years, the ideological battle seems far from being resolved.
Origins of the Texas Ypung Republican Federation^^ The origins of the Texas Young Republican Federa tion (TYRF) are obscure, but it is apparent that by 1952 the organization had become quite strong. Although the organization virtually ceased to exist on a state wide level after the 1952 elections, its complete reor ganization in 1956 resulted in a new vitality which culminated in 1960 when the TYRF National Committeeman served as campaign manager for John Tower's unsuccessful bid for the United States Senate. In this campaign, the TYRF State Treasurer served as Tower's Assistant Ceunpaign Manager. Although unsuccessful, Tower's 1960 race drew many Texas Young Republicans into electoral politics and provided the impetus for the election of a Young Republican state legislator, in addition to helping Tower's later successful bid to fill the vacated seat of Lyndon B. Johnson in the special election of
1961. From 1963 to 1965 the membership of the Texas Young Republican Federation more than doubled, but in 1967, the organization began to disintegrate after the 20 controversial election of a leader of the conservative faction to the post of State Chairman. Less than a year later the Federation's liberal faction instigated the impeachment and removal of the Chairman, opening a wound which eventually was to have serious consequences for the TYRF. Subsequent to the field research for this study, the factional split deepened to the extent that the liberal faction bolted the 1972 State Convention to organize its own, competing federation of Young Republicans. It was not until March, 1975, that the warring organizations were reunited at a state-wide convention held in ^an Antonio. The organization formed at that meeting is presently known as the United Texas Young Republican Federation. How many Young Republicans are there? Probably no one knows for sure. For the Texas organization, membership figures have ranged upwards of ten thousand in recent years—on paper at least. It is likely, however, that the figures given as official are inflated by a minimum of 20 percent in most years and by double that percent in others. Nationally, the membership picture is cloudy also and one can only speculate about the true number of members. A liberal estimate is that there may be as many as half a million members at 21 the national level. Whatever the case, it is clear that the number of members is substantial.
Summary Political party auxiliary groups have been rela tively neglected by political scientists. This study is an attempt to rectify that situation by focusing on one particular auxiliary group—the Texas Young Repub lican Federation—in an effort to determine what types of individuals are induced to become affiliated with the organization and their reasons for so doing. Because certain aspects of the subject exhibit characteristics similar to what is known about student activism and about recruitment to politics more generally, portions of this study will be concerned with previous studies of student activism on the one hand, and with recruit ment studies on the other. 22
Footnotes
Chapter I Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row, 19 72), p. 1. 2 A comparative study of five nations--Germany, Italy, Mexico, Great Britain, and the United States— found the highest level of citizen participation in the United States. See Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, "The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Cambridge: Princeton University Press, T9"6 3) . See also, Jae-On Kim, Norman H. Nie, and Sidney Verba, "The Amount and Concentration of Political Participation," Political Methodology 1 (Spring 1974): 105-32; and Verba and Nie, Participation in America. 3 Verba and Nie, Participation in America, p. 42. 4 Ibid., p. 41. ^Ibid. Lester W. Milbrath, Political Participation: How cuid Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? (Chicago: Rand McNaTly, 19 65T7"p. 2. 7 Dwaine Marvick, "The Middlemen of Politics," in Approaches to the Study of Party Organization, ed. William J. Crotty (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968) : 341. ®Ibid. ^Ibid. Frank J. Sorauf, Party Politics in America, 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972), p. 78. ^. 0. Key, Jr. , Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 4th ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowe11 Company, 1958), p. 360. 12 Samuel C. Patterson, "Characteristics of Party Leaders," Western Political Quarterly, 16 (June 1963) : 332-52. 23 13 Samuel J. Eldersveld, Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), p. 143. 14 Dan Nimmo, ed., Legislative Recruitment in Texas: The Case of Harris County (Houston: University of Houston Public Affairs Research Center, 1967). William T. Murphy, Jr., "Party Regulars and Student Activists: Politicians and Purists?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 3-5 May 1973, p. 1.
See for example: Seymour Martin Lipset and Sheldon S. Wolin, eds.. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretaticpns (Garden City, :Jew Yorlcl Anchor Books, 1965); Virginia P. Lacy, "Political Knowledge of College Activist Groups: SDS, YAF, and YD," The Journal of Politics 33 (August 1971): 840-45; David L. Westby and Richard G. Braungart, "Class and Politics in the Family Backgrounds of Student Political Activists," American Sociological Review 32 (October 1966): 690-92; and Seymour Martin Lipset, ed., Student Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1967). 17 Sorauf, Party Politics, p. 122. 18 Milbrath, Political Participation. 19 This question will be examined in Chapter III. Among the studies which have found student left activists to be of higher social status are Richard Flacks, "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest," Journal of Social Issues 2 3 (July 1967): 52-75; David L. Westby and Richard G. Braungart, "The Alienation of Generations and Status Politics: Alternative Explanations of Student Political Activism," in Learning About Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization, ed. Roberta S. Sigel TNew York: Random House, 1970), pp. 476-89; and Westby and Braungart, "Class and Politics." For contrary findings, see Riley Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists: A Comparison of Family Backgrounds," Pacific Sociological Review 13 (Summer 1970): 171-81; and Virginia Perrenod Lacy, "The Season of Our Discontent" (M.A. thesis. University of Houston, 1969). 24 20 Among the many confusing aspects of this field is its very name. The terms "student politics," "student activism," "youth activism," "youth politics," and "youth and politics" are commonly used synonymously. Not wishing to open this particular Pandora's box, I will follow the unfortunate but accepted convention of using these terms more or less interchangeably. Most, but not all, of the Young Republican activists are students. 21 . Lipset, Student Politics, p. ix. 22 Ibid., p. viii. 23 Julian Foster, "Student Protest: What is Known, What is Said," in Protest! Student Activism in America ed. Julian Foster and Durward Long (New York: William Morrow, 1970), p. 28. 24 Lester Seligman, "Elite Recruitment and Political Development," Journal of Politics 28 (August 19 64): 612. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 27 Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), p. 48. 2 8 The following discussion of Texas politics borrows heavily from James E. Anderson, Richard W. Murray, and Edward F. Farley, Texas Politics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 19 75); See also, Clifton McCleskey, The Government and Politics of Texas, 4th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972); and Dan Nimmo and William E. Oden, The Texas Political System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971). 29 V. 0. Key, Jr., Southern Politics (New York: Vintage Books, 1949), p. 254. Anderson, Murray, and Farley, Texas Politics, p. 26. Ibid. 3^^Ibid.1 , p. 27. •^"^Ibid. , pp. 29-30. 25
Ibid., p. 28. Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966), p. 97. Nimmo and Oden, Texas Political System, p. 50. 37 Ibid., p. 51. Ibid., p. 54. 39 Anderson, Murray, and Farley, Texas Politics, p. 48. Ibid. 41 Key, Southern Politics, p. 255. 42 Anderson, Murray, and Farley, Texas Politics, p. 59. ^"^Ibid. , pp. 70-71. "^"^Ibid. , pp. 79-82. 45 McCleskey, Government and Politics of Texas, p. 93. 46 Cornelius P. Cotter and Bernard C. Hennessy, Politics Without Power: The National Party Committees (New York: Atherton Press, 1964), p. 154. 47 M. Stanton Evans, Revolt on the Campus (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1961), p. 126. *8Ibid. 49 Much of the following discussion is tciken from the Organization Manual of the Texas Young Republican Federation. CHAPTER II
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The use of mail surveys can be traced to at least as early as 1577, but "it is only in the last thirty years that techniques and stcindards have improved to a 2 point where they may be called 'professional'." As a result of this vast improvement in method, mail surveys recently have gained increased acceptance among social scientists. Even so, "mail survey research, properly conducted, is still an under-utilized technique in political science." 3 Despite the disadvantages inherent 4 in the use of mail questionnaires, it was determined early in the research project that a mail survey would be the primary mode of data collection. The reason for this choice was simple: due to the dispersion of the subjects of the study, a mail questionnaire seemed to be the only feasible method of data collection.
5 The Questionnaire The questionnaire was designed to collect infor mation concerning such political dimensions as recruit ment, socialization, ambition, ideology, and activity levels of the respondents. Certain demographic information
26 27 also was solicited concerning both the respondent and his parents.
The format of the questionnaire was designed for clarity, simplicity and ease of completion. Both struc tured and unstructured questions were used in order to elicit the desired information. The ordering of the questions was given considerable attention in order to avoid such difficulties as respondent confusion or fatigue, and question contamination. The questionnaire was reproduced on white, eight and one-half by eleven inch stock and was thirteen pages in length. Although long for a mail questionnaire, the length was not con sidered especially detrimental since the subject matter of the questionnaire had high interest value to the 7 group surveyed. The questionnaire was pretested on a group of local Young Republican leaders and, as a result of the pretest, several revisions of format and wording were made.
The Subjects The subjects of this study are those individuals designated as occupying official positions in the Texas Young Republican Federation as of February, 1971. Included were all of the State Officers (State Chairman, State Secretary, State Treasurer, etc.). Area Chairmen, 28
District Committeemen, and District Committeewomen. Also selected were those individuals holding a position as Chairman of a local chapter of the Young Republicans. Of the latter, most were chairmen of high school or college clubs. A few local chapters, however, were distributed along geographic lines as were, for example, the Harris County Young Adult Republicans or the Greater Dallas Teenage Republicans. Altogether, 136 persons fulfilled the leadership criteria. A "positional" definition of leadership was thus adopted for several reasons. First it may be argued that the individuals selected share the characteristic of state-level political experience. Secondly, these were the officers for whom a mailing list was available from T.Y.R.F. State Headquarters; a list of neither the lesser local officers nor of the general membership was available. The study, then, includes as complete a group of Young Republicans as was readily available. Because the functions, both formal and informal, of Young Republican leaders are numerous, it is impossible to catalogue them fully. However, the primary, formal responsibilities of the Young Republican officers included in the study may be summarized: 29
The National Committeeman serves as a liaison between the State Federation and the Young Repub lican National Federation. In his capacity as a member of the YR National Committee, he aids the regular party through its National Senatorial Committee and National Congressional Committee to disperse funds provided for the organization of Young Republican Clubs in marginal Congressional Districts. The National Committeewoman shares the responsibility of the National Committeeman, and also serves as a liaison between the Texas Young Republican Federation and the Texas Republican Women's Federation. The National Committeeman and Committeewoman are both esc officio members of the State Executive Committee of the Texas Republican Party. The State Chairman is the chief executive officer of the Federation and, as such, presides over the annual State Convention and all State and Executive Committee meetings. He provides direction to the Federation and, like the National Committeeman and Committeewoman, is an ex officio member of the State Executive Committee of the Texas Republican Party. The Co-chairman performs such duties as the Chairman may designate. Candidates for this office are restricted to the female members of the Federation. The First Vice-Chairman and the Second Vice- chairman act as assistants to the Chairman, performTng such duties as he may assign. In the absence of the Chairman, the First Vice-chairman assumes the duties of the Chairman. The Secretary is the recording and corresponding officer of the Federation. The Treasurer is charged with the fiscal responsibilities for the Federation. The County Clubs Chairman, College Chairman, and the High School Chairman coordinate the activities of all city-county, college, and high school clubs, respectively. 30
The Area Chairmen serve to coordinate the activities of clubs in their geographical area. They are charged with holding quarterly Area Association meetings and with overseeing the activities of District Committeemen and Women in their Areas. The District Committeemen and District Committeewomen are responsible for their respective Senatorial Districts. Their chief duties are to establish and coordinate Young Republican Clubs in their District. The Club Chairmen are the chief executive officers of their respective organizations. Clubs function at various levels including the college, high school, city, and county levels.^ All federation officers from National Committeeman through Treasurer (above) are elected to two-year terms by delegates to the T.Y.R.F. Annual Convention. The County Clubs Chairman, College Chairman, and High School Chairman are each elected to one year terms by dele gates from the county, college, and high school clubs, respectively. The ten Area Chairmen and sixty-two District officials serve one year terms and are elected in Area or District meetings held in conjunction with the Annual Convention. The Club Chairman is usually elected in the spring of each year by the members of his local club.
Procedures During the course of the study, it was discovered that the mailing list provided by T.Y.R.F. State 31
Headquarters contained numerous inaccuracies. Especi ally distressing was the tendency for individuals to be carried on the mailing list long after they had ceased to hold office. Where inaccuracies were found, one of two options was followed: (1) if an officer had resigned or otherwise vacated his position, a question naire was mailed to his successor, or (2) if there were no successor, the officer was eliminated as a potential respondent. A person was dropped from the mailing list only if it could be verified by a federation official that the position was unoccupied. The greatest diffi culty was encountered in attempting to ascertain the identity of Club Chairmen. Entire clubs seem to "disappear" from one year to the next, and the State Headquarters often has little information on the status of a particular club. Despite problems encountered with the mailing list, however, a pool of 136 potential respondents was eventually identified. All potential respondents were mailed a packet containing the questionnaire, a letter of transmittal, and a return envelope. The letter of transmittal was sent under the auspices of the Department of Government of Texas Tech University. It briefly explained the nature of the project and included an appeal to the addressee to complete and return the questionnaire. 32
Both the mailing and return envelopes were hand stamped
rather than metered since this procedure is generally
assumed to increase response. The entire packet was
mailed on February 14, 19 71.
On the eleventh and twelfth days after the mailing,
a field staff attended the State Convention of the
Texas Young Republican Federation in Fort Worth, Texas.
With the assistance of the incumbent State Chairman
several efforts were made to collect questionnaires, on
the spot, from non-respondents. This personal contact
took the place of a follow-up mailing and, in the final
analysis, increased the response rate by at least 20
percent. The effectiveness of the personal follow-up
is difficult to ascertain exactly since its most
important effect may not have been realized immediately.
As it happened, numerous replies were received a week
or so after the efforts by the field staff. One may
surmise that the presence of the field staff at the
convention served to remind some of the delegates of
their neglected questionnaires which, as a result, were
completed and mailed when the officers returned home.
Whatever the case, about 40 percent of the total returns were received by mail after the field work was completed.
Replies were received from 101 of the 136 eligible officers, resulting in a response rate of 74 percent. 33
However, when the returns are excimined by level of office, there are some apparent response differences
TABLE 2-1 QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS BY OFFICE
Rate Number Number of Office Eligible Returned Response
State Officers 12 9 75% Area Chairmen 8 7 88 District Officials 50 28 56 Club Chairmen 66 57 86
Total 136 101 74%
From table 2-1 it can be seen that the response from District Officials was disproportionately low. It seems unlikely, however, that the smaller response from this sub-population would seriously affect our results although we should not be insensitive to that possibility
A Cautionary Note A bit of caution should be exercised in inter preting the data to be presented because of the fact, noted above, that District Officials are somewhat underrepresented. A second reason for caution is the non-response problem associated with all survey work. 34
Additionally, it should be noted that the respondents are all elected officers of the Texas Young Republican Federation and may be quite unrepresentative of the organization's general membership. Hence any extra polation from this elite group to the general membership should best be done with circumspection. 35
Footnotes
Chapter II Paul L. Erdos, Professional Mail Surveys (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), pp. 2-3. ^Ibid. 3 Jeff Fishel, "Ambition and the Political Vocation," Journal of Politics 33 (February 1971): 28. 4 Concerning the pros and cons of mail surveys, see Erdos, Professional Mail Surveys, pp. 5-14; Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1966) , pp. 93-96; and Delbert C. Miller, Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 2nd ed. (New York: David McKay Company, 1964), pp. 76-84. The questionnaire and letter of transmittal are reproduced in the Appendix. Concerning questionnaire design, see Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963), pp. 67-128. 7 Erdos, Professional Mail Surveys, p. 12. p Job descriptions of the various Young Republican officers are taken from the Texas Young Republican Federation, Organization Manual (circa 1966), pp. 18-20. 9 The author wishes to express his appreciation to the field staff, Janet Moore and Jerry Meyer, for their invaluable assistance. CHAPTER III
THE SOCIALIZATION HYPOTHESIS
Explanations of Student Activism Various hypotheses have been advanced in an effort to explain student activism. Some are found in the popular literature, others in the scholarly literature. With respect to scholarly works, the numerous explana tions offered can be divided roughly into two cate gories: (1) psychological explanations which tend to focus upon the personality and intellectual character istics of student activists, and (2) sociological explanations which generally direct attention to various social and demographic variables in an effort to explain the origins of student activism. The psychologically oriented studies can be divided more or less into those which ascribe favorable or unfavorable attributes to left activists. The "maladjusted leftist" hypothesis suggests that student left activists are psychological misfits whose rebellion 2 is projected upon society. Conversely, those studies embracing what Kerpelman has termed the "extraordinary leftist" hypothesis generally reach conclusions to the 36 37 effect that "student left activists come from remarkably positive and privileged backgrounds and, because of this, they face life as psychologically rich, extraordinarily well-adjusted individuals." Interestingly, no one has ventured to suggest that student right activists might be "extraordinarily" well-adjusted; if anything, they have been considered to be just the opposite. Bay, for example, implies that student right activists are, 4 prima facie, maladjusted. The sociological parallel to the "maladjusted leftist" hypothesis is the "generational conflict" perspective which argues that student activism stems from a general rebellion against authority figures which, escalated to a societal level, results in an often amorphous, ill-defined intergenerational conflict. On the other hand, the "socialization hypothesis" (similar to Keniston's "red-diaper-baby" hypothesis) is derived from sociological findings to the effect that student left activists tend to be drawn from families that are liberal to radical politically, upper middle class sociologically, and permissive in their child rearing practices. Although this intersection of particular socialization and socioeconomic patterns has gained rather wide acceptance regarding student left activists. 38
Dunlap suggests that the hypothesis may also be applicable 7 to student right activists. To postulate the applicability of the socialization hypothesis to both left and right student activists would seem quite reasonable since it is well-documented that political participation, regardless of ideology, is related to particular kinds of social backgrounds— naunely those backgrounds characteristics of high socio economic status. Those who become actives, or "gladi ators," in the political arena tend to exhibit certain social characteristics; those who do not have the prerequisite social background tend to be excluded from participation. Prewitt estimates that, in any given community, it is only the upper two-fifths who are socially "eligible" to assume roles in the political system. Those who are in fact politically active con- p stitute an even smaller proportion of the citizenry. Hence, political leaders are ultimately drawn from a rather exclusive, homogeneous pool of eligibles. This is especially true at the highest levels of participation; Prewitt amd Eulau write that social background broadly conceived as including status at birth and educational or occupational achievement . . . affect the decision as to who gains control of government. Even in the most democratic society, the electorate does not choose from among all its members. It chooses from ajnong a pool of eligibles disproportionately 39
drawn from the higher social-status groups in society.9
Thus, a person's chances of being "recruited" into politics may be perceived as being, in part, a function of his "opportunities," some of which are determined by the luck of the genetic lottery; others, such as the development of certain skills, may be acquired. As Seligman notes, "political opportunity depends not only on social position at birth but also on access to education and wealth, which become avenues of social and political advancement."
What evidence is there, then, that student activists are drawn from the types of family and social backgrounds that are known to be associated with political activism? The following section will examine this evidence by focusing on several of the major studies relevant to this line of inquiry. Moreover, only those studies which include both left and right activists—or left activists and a control group—will be discussed.
Explanations of Student Activism: The Evidence" Socioeconomic Status There is a great deal of evidence that student activists on the left of the political spectrum tend to 40 come from family backgrounds that are decidedly upper middle class. For example, in his 1966 study of anti- Selective Service protesters at the University of Chicago, Flacks found that protesters, as opposed to non-protesters, reported their parents to be dispropor tionately upper middle class, with high levels of income and education. He also found that the occupations of the protesters' fathers were "primarily upper professional (doctors, college faculty, lawyers) rather them business, white collar, or working class." 12 Furthermore, he notes that the mothers of protesters were "uniquely well-educated and involved in careers, and that high status and education has characterized these families over at least two generations." Other studies tend to corraborate Flacks' findings. Westby and Braungart, in a 1965 study of the conserva tive Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the "left" Students for Peace (SENSE) at a large eastern public university, found that SENSE members were more likely to be from high income families than were YAF members. Additionally, they found that SENSE members tended to be from upper middle class families, whereas YAF members appeared to come from more humble social origins— 14 typically lower middle or working class fcimilies. In their 1966 study of YAF amd the Students for a Democratic 41
Society (SDS), Westby and Braungart report similar findings, i.e., SDS members were drawn from families of higher income and social status than were members of the Young Americans for Freedom. In a later study (1969) of SDS cmd YAF at the University of Oregon, Dunlap found that there was little difference in father's occupational prestige between SDS and a control group of Oregon students, but that YAF members' fathers tended to rank slightly lower. This latter group "tend to cluster in the middle-range prestige categories like administrative personnel and small business owners, while the SDS fathers are more likely to hold managerial positions." Dunlap reports that, contrary to Flacks, he found no predominance of professional occupations among the SDS fathers and that there was little differ ence between SDS and YAF members in terms of the numbers of fathers who were self-employed. He also found that the parents of SDSers were no more likely than the parents of YAFers to have obtained a high educational level. Indeed, SDS fathers were less likely than YAF fathers to have completed at least some college work, 46 percent to 65 percent, respectively, with the corresponding figure for the control group being 55 percent. A study by Braungart which reported data for Young Republicans, found that the occupations of YR 42 fathers were very similar to those for SDS fathers, and both were of higher status occupations than were YAF fathers. YR families had the highest incomes of any 17 group. In a study of SDS, YAF, and the Young Democrats (YD) at the University of Houston, Lacy notes, rather surprisingly, that "both YAF and YD members' family incomes are higher than those of SDS." 18 However, she suggests that this finding may be explained by the peculiarities of the particular geographical area from which her respondents were drawn. In sum, the evidence tends to support the conten tion that student left activists come from higher socio economic families than do student right activists; left activists' families generally have higher levels of income and education than do right activists' families. As noted, however, some studies have reported findings to the contrary.
Religious Backgrounds There appears to be a marked tendency for radical activists to describe themselves as non-religious. In addition, Keniston contends that a disproportionate number of protesters are of Jewish background, and "if the parents of activists are religious, they tend to be concentrated in the more liberal denominations— 43
Reform Judaism, Unitarianism, the Society of Friends, 19 etc." In his study. Flacks found that 45 percent of a saunple of radical activists at the University of Chicago were Jewish. He also indicates that "a very high proportion of both Jewish and non-Jewish activists report no religious preference for themselves and their parents*. . 1.20 Braungart found that 84 percent of the YAF members he studied attended a church or synagogue whereas a full 72 percent of the SDS members did not attend religious services. With respect to the SDS, Braungart says that over half of them must be considered as "at best, experi encing conflict or ambivalence and, in many cases, rejecting religion and its personal or social relevance in toto."^-*- Likewise, Lacy found that SDS members were con siderably more likely to be agnostic, atheist, or humanist in religious outlook than were either YAF or Young Democrats, although she indicates that members of SDS were not less likely to have come from a religious family. She suggests that at some point in their lives,
SDS members seemed to have "overwhelmingly rejected 22 formal religious adherence." 44
By way of comparison, however, Dunlap found that SDS members were no more likely to be of either Jewish or irreligious families than were members of a control group. 23
Political Orientations Various studies have indicated that both radical activists and their parents tend to be either Democratic or socialist in their political orientations. Conversely, conservative activists and their parents tend to be Republican. Westby and Braungart, for example, note that of the parents of Students for Peace members, 68 percent were reported to be of either Democratic or Socialist political affiliation, while 71 percent of the YAF parents were said to be Republican. 24 Flacks' 1965 study of activists and non-activists, in which parents of both groups were also interviewed, provides another illustration. Flacks found that the fathers of left activists were "liberal" in their political orientations: 60 percent described themselves as "highly liberal" or "socialist"; but of the non-activists' fathers, only 6 percent classified themselves as such. Only 13 percent of the radical activists' fathers claimed to be Repub lican whereas 40 percent of the non-activists' fathers said that they were Republican. In addition, there 45 appeared to be little difference between non-activists and their fathers in terms of the liberal-conservative dimension, but activists were more likely to label them- 25 selves as "socialist"—32 percent to 6 percent. Despite some apparent confusion by Flacks concerning the dimension of party affiliation and the liberal- conservative ideological dimension, his study seems to support the notion that the political orientations of radical activists are more or less in keeping with those of their fathers though somewhat more left-leaning. Westby and Braungart, in their 1966 study of SDS and YAF, report that 60 percent of the SDS fathers were iden tified as Democratic, radical-socialist, or communist, but YAF fathers were disproportionately Republican or "conservative." Indeed, 90 percent of the YAF fathers were identified as either Republican or conservative. Additionally, they note that there was considerably more agreement on political affiliation between YAF members and their parents than between members of SDS and their parents. They thus conclude that the hypothesis of generational antagonism "may apply to the SDS but not 26 necessarily to the YAF." Data derived from Dunlap's University of Oregon study indicate that about 58 percent of the SDS fathers may be classified as Democratic or socialist in political preference, with 37 percent being 46
Republican. Of the YAF fathers, 18 percent are Demo crats, 68 percent Republican, while 14 percent are listed as "other." Corresponding figures for a control group of Oregon students are: Democrat, 4 9 percent; Republican, 47 percent; other, 4 percent. In addition, Dunlap found that 67 percent of the SDS fathers were liberal in orientation whereas 95 percent of the YAF fathers were conservative. Percentages for the fathers of the control group were: liberals, 29 percent and conservatives, 71 percent. Dunlap suggests that the "socialization hypothesis may no longer be an adequate explanation of the roots of radical activism," but he also suggests that "in view of the strong continuity between the political orientations of the YAFers and their parents, it appears that political socialization has played the dominant role in the young conservatives' 27 political development." Several criticisms of the sociologically oriented studies are in order. First, they often exhibit a lack of proper control groups, which results in a 28 confounding of activism and ideology. Coupled to this problem is the tendency for researchers to be overly concerned with student left activism; consequently less effort has been expended to explicate the correlates of student right (or middle) activism. When researchers 47 have collected data on right activists, they have most often been concerned with comparing members of an extreme left group, such as the Students for a Demo cratic Society, with members of am extreme right group like the Young Americans for Freedom. This state of affairs has led Lewis and Kraut to deplore the "over emphasis on the characteristics of members of extreme groups, and the subsequent failure to relate findings to the general social-psychological dimensions of . . 29 activism and belief." Additionally, most studies have failed to differ entiate on the basis of amount of activity. Surely one-time participants in a demonstration differ from long-time political activists. Similarly, studies have failed, for the most part, to distinguish between the very active members of an organization and those who are merely "hangers-on." It seems reasonable to suppose that the marginally committed may be entirely different from the more committed "activist cadre" of an organi zation. With respect to this point, it is suggestive to note that Kerpelman's study discovered a number of students who in fact did not share the ideology espoused by the political organization to which they belonged. Few studies have examined activists from more than a single caunpus and, furthermore, the bulk of the 48 studies have been conducted at the University of California at Berkeley or at one of a number of eastern, elite campuses. It is sufficient perhaps to note that the studies by Lacy (University of Houston) and by Dunlap (University of Oregon) report findings somewhat at variance with those conducted at the more frequently studied campuses. 31 The above criticisms aside, it appears that much of the research supports the socialization hypothesis. But since most of the research has focused primarily on student left activists, what then of the more conser vative student activists? It would be appropriate to heed Dunlap's suggestion that "more research is needed on conservative activists to allow for more reliable 32 generalization." With his suggestion in mind, let us turn to a consideration of the socialization hypothesis as it relates to Young Republican leaders across the state of Texas.
Characteristics of Young Republican Leaders In general, the typical Young Republican leader can be described as a white, unmarried male college student from eighteen to twenty-two years of age. He is likely to have become interested in politics during the middle of his teenage years, to have been a member 49 of the Young Republicans for about three years, and to have held two offices prior to his present office in the organization. He is quite committed to the organization, spending over a ten hours a week in YR activities (more during election periods). Most YR leaders have aunbitions for higher political office and, in fact, many aspire to hold national elective office.
Socioeconomic Status
As noted above, various studies have found that student left activists tend to be drawn from families in which parental income, occupation, and education levels are relatively high. Some studies have also indicated that student right activists tend to come from families ranking relatively lower on these characteristics. The hypothesis advanced here, however, is that the present
Scunple of Young Republican leaders is likely to be drawn from the same type of family backgrounds that, in general, are known to be associated with political activism: that is, families ranking considerably above the general population with respect to income, occupation, and education.
Table 3-1 compares the income levels of the respondents' families to those for all Anglo families in
Texas. One out of four Young Republican leaders report
TEXAS TECH LIBRARY 50
TABLE 3-1 INCOMES FOR YOUNG REPUBLICANS' FAMILIES COMPARED TO ANGLO FAMILY INCOfffi LEVELS FOR TEXAS
Texas Faunilies Income YR Families (Anglo)
Less than $10,000 15.2% 57.1% $10,000 - $24,999 59.8 38.7 $25,000 or more 25.0 4.2
100.0% 100.0% (n=92) Chi square (G.O.F.) = 133.60 p < .001
NOTE: The median family income for all families in Texas was $8,490 in 1969. The figure for Anglo families was $8,930. Income figures for Texas Anglo families are for the year 1969 and are taken from: U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 45, Texas, p. 432. 51 their faimily's income to be above $25,000 (the highest category provided on the questionnaire), and about 8 5 percent are above $10,000. Obviously, these Young Republican families are of far higher income levels than are Texas faunilies in general. It is perhaps no stretch of the imagination to call these Young Repub licans' faunilies "affluent." In light of such high income levels, it is not surprising to find that parental occupations are also high when compared to Texas Anglos (table 3-2). This is particularly striking for the fathers, of whom over half 33 are found in the highest occupational level. Parents' educations (table 3-3) appear to be much in keeping with the patterns found for income and occupation. The edu cational levels of the fathers tend to fall in the college graduate and post-graduate categories. The mothers' educational levels are somewhat lower than those for the fathers, but even so, over 65 percent have had at least some college experience. Compared to the data for Texas Anglo adults, the educational levels for the parents of these Young Republicans are obviously quite high. 52
TABLE 3-2 YR PARENTS' OCCUPATIONS COMPARED TO OCCUPATIONS OF TEXAS ANGLO MALES AND TEXAS Ai>iGLO FEMALES
a Texas Texas Occupation Father Mother Males Females (Anglo) (Anglo)
Professional, technical 51.0% 21.4% 13.8% 15.7% Businessman, proprietor 31.3 4.1 12.1 4.4 Sales 5.2 2.0 8.0 8.5 Clerical 1.0 10.2 6.9 36.6 Blue collar 3.1 2.0 48.1 27.8 Farmer 3.1 0.0 5.6 0.8 59.2 b b Housewife 0.0 ... • • • Other, retired 5.2 1.0 5.6 6.2 99.9%^ 99.9%^ 100.1%^ 100.0%^ (n=96) (n=98) Chi square (G.O.F.) for fathers = 169.74 p < .001 Chi square (G.O.F.) for mothers = 48.08 p < .001
^Bureau of the Census, Characteristics, 45:431. Category not reported. ^Rounding error. ^Goodness of fit tests are between YR fathers and Texas Anglo males and between YR mothers and Texas Anglo females. The category "housewife" is omitted from the tests. 53
TABLE 3-3 PARENTAL EDUCATION LEVELS COMPARED TO EDUCATION LEVELS FOR TEXAS
Texas Texas Education Father Mother Males Females (Anglo) (Anglo)
Elementary less that 8 yrs 2.0% 0.0% 21.5% 19.6% 8 years 5.0 1.0 8.3 7.9 High school 1-3 years 6.0 9.1 19.9 23.7 4 years 15.0 24.2 22.9 28.4 College 1-3 years 19.0 28.3 12.6 11.8 4 years 24.0 29.3 7.9 5.9 5 yrs or more 29.0 8.1 6.9 2.7 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n=100) (n=99) Chi square (G.O.F.) for fathers = 137.41 p < .001 Chi square (G.O.F.) for mothers = 158.40 p < .001
NOTE: Median school years completed for Texas Anglo males is 12.0, and for Anglo females the figure is 11.9. ^Education figures are for Texas Anglos 25 years old and over and are calculated from Bureau of the Census, Characteristics, 45:431. ^Goodness of fit tests are between YR fathers and Texas Anglo males and between YR mothers and Texas Anglo females. 54
College Major
Some studies have reported that student left activists are likely to major in the humanities or the social sciences whereas right activists are likely to be found majoring in more applied fields such as busi ness, engineering, or the physical sciences. Table 3-4 indicates that such is not the case for Young Republicans For the fifty-eight Young Republican leaders who were college students at the time of the survey, the most frequent major by far is the social sciences with over 50 percent of the students studying in this area. Business is a poor second, followed by education as the third most frequently chosen major.
Religious Backgrounds Studies have indicated a marked tendency for student left activists to be irreligious. In addition, both Keniston and Flacks have reported groups of left activists to be disproportionately Jewish. One would hardly expect Young Republicans to be disproportionately Jewish, but they might well exhibit a tendency toward being nonreligious or some other distinct pattern of religious affiliation. Compared to data compiled by the Texas Council of Churches in December, 1967, Young Republican leaders do in fact exhibit some distinct 55
TABLE 3-4 COLLEGE MAJORS FOR YOUNG REPUBLICANS COMPARED TO EARNED DEGREES FOR ALL TEXAS UNDERGRADUATES, 1970-1971
Major YRs Texas Colleges
Social sciences 53.4% 17.4 Business 15.5 19.2 Education 10.4 23.4 Physical sciences 5.2 10.4 Humanities 1.7 12.2 Agriculture 1.7 2.4 Engineering 1.7 7.1 Other 6.9 7.9
Undecided 3.4 • • •
99.9% 100.0% b (n=58) Chi square (G.O.F.) = 59.13 p < .001
^Figures are for all bachelors' degrees conferred by all Texas colleges and universities (public and private) for the time period from July 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971. The data were derived from table 8 of: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Higher Education Surveys Branch, Earned Degrees Conferred 1970-71, by Mary Evans Hooper (Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1973), pp. 42-709. The category "undecided" is omitted from the goodness of fit test. 56 religious preferences (table 3-5). Perhaps most inter esting is the tendency for a smaller proportion of Young Republican leaders to be Baptist than are Texans in general. They also show less of a tendency to be 36 Catholic, but are more likely to be Presbyterian or Episcopalian. Although only 1 percent list themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist," combining this category with those of "Protestant-Christian" and "no preference" may perhaps be interpreted to indicate some degree of "slippage" from formal religious affiliation. If true, then one-fifth of these Young Republican leaders fail to list themselves as adhering to some recognized religious denomination. These findings should be viewed with circumspection since the quality of data on the religious affiliations of Texans is of unknown reliability. Moreover, denomi nations define affiliation in differing ways. Addition ally, the data are based on known church affiliation and do not represent a random sample of the Texas popu lation.
Political Orientations Since the major thrust of the socialization hypothesis is that political orientations are transmitted from parent to child, it is to be expected that these 57
TABLE 3-5 RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
Denomination Young Republicans Texas
Baptist 16% 36% Roman Catholic 10 26 Methodist 15 17 Church of Christ 3 6 Presbyterian 11 4 Lutheran 2 3 Episcopalian 10 3 Disciples of Christ 4 2 All Other Protestant Denominations "Protestant," or "Christian" 11 b Jewish 2 b Atheist, agnostic 1 b No Preference 8 b D.D. , N.R. 3 b
100% 100% (n=100)
Texas Council of Churches, 1967. Reported in Clifton McCleskey, Government and Politics of Texas, p. 8 Category not reported. 58
Young Republican leaders and their parents would be very much in agreement with respect to such political vari ables as party preference and ideological orientation. Table 3-6 shows the political party affiliations of the respondents and of their parents (as reported by the YR officers) categorized by strength of association. Both of the parents as well as the activists are decidedly more Republican than would generally be expected. Almost a third of the fathers and four out of ten mothers are reported to be "strong" Republicans. These distributions are especially striking when compared to the last column in table 3-6 which shows the distri bution for Texas voters of Anglo descent as reported by 37 McCleskey and Merrill. With respect to party identi fication. Young Republican leaders clearly are drawn from families which are much more likely to be Republican than is the Anglo voting population of Texas. An interesting observation from table 3-6 is that the aggregate distribution for the activists is even more Republican than are the parental distributions. Indeed the respondents as a group are more likely to be "strong" Republicans than are their parents. In order to investi gate this further, the party identification responses of the Young Republicans are crosstabulated with those given for their fathers and for their mothers (table 3-7 and 59
)H Q) -^ -P O O rH dp as CO > tjt O in in en o en rH r- to en o II X rH G (U X 0) •H u O Qi •H > a (0 X o X EH c«P dp O o X O as in CN CN O rH CQ X CN O II Ui O rH C < w o •H Mu W« 4J h^ E-i •H CQ O fH D > O fu W O cu c o u o dP dP c . O o O O E in • • • in • • O II u a) r- • • • CN • • o G cn rH 2 O M EH dP dP ^ < in in o cn U oj e H 0) (D H CX3 o II &4 [2 Q vo en o G H EH 2 Q dp dP o ^-. r^ cn . cn o II G Q) vo en o G H Q vo m fd < B 04 (0 cn 0) X 0) M 04 dP dP *-v (d cn C • CD CN o as O 04 . CN cr in U Q) CN O II CO . 2 X 01 00 O G CO cn •H iH Q 2 x: 'H O 04 u cn X 04 e CN w X • 0) G EH 4J Q) s 04 04 B Q 'O 0) Q> 0) 0) O G C7> a; o: Q Q cn 2 MH O G G O 04 0 .i4 . . • .i C • dP dP O B O O ^^ . CN u a) o o O II G in in •H cn O G 2 CO O EH TJ B Oi G Q) o O 11 < H Q o o G (d 04 e cn CO a) u <»(> d(> X o in in O .G iH X 73 00 o X C in CN • CN . . . O II o H r^ rH • rH . . . o G o 00 s I rH en X (U m TJ 2 dp ^-N T) O en cn o ^ 0) H X < TJ 04 EH •p o dP dP as CO O f-H O 00 00 o r- fd > XJ^ en o II X G rH G 0) CO < fd ^ X G Q) •H EH Oi }H H O U •H K > EH CO o fd ^ X Q) dP dP o 0) cn X CN CN in O rH 2 X as o D m < O .H G U cn fd H 05 s o t-q u •H 03 EH 4J D O •H 04 > rH S o O tA 04 O C5 CO C 2 2 u o fd H (d f-i G (1) » fa S Ui »-1 o w EH § cn G EH 2 Q fd O 2 o H < •H EH X < ^ (U EH cn 2 EH o s W 2 CO dP O oi m in 00 O rH ^9 o II O < H G 04 •H HP < U H C3 ..oq G Id o» Q >i u 0) 4J .i^ 0) CO Perhaps more light can be shed on the question of ideological differences by examining the data in a some what different fashion. The relationships between each respondent's orientation and those of the father and mother are shown in table 3-10 and table 3-11, respec tively. The moderate and liberal responses are grouped together under the heading of "other" because of the small numbers of those particular responses. From these two tables it is apparent that about one-fourth of the respondents deviate from their father's position if he is conservative and a like number deviate from their mother's position if she is conservative. If the mother or the father is in the "other" category, the respondent is most likely to be in the "other" category also. Hence the observation that the respondents were less likely to be conservative than were the parents is true only of the aggregate distributions; when the cross- tabulated responses are examined, it is apparent that the respondent is likely to follow parental orientations. Significant however is the case in which the father or the mother falls in the "other" category. In both instances about 40 percent of the respondents deviate in the conservative direction. Here again is evidence, perhaps, of a strong incentive to conform to organizational 66 TABLE 3-10 ORIENTATION OF RESPONDENT BY FATHER'S ORIEr;TATION Father Respondent Conservative Other Conservative 79.3% 44.4% Other 20.7 55.6 100.0% 100.0% (n=87) (n=9) Chi square (corrected for continuity) =3.70 p = .05 Phi = .24 67 TABLE 3-11 ORIENTATION OF RESPONDENT BY MOTHER'S ORIENTATION Mother Respondent Conservative Other Conservative 78.7% 42.9% Other 21.3 57.1 100.0% 100.0% (n=89) (n=7) Chi square (corrected for continuity) =2.81 p = .09 Phi = .22 68 norms and identify with the overall conservative orien tation of the organization. Summary The findings of this chapter tend to cast doubt on various assumptions concerning the supposed superior backgrounds of student left activists. The data indicate that some student right activists, at least those Young Republican leaders studied here, also tend to come from families that may be described as high status, even "privileged." That Young Republican leaders should come from high status faunilies is not entirely unexpected since the literature of political participation suggests that those persons who become active in politics tend to come from relatively high status backgrounds. And since the political arena is largely the domain of high status individuals, it does not seem implausable that even "young" activists would tend to come from rather high status backgrounds. The parents of these Young Republicans are over whelmingly conservative and are "strong" identifiers with the Republican party. Young Republican leaders themselves tend to exhibit much the same party and ideological orientations as their parents with two exceptions. First, they are even more likely than their 69 parents to be strong identifiers with the Republican party. Second, although they tend to follow the ideological orientation of their parents, there is a tendency for the children of "liberal" parents to be conservative. It has been suggested that these phenomena may be related to certain dynamics of the Young Repub- licain organization. Moreover, support has been found for those aspects of the socialization hypothesis which suggest that student right activists, like those on the left, are drawn from high status families and that they are carrying on the faunily political traditions by their overt political activity. 70 Footnotes Chapter III The framework for the following discussion follows that of Larry C. Kerpelman, Activists and Nonactivists: A Psychological Study of American College Students (New York: Behavioral Publications, Inc., 1972), pp. 19-22. See Lewis S. Feuer, The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements (New York: Basic Books, 1969). Kerpelman, Activists and Nonactivists, p. 19. 4 Christian Bay, "Political and Apolitical Students: Facts in Search of Theory," Journal of Social Issues 2 3 (July 1967): 88. The foremost scholarly proponent of this hypothesis is Lewis Feuer. See his Conflict of Generations. Kenneth Keniston, Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968) . 7 Riley Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists: A Comparison of Family Backgrounds," Pacific Sociological Review 13 (Summer 1970): 180. g Kenneth Prewitt, "From the Many are Chosen the Few," American Behavioral Scientist 13 (Nov.-Dec. 1969): 175-78; see also by Prewitt, The Recruitment of Political Leaders; A Study of Citizen-Politicians (IndiZnapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1970), especially chapter one. 9 Kenneth Prewitt and Heinz Eulau, "Social Bias in Leadership Selection, Political Recruitment, and Electoral Context," Journal of Politics 33 (May 1971) : 293. For a discussion of political "opportunity" and recruitment, see Lester G. Seligman, Recruiting Political Elites (New York: General Learning Press, 1971). 71 Ibid., p. 5. 12 Richard Flacks, "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest," Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967): 76-77. 13 Ibid., p. 87. 14 David L. Westby and Richard G. Braungart, "Class and Politics in the Family Backgrounds of Student Political Activists," American Sociological Review 31 (October 1966): 691. David L. Westby and Richard G. Braungart, "The Alienation of Generations and Status Politics: Alter native Explanations of Student Political Activism," Learning about Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization, ed. Roberta S. Sigel~TNew York: Random House, 1970), p. 485. Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists," p. 178. 17 Richard G. Braungart, "Family Status, Socializa tion, and Student Politics" (Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1969), pp. 336-40. 18 Virginia Perrenod Lacy, "The Season of Our Discontent" (M.A. thesis. University of Houston, 1969), pp. 110-11. 19 Kenneth Keniston, "The Sources of Student Dissent," Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967): 117. 20 Flacks, "The Liberated Generation," p. 65. 21 Westby and Braungart, "The Alienation of Genera tions," p. 483. 22 Lacy, "The Season of Our Discontent," p. 115. 23 Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists," p. 179. O A Westby and Braungart, "Class and Politics," p. 691. ^^Flacks, "The Liberated Generation," p. 87. 72 26 Westby and Braungart, "The Alienation of Genera tions," p. 480. 27 Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists," p. 180. 28 As mentioned previously in the text, those studies not utilizing control groups have not been discussed here. An excpellent discussion of the problem of confounding activism with ideology can be found in Kerpelman, Activists aind Nonactivists. 29 Stephen H. Lewis and Robert E. Kraut, "Correlates of Student Political Activism," Journal of Social Issues 28 (1972): 132-33. 30 Kerpelman, Activists and Nonactivists, pp. 4 8-52, 61. 31 Lacy, "The Season of Our Discontent"; Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists." 32 Dunlap, "Radical and Conservative Student Activists," p. 179. 33 The coding scheme used here is not identical to that of the census, but it is close enough to allow reliable comparison. 34 See William A. Watts and David Whittaker, "Free Speech Advocates at Berkeley," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2 (January-March 1966): 41-62; Seymour Martin Lipset and Philip G. Altback, 'Student Politics and Higher Education in the United States," in Student Politics, ed. Seymour Martin Lipset (New York: Basic Books, 1967), pp. 199-252; James W. Trent and Judith L. Craise, "Commitment and Conformity in the American College," Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967): 34-51; and Fredric Soloman and Jacob R. Fishirian, "Youth amd Peace: A Psycho-Social Study of Student Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C.," Journal of Social Issues 20 (October 1964): 54-73. 35 Keniston, "Sources of Student Dissent," p. 117; and Flacks, "The Liberated Generation," p. 65. 36 The small number of Catholics may be due to the fact that there are relatively few Mexican-American members of the Texas Young Republican Federation. 73 37Clifto n McCleskey and Bruce Merrill, "Mexican American Political Behavior in Texas," Social Science Quarterly 53 (March 1973): 791. ^^The shift toward organizational norms is discussed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV MOTIVATIONS Few studies have bothered to ask youth activists why they are politically active. Most have simply assumed that SENSE members, for example, were against the Viet Nam war, that SDS activists were in favor of a radical reconstruction of American Society, or that YAF members were arch conservatives who, if they were for anything, were for moving the collective state of humanity back a few decades. There have been studies which examined the moti vations of other political activists, however. Among other issues, these studies have been concerned with questions of (1) why persons were initially attracted to activist positions, and (2) why they maintain their activist orientation. The bulk of these studies are found in the "amateur politics" literature which springs from James Q. Wilson's seminal work. The Amateur Demo crat, first published in 1962. The Amateur Style Two models of political party organization have 2 received considerable attention in the last few years. 74 75 The first, the "professional" model, is typified by Harold Gosnell's now classic Machine Politics: Chicago 3 Mode]^. This model posits a party organization staffed by "professional" politicians who are concerned pri marily with enjoying the spoils of office attainable by electing members of their party to positions of power. The professional organization has a tendency to "boss" rule, and those who man the party's posts are often the recipients of patronage in the form of government jobs. The professional who is a year-round laborer in the interests of the party oftentimes is a patronage broker to those below himself in the party hierarchy or to others who have served the party in some capacity. He may serve as an intermediary between the government and the voters of his constituency, and in some times and locales, assist them with such diverse problems as legal amd welfare aid, marital and other advice, basic needs such as food and rent, and help in obtaining various governmental services. Overall, the professional is motivated by material, tangible benefits. Wilson writes of the party pro fessional : He is not expected to reflect on theories of government, take positions on controversial and abstract problems of public policy, or help club members devise organizational procedures which will give them control over his behavior. 76 He is expected to win elections and, by winning them, provide the stream of inducements which the followers require as a condition of their contributing time, effort, and money.5 A second model, Wilson's "amateur" model, portrays the party activist as one who views politics as being "intrinsically interesting because it expresses a con ception of the public interest. The amateur politician sees the political world more in terms of ideas and principles than in terms of persons." He is concerned with ideological incentives rather than materialistic ones. The distinction between professional and amateur orientations to politics provides a useful (though far from perfect) framework: According to this framework, amateur and profes sional activists differ in important ways in their overall approach to party politics. For the amateur, generally drawn from the upper socio economic strata of the community, the principal reasons for party work are impersonal; they consist of intrinsic satisfactions of political participation, such as fulfilling one's civic duty or furthering a philosophical cause. The amateur believes that public policy should be the outcome of deliberations based on issues and citizen participation, rather than the accidential product of personal or partisan struggles. According to the professional model, on the other hand, the primary rewards of party work are more personally useful, consisting of such satisfactions as power, money, or the excitement of playing the game. The professional is concerned more with winning or losing than with substantive political issues. In short, the amateur takes an impersonal, issue- oriented approach to party politics, while the professional is concerned mainly with the personally-instrumental aspects of party work.7 77 Incentive Systems Browder writes that "the most important distinction between the amateur activist and the more traditional party professional is . . . their differing reasons for participating in party work."® The Clark and Wilson incentive typology has often been used to classify actives' reasons for political activity. They posit three types of incentives which an organization may utilize to attract and hold its membership: (1) Material incentives. These are tangible rewards; that is, rewards that have a mone tary value or can easily be translated into ones that have. (2) Solidary incentives. Solidary rewards are basically intangible; that is, the reward has no monetary value and cannot easily be trans lated into one that has. . . . They derive in the main from the act of associating and include such rewards as socializing, congeni ality, the sense of group membership and identification, the status resulting from membership, fun and conviviality, the main tenance of social distinctions, and so on. (3) Purposive incentives. Purposive, like soli dary, incentives are intangible, but they derive in the main from the stated ends of the association rather than from the simple act of association. These inducements are to be found in the suprapersonal goals of the organization: the demand for the enactment of certain laws or the adoption of certain prac tices (which do not benefit the members in amy direct or tangible way). The Clark and Wilson typology has frequently been utilized to provide the most important, though not only, 78 distinction between the amateur and professional styles. In essence, the amateur is presumed to be motivated by purposive concerns while the professional is interested in material benefits. The solidary aspect of the Clark and Wilson typology is compatible with either the amateur or professional orientation and hence is of little use in distinquishing the two. McDtivational Reorientation of the Amateur Much of the cimateur politics literature has been devoted to measuring the defining motivational charac teristic, i.e., the distinctively purposive orientation of the amateur (virtually by definition), but there has been some dispute concerning the degree and direction of motivational reorientation—given that amateurs enter politics out of largely purposive reasons, do they become more materially oriented, hence more professional, over time? The prevailing view was first set forth by Wilson who argued that "eventually the amateur either loses interest or becomes a professional." Eldersveld's findings support the notion of moti vational change. In his study of Detroit area activists, he found that among those precinct leaders who had entered party work out of "impersonal" (aimateur) motives, 57 percent of the Republicans and 68 percent of the 79 Democrats reported their current motives to be "per sonal" (professional) in nature. Among party leaders above the precinct level, he found that most had entered for professional motives and had remained so. Eldersveld's findings appear to give support to the proposition that the amateur either becomes a profes sional or drops out of politics. Additional support is provided by Margaret Conway and Frank Feigert in their study of Republican and Democratic precinct chairmen in Montgomery County, Maryland and Knox County, Illinois. They conclude that "programmatic appeals are a major basis for inducing initial entry into political activity, but ideological or other impersonal appeals generally do not sustain activists in their performance of the party precinct leader role." 12 Other studies, however, suggest that the amateur's impersonal, ideological orientation may persist over time and that conversion to professional motivations may not be a factor in the continued participation of actives. In their study of local party officials in Massachusetts and North Carolina, Bowman, Ippolito, and Donaldson found that continuance in party work was not dependent upon motivational orientation but instead was related to the activist's role perceptions: 80 For those to whom party loyalty is very important and for whom the party position is personally important, continued activism is more likely than among those whose party orientation and position orientation are less strong.13 A second study which discounts motivational reorientation eimong amateurs is Dennis Ippolito's study of executive committeemen in the Republican and Democratic party organizations of Nassau County, New York. Ippolito concludes that "'amateur' activists do maintain their motivational orientation over time." 14 Browder and Ippolito report similar findings in their study of Demo cratic and Republican precinct chairmen, district chairmen, and county-wide officials in DeKalb County, Georgia. They conclude that amateurs, at least in DeKalb County, do not become reoriented to professional motivations. As they put it: Most leaders started their party activity with an emphasis upon what are generally considered to be amateur incentives—citizen duty, concern with government policy or party policy—and this emphasis has been maintained over time.-^^ Obviously there is some disagreement over the motivational patterns of amateur activists, especially concerning their durability over time. Exchange Theory and the Amateur Style With respect to the persistence of amateur motives, it seems plausible to suggest that activists' motivations 81 are related to the nature of the organization of which they are members. if so, then the writings of various "exchange theorists" would seem to offer a viable framework for the analysis of differing incentive systems. In brief, exchange theory takes as the crucial data for analyses the "exchanges" which occur among political actors. Members of a political club, for exaimple, pre sumably exchange dues money for some type of benefit from the organization. Supposedly, the exchange will take place only if there is a parity, or a surplus, when the "costs" of membership are subtracted from the "benefits" of membership in the organization. Exchange theory, then, is based upon the "rationality" of the individual actor: the rational person will make an exchange, e.g., join an organization or maintain member ship, only when his benefits exceed his costs. Mancur Olson has been concerned almost exclusively 17 with economic benefits and costs, but other exchange theorists have expanded the concept to include other, 18 non-economic motivations. Salisbury, for instance, draws from the Clark and Wilson typology to suggest that incentives, and hence exchanges may be based upon either 19 purposive, solidary, or material rewards. Salisbury postulates the existence of an entrepreneur-organizer 82 who is crucial to the formation and continuance of an organization and in essence serves a brokerage function for exchanges, both internal and external to the organi zation. Salisbury's notion of the entrepreneur-organizer is important since it sheds light on the question of how and why the nature of an organization is related to its incentive structure. Whereas group theorists such as Trumam and Olson assume an on-going system, and thus fail to account for the origins of organizations, Salisbury suggests that an organization's beginnings may be traced to the activities of an "entrepreneur- organizer." In short, the entrepreneur-organizer sees a potential market, invests his (or other's) capital to create an organization which offers benefits of a purposive, material, or solidary nature to the market for the price of membership in the organization. If the entrepreneur-organizer is able to "sell" his set of benefits to the potential market, the organization becomes operative. As Salisbury explains: Our argument is that the group entrepreneur invests his capital to create a set of benefits, . . . which he offers at a price to a market. The price is group membership, which may cost as little as a supportive signature or as much as the heavy dues attached to some trade associa tion memberships. The market is whatever ramge of people the entrepreneur chooses to try to attract.22 83 Thus a mutual benefit structure is established such that the benefits of membership outweigh the costs of member ship for those who join, and for the entrepreneur- organizer, his own costs must be less than his benefits (present or expected). Moreover, the notion of entrepreneur-organizer is applicable to the role of on-going leadership. Salisbury points out that although "the entrepreneur/organizer is easier to identify through exaiminlng group origins, his role is conceptually identical with that of the leader of a going group concern." 23 Salisbury makes another point of importance when he notes that it is, therefore, group leadership generally that we are discussing in a framework of benefit exchange. The entrepreneurial role is generally identical with that of leader; the leader is perforce an entrepreneur.24 Thus the leader of an organization creates a benefit structure such that the organization is able to attract members through a mutual benefit exchange. This benefit structure induces people to "buy into" the organization in exchange for which they receive some mixture of purposive, material, or social benefits. The advantage of an exchange theory approach is that it makes it possible to break away from the con vention of defining party organizations in terms of whether they are staffed by "amateurs" or "professionals." 84 Instead, it becomes possible to examine the activities of an organization, internal and otherwise, to deter mine the relative importance of different kinds of activities. In turn we can specify the primary type of benefits which accrue to the members. Labor unions, for example, are primarily materially based organizations and the dominant incentive for membership is material. The same may be said of the machine type of party orgami- zation. Its raison d'etre is to win elections in order to dispense patronage to the faithful. We would expect to find persons who are active in machine politics to be motivated by material incentives. 25 Exchange theory suggests some important hypotheses concerning the Young Republicans. Most likely, the primary purpose of the organization derives from its stated purpose, i.e., to promote the Republican ideology through proselytizing and through assisting in the election of Republican candidates. Material benefits are probably unimportant as incentives since the organi zation has little in the way of tangible benefits to offer its members. Nor is the Republican party itself in a position to help. Having few incumbent office holders, it cannot provide enough patronage for its own faithful and certainly cannot do so for its youth 26 auxiliary. Solidary incentives, it can be hypothesized. 85 probably fall between purposive and m.aterial benefits in importance as incentives to membership in the Young Republican organization. In short, exchange theory suggests several specific hypotheses to be tested in this chapter: H^: Young Republicans are initially recruited by purposive incentives. ^2• Young Republicans are sustained by purposive incentives. H^: Solidary incentives are of secondary importance in the recruitment of Young Republicans. H^: Solidary incentives are of secondary importance as a sustaining motive. He: Material incentives are largely insignificant as either initial or as sustaining motivations. Hg: Among those who enter as a result of non- purposive incentives, there is a shift in the direction of purposive incentives as a sustaining motivation. H-: Young Republicans whose initial and sustaining motives are both non-purposive are more likely to withdraw from the organization than are those whose initial and sustaining motives are both purposive. Findings Original Motives In order to ascertain the original motivations of Texas Young Republican leaders, the respondents were asked a series of questions first utilized by Marvick 27 and Nixon. They were asked to rate each of several 86 possible sources of their initial involvement as being "very important," "somewhat important," "not very important," or "not at all important."^® The percentage listing each reason as "very important" or as "not at all important" are shown in table 4-1. Responses are grouped according to whether they are purposive, soli dary, or material. The expectation that Young Repub licans would rank purposive motives very high is borne out by the data, as are the hypotheses that solidary motives would be ranked second and that material motives would be largely insignificant as initial motivations to activism. Since this measure results from a forced choice question the argument may be raised that the question is "loaded" and hence not a good indicator. That this is not the case, however, would appear to be supported by the data in table 4-2 which shows the responses to an open-ended question tapping much the same dimension. For simplicity's sake the responses in table 4-2 are grouped according to the categories in which they fall.2 9 Once again the largest category is the purposive, with material reasons being given least often. A number of respondents list parents or friends as being instrumental to their activism. That parents are listed as important sources of political activism does not come unexpectedly since many socialization 87 TABLE 4-1 ORIGINAL MOTIVATIONS^ Reason Most Least Important Important Purposive Public Issues 84% 0% Community obligation 44 11 Party loyalty 39 10 Solidary Politics as way of life 44 10 Campaign fun 25 4 Social contacts 18 7 Friend of a candidate 11 23 Material Furthering ambitions 24 22 To influence patronage 13 26 To be around influential people 6 18 To make business contacts 3 36 "People give quite different reasons for getting involved in politics. Below is a list of reasons that have been given by party leaders in different places. Please tell us how important each of these reasons is to you by making a check mark in one of the boxes opposite each one." (Choices provided were "very important," "somewhat important," "not very important," and "not at all important.") 88 TABLE 4-2 ORIGINAL MOTIVATIONS Purposive 48% Solidary 18 Material 2 Parents 12 Relatives 2 Friends 8 Club leaders 3 Other 5 DK, NR 2 100% (n=100) "Why do you think you became interested at that time?" 89 studies point out the primacy of the family in the formation of political orientations.^° What is sur prising, however, at lease from the perspective of socialization literature, is the infrequency of reported parental influence as an impetus to involvement: scarcely more than one out of ten Young Republican leaders cite parental influence as an important source of their activism. Similar to the findings reported here are those of Salisbury who found that among urban party organization members, only 18 percent cited the family as directly responsible for their organizational member- 31 ship —a figure not far from the 12 percent of the Young Republicans who list parental influence as an important source of their activism. Sustaining Motives In order to discern Young Republicans' sustaining motives for their political activism, they were asked to explain the reasons for their present political involve ment. The responses to this question (see table 4-3) are essentially similar to the previous two questions concerning original motivations except that the cate gories of parents, relatives, friends, and club leaders drop out. In short, the largest proportion cite purposive reasons for their present political activity, with a 90 TABLE 4-3 SUSTAINING MOTIVATIONS^ Purposive 54% Solidary 16 Material 8 Other 14 DK, NR 8 100% (n=100) ^"What is it that maintains your interest at the present time?" 91 smaller proportion listing solidary motives, and material reasons being cited by few respondents. Thus far the evidence indicates that Young Repub licans tend to have rather stable motivations: the primary benefit, both initial and continuing, is purposive in nature. Another open-ended question originating with Eldersveld 32 and used by Conway and 33 Feigert to measure purposive, solidary, and material incentives casts doubt on these findings however. Respondents were asked the question "If you had to drop out of political activity tomorrow, what things would you miss most from your work as a Young Republican." Responses are shown in table 4-4. Surprisingly, less than one-fifth list purposive benefits as things that would be missed whereas almost two-thirds list solidary benefits such as social activities. Many respondents simply said "the people." The responses to this ques tion certainly seem to obscure our earlier findings. Two points are worth mentioning in this respect. First, it is possible that members of an organization may bene fit from several incentives simultaneously. Second, it seems dubious to suppose that asking activists what they would miss if they dropped out is the saime as asking them what it is that sustains their activism. It seems quite likely that activists might be motivated 92 TABLE 4-4 WHAT WOULD BE MISSED^ Purposive 18% Solidary 65 Material 3 Other 6 DK, NR 8 100% (n=100) "If you had to drop out of political activity romorrow what things would you miss most from your work as a Young Republican?" 93 by purposive incentives yet state that what they would miss most if they dropped out would be the interpersonal interaction, i.e., the friendships they had developed during the course of their activism. Motivational Reorientation James Q. Wilson has argued that amateurs either become reoriented to material motives or, in effect, get out of politics. But it has been suggested above that motivational reorientation may occur but not necessarily in a material direction. Rather, as suggested by exchange theory, reorientation is likely to occur in the direction of the dominant incentives offered by the organization; in the case of the Young Republicans, change should occur in the direction of purposive motives Data bearing on this question are shown in table 4-5 which displays the crosstabulated responses to the open- ended questions concerning original and sustaining moti vations (discussed above in tables 4-2 and 4-3). From the table, it appears that what change occurs is essentially random. There is a very slight, but non significant, tendency for those who began with non- purposive motives to shift to purposive ones. Exchange theory suggests that those who do not become reoriented to the organization's dominant 94 TABLE 4-5 CURRENT MOTIVE BY ORIGINAL y.OI'IVE Current Original Motive Motive Purposive Other Purposive 60.0% 60.0% Other 40.0 40.0 100.0% 100.0% (n=45) (n=45) Chi square =0.05 p=.83 Phi = .00 95 incentives are likely to become organizational casu alties, i.e., to drop out since the costs of membership would be likely to exceed the obtainable benefits. In a more general sense, the argument is that those whose personal motives for activism are congruent with the incentives offered by the organization are the most likely to remain active while those whose motives are incongruent with organizational incentives are likely to become inactive. Those with mixed motives are likely, also, to drop out as their motives become incompatible with organizational incentives. This contention cannot be tested fully since to do so would require data from those Young Republicans who are no longer members of the organization. But a partial test is possible by isolating those who, although maintaining membership, indicate that they intend to withdraw from the organization or that they no longer are active. To determine which Young Republicans were "disillusioned" with the organization, the responses from two questions were examined. The first read, "If you had to drop out of political activity tomorrow what things would you miss most from your work as a Young Republican?" The second was "... would you please tell us what you like most about being a Young Republican leader?" If, in response to either of these two questions, 96 the respondent indicated that he was no longer active, he is classified as "disillusioned." Similarly, a respondent is classified as disillusioned if he said that "nothing would be missed" or that there was "nothing" which he enjoyed about being a Young Republi can leader. In addition, respondents who failed to give a response to either of the two questions are classified as disillusioned. All others are classified as "not disillusioned." The second measure, that of motivational type, was constructed from the crosstabulated responses con cerning original and current motives (as shown in table 4-5). Respondents whose original motive and current motive are both purposive are considered to have motives which are the most congruent with the organization's incentives; where original and current motives are both classified as "other" (i.e., solidary or material), they are assumed to be the least congruent with the organization's incentive structure. Mixed motives of "other to purposive" or "purposive to other" are assumed to fall between the two extremes, with the former category being more congruent than the latter. The relationship expected is that the proportion of disillusioned officers will increase when moving across the categories of the motivational typology in the 97 following order: purposive-purposive, other-purposive, purposive-other, other-other. In general, then, a negative relationship is expected between disillusion ment and motivational congruence with the organization's incentives. As seen in table 4-6, the expected negative rela tionship appears between motivational type and disillu sionment. Disillusionment increases across each category of motivational type. Those whose original and current motives for political activity are both purposive in nature are extremely unlikely to be disillusioned whereas of those whose original and current motives are both non-purposive, i.e., incongruent with the organi zation's incentive structure, a third are classified as disillusioned; that is, they say they have either dropped-out of the organization or intend to do so. This relationship might well be stronger if those who had become disillusioned and dropped-out prior to the survey could be included in the table. Summary This chapter has examined the original and the sustaining motives given by Young Republican leaders for their political activism. In both instances, the most frequent motive was found to be purposive. When 9£ M U dp dP -^ 0) (D cn r* O 00 X . • . rH x: X m vo O II o o ro vo o c 0) > •H u dP dP ^^ CO 0) r^ ro O 00 O x: • • • rH 04 vo ro O II M -p rH 00 O G 3 o 04 04 JH iH > •H dp dP .^ >-i 0) CO ^ vo o r- < x: O . • • CN 2 04 r- CN o II O O u as o G H 3 iH 04 vo H I FH (D O > > X •H •H dP dP —^ CO CO r>- cn o r^ O O . • . CN 04 04 en vo O II CN 9 u u as o G O 3 3 2 04 04 2 04 O H cn D H cn H Q as cn G as TJ T3 0) 0) II CN G G VO O 0 0 d) . •H •H •H U 1 CO CO •M CO fd 3 3 0 3 3 II H 2 rH cr rH rH CO Id •H •H •H g (0 CO CO •H g •H •H •H x: Id Q Q Q u o 99 responses were crosstabulated, the only changes that occurred between original and current motives were found to be random. But it was hypothesized and found that those leaders most likely to become "disillusioned" with the organization were those whose original and sus taining motivations were both non-purposive. An inter esting finding was that when these leaders were asked what they would miss if they had to drop out of politics, they most often responded that solidary, rather than purposive, benefits would be missed. This latter finding prompts one to speculate that, although purpo sive benefits are instrumental in instigating activism, solidary benefits serve to "tip the scale" toward con tinued activism; solidary factors are responsible for maintaining a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. Hence, without solidary benefits like friendship, continued activism would seem unlikely. 100 Footnotes Chapter IV James Q. Wilson, The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 2 Joseph A. Schelsinger elaborates a third type— the candidate based organization—formed around a particular candidate and which exists solely for the purpose of electing that candidate. See Joseph A. Schelsinger, "Political Party Organization," Handbook of Organizations, ed. James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965), pp. 767-69, 774-86. 3 Harold F. Gosnell, Machine Politics: Chicago Model (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937). For additional discussions of professional organizations see Sonya Forthal, Cogwheels of Democracy (New York: William-Frederick Press, 1946); J. T. Salter, Boss Rule: Portraits in City Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1935); and Mike Royko, Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago (New York: New American Library, Inc., 1971). 4 Roy V. Peel, The Political Clubs of New York City (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1935). Wilson, The Amateur Democrat, p. 9. Ibid., p. 3. 7 John Glen Browder, "Political Style Among Grass roots Party Activists in a Southern Community," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 11-13 November 1971, pp. 2-3. Ibid., p. 11. 9 Peter B. Clark and James Q. Wilson, "Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 6 (September 1961) : 134. Wilson, The Amateur Democrat, p. 5. 101 Samuel J. Eldersveld, Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago: Rand xMcNally and Com.pany, 1964), p. 2877"^ 12^ „ W- Margaret Conway and Frank B. Feigert, "Motivation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization," American Political Science Review 62 (December 1968): 1172. Lewis Bowman, Dennis Ippolito, and William Donalclson, "Incentives for the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activism," Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (February 1969): 138. 14 Dennis S. Ippolito, "Motivational Reorientation and Change Among Party Activists," Journal of Politics 31 (November 1969): 1100. 15 Glen Browder and Dennis S. Ippolito, "The Suburban Party Activist: The Case of Southern Amateurs," Social Science Quarterly 53 (June 1972): 174. 16 Conway and Feigert, for instance, conclude that "the affluent community is more likely in both socio economic characteristics and initial motivational patterns to approximate the amateur model" (Conway and Feigert, "Motivation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization," p. 1172). 17 Mancur Olson, Jr., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (New York: Schocken Books, 1971). 18 Robert H. Salisbury, "An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups," Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (February 1969): 1-32. 19 Salisbury uses the term "expressive" rather than the more common "purposive." I see little useful distinction between the two and will use the term "purposive" throughout. 20 David B. Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion^ 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc., 1971. 21 Olson, The Logic of Collective Action. 102 22 Salisbury, "Exchange Theory," p. 17. 23 Ibid., p. 29. Ibid. 25^^ or course not all members of a particular organi zation are necessarily motivated by the dominant incen tive structure. Indeed, some variance is probably healthy for the organization as well as certain individual members. 26 See the discussion of Texas politics in Chapter I. 27 Dwaine Marvick and Charles Nixon, "Recruitment Contrasts in Rival Campaign Groups," in Political Decision Makers, ed. Dwaine Marvick (New York: The Free Press, 1961), p. 208. 28 Asking the reasons for initial political involve ment may not, of course, be exactly the same thing as asking why they joined the organization. 29 Only the first responses are tabulated for this and following open-ended questions; analysis has shown no appreciable differences between the patterns of first and sxibsequent responses however. 30 See, for instance, Herbert H. Hyman, Political Socialization (New York: The Free Press, 1959); David Easton and Jack Dennis, Children in the Political System (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969); on the trans mission of party identification see Angus Campbell et al., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), esp. Chapter Six. 31 Robert H. Salisbury, "The Urban Party Organiza tion Member," Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (Winter 1965-66): 561. 32 Eldersveld, Political Parties, p. 277. 33 M. Margaret Conway and Frank B. Feigert, "Moti vations and Task Performance Among Party Precinct V7orkers," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4-8 September 1973; see also their "Attitudinal Propensity to Support Change Among Party Workers," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 111., 3-5 May 1973. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study has investigated the leadership cadre of the Texas Young Republican Federation in an effort to amswer two general questions: (1) why do Young Repub lican leaders first become active in politics, and (2) what is it that sustains their activism? In the course of attempting to answer these questions, this study has drawn, rather eclectically, from the litera ture of several areas of political science, sociology, education, and psychology. It has been guided by the assumption that conservative student activists, par ticularly Young Republicans, are similar in numerous respects to other political activists—whether they be left-wing student activists or more conventional political party activists—and that they are quite atypical of the population in general. Findings Background Characteristics The examination of Young Republicans leaders' background characteristics focused primarily on familial socioeconomic status (chapter III). The theoretical underpinning of that chapter was that those who 103 104 Participate in politics are socioeconomically unrepre sentative of the general population. As Prewitt has pointed out, it is only the upper two-fifths who are "socially eligible" for positions in the political arena, and an even smaller proportion which constitute the stratum of those who are, in fact, politically active. In particular, chapter III examined certain aspects of the student politics literature which impute a degree of psychological and sociological superiority and uniqueness to student left activists. It was found that Young Republicans, like student left activists, and like political activists in general, are drawn from high social-status backgrounds. They come from families where income levels are exceptionally high, fathers (and mothers, when employed) are found in high-status occupations, and almost three-fourths of the fathers and c±>out two-thirds of the mothers have had at least some college experience. They are somewhat less likely to be Baptist or Catholic, and slightly more likely to be Presbyterian or Episcopalian than would be expected. Although some studies have found that conservative activists were "heavily concentrated in business curric- 2 ula," or in other applied fields, only about 15 percent of the Young Republicans who are college students list themselves as business majors. In fact, well over half 105 major in the social sciences--the supposed province of student left activists. The contention that it is only student left activists who come from "extra ordinary" family backgrounds seems to be contradicted by the findings of this study which suggest that at least some student right activists—namely, these Texas Young Republican leaders—tend to have extraordinary family backgrounds also. This would suggest that those studies which aggregate left, or right, activists without regard to organizational affiliation, or those studies which fail to distinguish leaders from regualr members, may be overlooking much important information. As noted in chapter III, one tenet of the "sociali zation hypothesis" is that political orientations are transmitted from parent to child—and that under certain circumstances this leads to politically active offspring. Certain data examined in this study provide strong cir cumstantial evidence that Young Republicans' political orientations and activism are the result of parental influences. Specifically, it was found that both YR leaders and their parents were much more likely to be Republicans than would be expected in comparison to the general public. Interestingly, Young Republican leaders were even more likely to be identified as "strong" Republicans than were their parents. This 106 latter finding has at least two plausible interpreta tions. First, it may be that certain dynamics of the Young Republican organization are responsible for the shift to stronger party identification or, on the other hand, it may be that these youths become strong iden tifiers as a result of family socialization processes and that subsequently there occurs a "self-recruitment" to the Young Republican organization. An additional finding is that Young Republicans and their parents are more likely to be politically conservative than would be expected, but in this case Young Republican leaders as a group were somewhat less likely to be conservative than were their parents. When crosstabu- lations were performed, it was found that activists of conservative parents were likely to be conservative, but activists whose parents were not conservative were somewhat likely to consider themselves to be conservative. Again, it was suggested that certain organizational factors may be responsible for this particular pattern. Moreover, it was argued that the continuity between the political orientations of these Young Republican leaders (or of activists in general for that matter) and their parents should not be totally unexpected since numerous studies have found a high degree of similarity between 107 the basic political orientations of children and their parents. Original Motives Turning from background to motivational correlates of political activism (chapter IV), it was noted that there is little information concerning the motives of student activists but that there is a wealth of (some times contradictory) information concerning the motives of political party activists. Drawing from the amateur politics literature and the work of exchange theorist Robert Salisbury, it was argued that the stated goals (and much of the activity) of the Texas Young Republican Federation were purposive in nature. It was postulated that the organization would be most successful in attracting and holding those individuals whose interest in politics was purposive. In fact, this was found to be the case; the most frequently given reasons for political activism were purposive. Solidary motives were the second most frequently listed, and material reasons were cited by only two respondents. These findings are consistent with what is known from the aunateur politics literature concerning activists' original motives for political activity. 108 Sustaining Motives Although several studies have confirmed that some activists, particularly those termed "amateurs," enter politics for purposive motives, there has been less agreement concerning the persistence of those types of motives. Whereas Wilson argued that "the amateur either loses interest or become a professional,"^ the evidence has been inconclusive. Some studies have found that reorientation occurs, others have not. It was suggested in chapter IV that there is no reason to believe, a priori, that motivational reorientation should or should not occur but rather that the occurrence and direction of change is probably related to the dynamics of the organization involved. It was argued that if a motivational shift occurs, it is likely to be in the direction of the dominant incentives offered by the organization. Although a fair proportion of the respon dents reported a reorientation of motives, it was found that the changes which occurred were of an essentially random nature. It was found, however, that those Young Republican officers whose personal motives were least congruent with the incentives offered by the organi zation were the most likely to become "disillusioned." Although purposive motives appear to be the most important indicator of sustained political activity. 109 when the respondents were asked what they would "miss most" if they had to withdraw, they most often replied that they would miss "the people," "the parties," "the friendships," or some other benefit of a solidary nature. At first glance, this would seem to contradict the finding that purposive satisfactions are of prime importance as sustaining motivations. But it is possible for satisfactions to be derived from more than one motivation at a time. And second, it is likely that the question of "what would be missed most" is not equivalent to the question utilized to measure sustaining motivations. Moreover the responses given to this question suggest that solidary benefits play a pivotal role in the continued organizational membership of these Young Republicans. It would seem probable that purposive motives prompt their involvement in politics, but that social benefits are crucial to their continued member ship in the Young Republican organization. Discussion Limitations As is true of most studies, there are limitations to the research reported here, and it is necessary to draw attention to some of the more important of these. 110 This study, like others, is restricted by the peculiari ties of time and place, and generalizations from the data are likely to be limited in some instances as a result. The fact that a mail questionnaire was utilized as the research instrument may subject the findings to a degree of uncertainty since, as noted in chapter II, there are numerous difficulties associated with the use of mail questionnaires. One of the more serious difficulties, of course, is the comparatively low response to mail questionnaires. Although the response rate for this study compares favorably to the typical response rate for mail surveys, the fact that about 2 5 percent of the potential respondents did not reply—coupled with the disproportionately low response of District officials— is cause for concern. The possible bias of the low response for District officials, however, is probably mitigated by the overall homogeneity of these Young Republicans. In addition, the inability of the researcher to follow-up ambiguous or incomplete responses to questions—also characteristic of mail surveys—is another source of possible bias. A much more serious source of possible bias stems from the use of self-report measures. As is true of all surveys, the research instrument used in this study was capable of eliciting only that information which the Ill respondents were able and willing to provide. Of par ticular importance is the reliability of certain of the measures. Those questions which tap the respondent's own feelings, such as their motives for political activity, can probably be taken at face value. The items concerning parental income, education, party identification, and liberalism-conservatism are more problematic. These latter items may measure, not the parents' actual characteristics, but rather the respon dents perceptions of their parents' characteristics. Finally, it should be underscored that the Young Republicans studied here were all holders of state- level office in the Texas Young Republican Federation. As officers, they may be considered to be committed party activists and as such they may be totally unrepre sentative of occasional activists, of political hangers- on, or of the general membership of the Young Repub licans. Hence any extrapolation from this group of YR leaders to the general membership of the Young Repub lican organization, or to conservative student activists in general, should be done cautiously. Future Research The Clark and Wilson typology of purposive, soli dary, and material incentives leaves something to be 112 desired as an "explanation" of political activism even though it has often been used as such. There is a need for future research to devise measures better able to distinguish among differing political elites. As Hunt observes, "discerning intra-elite behavior may rest on rather subtle, small differences not captured by tradi tional measures nor highlighted by usual analysis procedures." Future research on political party activists would do well to draw upon the experience of those who have researched student activism. First, the tendency to confound activism and ideology, so prevalent in the student politics literature, suggests that researchers of party activism should be alert to the consequences of confounding these two dimensions. Thus far, it has not been a significant problem since much of the research has been concerned with the distinction between Democratic and Republican activists, but as this area of research becomes more psychological (as I think it must) the difficulties of distinguishing among left and right, activists and nonactivists, will take on a new urgency. A second point is that the most fruitful direction for future research into political activism is to develop more psychologically oriented perspectives 7 rather than sociological ones. The student politics 113 literature abounds with psychological measures and indices, many of which are adaptable to research on political activism in general. Furthermore, to unravel the antecedents of political activism, at whatever level, it would be advantageous to collect data from parents in addition to collecting data from the activists themselves. Research on youth activists, such as the Young Republicans, offers largely untapped possibilities of discovering those antecedents due to the uncommon availability of the parents. Conclusion One of the objectives of this study has been to understand why people like these Young Republican offi cers become, and stay, active in politics. It was found that they tend to share certain characteristics of family background and motivation: they come from families of high socioeconomic status and are motivated, for the most part, by purposive considerations. But to say that they are politically active because they come from the kinds of family backgrounds which encourage political activism is to leave the question at least partially unanswered. If this is the only prerequisite, why are there not many more political activists? Or, as Keniston puts it. 114 for every activist, there are many others who share his belief but do not act ... As yet, little is known about the psychological and social processes by which individuals are activated.^ The task of future research is to explicate the processes by which some persons become politically active while many others do not: to determine in what manner the large "socially-eligible" stratum of the population is reduced to the small, but significant, "politically active" stratum. 115 Footnotes Chapter V Kenneth Prewitt, "From the Many are Chosen the Few," American Behavioral Scientist 13 (November- December 1969): 169-87. See also by Prewitt, The Recruitment of Political Leaders: A Study of Citizen- Politicians (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-MerrilT Co., Inc., 1970) , esp. chapter 1. 2 Richard E. Peterson, "The Student Left in American Higher Education," ed. Seymour Martin Lipset and Philip G. Altbach, Students in Revolt (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969): 205. 3 See, for example, Herbert H. Hyman, Political Socialization (New York: The Free Press, 1959); Fred I. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965); James C. Davies, "The Family's Role in Political Socialization," Annals of the Ameri can Academy of Political and Social Science 361 (September 1965) : 10-19; Roberta S. Sigel, Learning About Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. r03-7; and Kent L. Tedin, "The Influence of Parents on the Political Attitudes of Adolescents," American Political Science Review 68 (December 1974): 1579-92. 4 James Q. Wilson, The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities (Chicago: University o? Chicago Press, 1962), p. 5. On reliability see Alan C. Kerckhoff, William M. Mason, and Sharon S. Poss, "On the Accuracy of Children's Reports of Family Social Status," Sociology of Education (Spring 1973) : 219-47; Roberta S. Cohen and Anthony M. Orum, "Parent-Child Consensus on Socioeconomic Data Obtained from Sample Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (Spring 1972): 95-98; Richard G. Niemi, How Family Members Perceive Each Other (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); and Kent L. Tedin, "On the Reliability of Reported Political Attitudes," American Journal of Political Science (forthcoming). 116 Alvin Lee Hunt, Jr., "Political Recruitment: A Study of Recruiters and Candidates for Local Office (Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, 1971), p. 258. 7 This is not to suggest a dearth of psychologically oriented political activists studies. The literature is far too extensive to be cited here, but among the more interesting works are: Harold D. Lasswell, Psycho- pathology and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930); James D. Barber, The Lawmakers: Recruit- inent and Adaptation to Legislative Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965). Also by Barber, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentTce- Hall, Inc., 1972); for a general discussion see Fred I. Greenstein, Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference, and Conceptualization (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969). g Recent political socialization studies have begun to interview parents as well as children. See, for example, M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi, The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974); and Tedin, "The Influence of Parents." 9 Kenneth Keniston, "Notes on Young Radicals," Change 1 (1969): 32. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abbott, David W., and Rogowsky, Edward T. Political Parties: Leadership, Organization, Linkage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1971. Almond, Gabriel A., and Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 19 66. Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture; Political Attitudes anci Democracy in Five" Nations. Cambridge: Princeton University Press, 1963. Altbach, Philip G. Student Politics in America: A Historical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Anderson, James E.; Murray, Richard W.; and Farley, Edward F. Texas Politics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1975. Backstrom, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern Univer- sity Press, 1963. Barber, James D. The Lawmakers: Recruitment and Adaptation to Legislative Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Barber, James D. The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White Housed Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentlc"e-Hall, 19771 Bell, Daniel, ed. The Radical Right. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1964. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Bowen, Don R. Political Behavior of the American Public. Colombus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1968. 117 118 Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes, Donald E. The American Voter: An Abridgement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971. Cotter, Cornelius P., and Hennessy, Bernard C. Politics ^ith Power: The National Party Committees. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. Crotty, William J., ed. Approaches to the Study of Party Organization. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19 68 Crotty, William J.; Freeman, Donald M.; and Gatlin, Douglas S. eds. Political Parties and Political Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. Dawson, Richard E., and Prewitt, Kenneth. Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969: Draper, Hal. Berkeley: The New Student Revolt. New York: Grove Press, 1965. Duverger, Maurice. Political Parties. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Easton, David, and Dennis, Jack. Children in the Political System. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Edinger, Lewis J. Political Leadership in Industrialized Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19 67. Eisenstadt, S. N. From Generation to Generation. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1956. Elazar, Daniel J. American Federalism: A View From the States. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966. Eldersveld, Samuel J. Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. Epstein, Leon D. Political Parties in Western Demo cracies. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967. Epstein, Leon D. Politics in Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconslin Press, 1958. 119 Erdos, Paul L. Professional Mail Surveys. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Evans, M. Stanton. Revolt on the Campus. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1961. Feigert, Frank B., and Conway, M. Margaret. Parties ^^^ Politics in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19 76. Feuer, Lewis S. The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Flacks, Richard. Youth and Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1971. Forthal, Sonya. Cogwheels of Democracy. New York: William-Frederick Press, 1946. Foster, Julian, and Long, Durwood. Protest! Student Activism in America. New York: William Morrow, 1970. Gosnell, Harold F. Machine Politics: Chicago Model. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19 37. Greenstein, Fred I. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Greenstein, Fred I. Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference, and Conceptualization. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 19 69. Hess, Robert D., and Torney, Judith V. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1968. Holland, John L. The Psychology of Vocational Choice: A Theory of Personality Types and Model Environ ments. Walthaim, Mass. : Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1966. Hyman, Herbert H. Political Socialization. New York: The Free Press, 1959. Jaros, Dean. Socialization to Politics. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973. 120 Jennings, M. Kent, and Miemi, Richard G. The Political Characpter of Adolescence: The Influence of Familie"s~'and Schools^ Princetonl Princeton University Press, 1974. Jones, Charles 0. The Republican Party in American Politics. London: The Macmillan Company, 1965. Katz, Joseph. The Student Activists: Rights, Needs, and Powers of Undergraduates. Stanford, Calif. : Institute for the Study of Human Problems, 1967. Keniston, Kenneth. The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth in American Society. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 19 65. Keniston, Kenneth. Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 19 6 8 Kerpelman, Larry C. Activists and Nonactivists: A Psychological Study of American College Students. New York: Behavioral Publications, 19 72. Kessel, John H. The Goldwater Coalition: Republican Strategies in 1964. Indianapolis: The Bobbs- Merrill Company, 1968. Key, V. 0., Jr. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. 4th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1958. Key, V. O., Jr. Southern Politics. New York: Vintage Books, Alfred A. Knoph, 1949. Knott, Paul D. ed. Student Activism. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 19 71. Lane, Robert E. Political Life: Why and How People Get Involved in Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1959. Langton, Kenneth P. Political Socialization. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Lasswell, Harold D. Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 121 Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New York: Doubleday and Company, 196 0. Lipset, Seymour Martin, ed. Student Politics. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Wolin, Sheldon S. eds. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Inter pretations. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1965. McCleskey, Clifton. The Government and Politics of Texas. 4th ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972. March, James G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Marvick, Dwaine, ed. Political Decision-Makers: Recruitment and Performance^ Glencoe, iTl. : The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Matthews, Donald R. The Social Background of Political Decision-Makers. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 19 54. Milbrath, Lester W. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. 2nd ed. New York: David McKay Company, 1970. Moos, Malcolm. The Republicans. New York: Random House, 1956. Niemi, Richard G. How Family Members Perceive Each Other. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Nimmo, Dan, ed. Legislative Recruitment in Texas: The Case of Harris County. Houston: University of Houston, Public Affairs Research Center, 1967. Nimmo, Dan, and Oden, William E. The Texas Pcplitical System. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. 122 Olson, Mancpur, Jr. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. New York: Schocken Books, 19 71. Parry, Geraint. Political Elites. New York: Praeger, 1969. Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Procedures. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, T966: Peel, Roy V. The Political Clubs of_ New York City. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 19 35. Phillips, Kevin B. The Emerging Republican Majority. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1969. Prewitt, Kenneth. The Recruitment of Political Leaders: A Study of Citizen-PollticTans. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 19 70. Royko, Mike. Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago. New York: New American Library, 1971. Salter, J. T. Boss Rule: Portraits in City Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 35. Schlesinger, Joseph A. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966. Seligman, Lester G. Recruiting Political Elites. New York: General Learning Press, 1971. Seligman, Lester G.; King, Michael R.; Kim, Chong Lim; and Smith, Roland E. Patterns of Recruitment; A State Chooses Its Lawmakers. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1974. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics; For the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Siegel, Roberta S. Learning About Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization. New York: Random House, 1970. Sorauf, Frank J. Party Politics in America. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972. 123 Texas Young Republican Federation. Organization Manual n. p. Truman, David B. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knoph, 1971. Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. Participation in America: Democracy and Socia'T'EqualityT New York Harper and Row, 1972. Wahlke, John; Eulau, Heinz; Buchanan, William; and Ferguson, LeRoy C. The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Wilson, James Q. The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities. Chicago! University of Chicago Press, 1962. Wilson, James Q. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Young Republican National Federation. History of the Young Republicans. n.p., 1971. Articles Altbach, Philip G. "The International Student Movement." Comparative Educational Review 8 (October 1964): 131-37. Althoff, Phillip, and Brady, David. "Toward a Causal Model of the Recruitment and Activities of Grass Roots Political Activists." Social Science Quarterly 53 (December 1972):598-605. Althoff, Phillip, and Patterson, Samuel C. "Political Activism in a Rural County." Midwest Journal of Political Science 10 (February 1966):39-51. Bay, Christian. "Political and Apolitical Students: Facts in Search of Theory." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967):76-91. 124 Block, ^^ Jeanne H. ; Haan, Norma; and Smith, M. Brewster. "Activism and Apathy in Contemporary Adolescents." In Understanding Adolescence: Current Develop- i^ents in Adolescent Psychology, pp. 198-231. Edited by James F. Adams. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968. Bowman, Lewis, and Boynton, G. R. "Activities and Role Definitions of Grassroots Party Officials." Journal of Politics 28 (February 1966):121-43. Bowman, Lewis, and Boynton, G. R. "Recruitment Patterns Among Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in Selected Locales." American Political Science Review 60 (September 1966) :667-76. Bowman, Lewis; Ippolito, Dennis; and Donaldson, William. "Incentives for the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activism." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (February 1969) :126-39. Browder, Glen. "Motives and Grassroots Party Activism: A Reappraisal of the Amateur." International Review of History and Political Science 9 (August 1972):99-105. Browder, Glen, and Ippolito, Dennis S. "The Suburban Party Activist: The Case of Southern Amateurs." Social Science Quarterly 53 (June 1972):168-75. Browning, Rufus, and Jacob, Herbert. "Power Motivation and the Political Personality." Public Opinion Quarterly 27 (Spring 1964):75-90. Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q. "Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations." Adminis trative Science Quarterly 6 (September 1961):129-66. Cohen, Roberta S., and Orum, Anthony M. "Parent-Child Consensus on Socioeconomic Data Obtained from Sample Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (Spring 1972) :95-98. Conway, M. Margaret, and Feigert, Frank B. "Motivation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization." American Political Science Review 62 (December 1968):1159-1173. 125 Cowdry, R. William; Keniston, Kenneth; and Cabin, Se>^.our. "The War and Military Obligation: Private Atti tudes and Public Actions." Journal of Personality 38 (December 1970) :525-49. Davies, James C. "The Family's Role in Political Socialization." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 361 (September T965) :10-19. Dunlap, Riley. "Radical and Conservative Student Activists: A Comparison of Family Backgrounds." Pacific Sociological Review 13 (Summer 19 70) : 171-81. Edinger, Lewis J., and Searing, Donald D. "Social Back ground in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry." American Political Science Review 61 (June 1967):428-45. Fishel, Jeff. "Ambition and the Political Vocation." Journal of Politics 33 (February 1971):25-56. Fishman, Jacob R., and Solomon, Fredric. "Youth and Social Action: An Introduction." Journal of Social Issues 20 (October 1964) :l-27. Flacks, Richard. "The Liberated Generation: An Explora tion of the Roots of Student Protest." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967):52-75. Flinn, Thomas, and Wirt, Fred. "Local Party Leaders: Groups of Like-Mlnded Men." Midwest Journal of Political Science 9 (February 1965):77-98. Gluck, Peter. "Incentives and the Maintenance of Political Styles in Different Locales." Western Political Quarterly 25 (December 1972):753-60. Heist, Paul. "Intellect and Commitment: The Faces of Discontent." In Order and Freedom on the Caimpus: The Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty and Students, pp. 61-70. Edited by 0. A. Knorr and W. J. Minter. Boulder, Colorado: Western Inter state Commission on Higher Education, 1965. 126 Hirschfield, Robert; Swanson, Burt E.; and Blank, Blanche D. "A Profile of Political Activists in Manhattan." Western Political Quarterly 15 (September 1962) :489-506. Hofstetter, C. Richard. "The Araateur Politician: A Problem in Construct Validation." Midwest Journal of Political Science 15 (February 1971) : 31-56. Hofstetter, C. Richard. "Organizational Activists: The Bases of Participation in Amateur and Professional Groups." American Politics Quarterly 1 (April 1973) :244-76: Ippolito, Dennis S. "Motivational Reorientation and Change Among Party Activists." Journal of Politics 31 (November 1969):1098-1101. Ippolito, Dennis. "Political Perspectives of Suburban Party Leaders." Social Science Quarterly 49 (March 1969) :800-815. Jae-on Kim; Nie, Norman H.; and Verba, Sidney. "The Amount and Concentration of Political Participation." Political Methodology 1 (Spring 1974):105-132. Jacob, Herbert. "Initial Recruitment of Elected Officials in the U.S.—A Model." Journal of Politics 24 (November 1962) :703-16. Jansen, David G.; Winborn, Bob B.; and Martinson, William D. "Characteristics Associated with Campus Socio-Political Action Leadership." Journal of Counseling Psychology 15 (November 1968) : 552-62. Kahn, R. M. , and Bowers, W. J. "The Social Context of the Rank-and-File Student Activist: A Test of Four Hypotheses." Sociology of Education 4 3 (Winter 1970):38-55. Keniston, Kenneth. "Notes on Young Radicals." Change 1 (1969):25-33. Keniston, Kenneth. "The Sources of Student Dissent." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967):108-37. 127 Kerckhoff, Alan C. ; Mason, William M.; and Poss, Sharon S. "On the Accuracy of Children's Reports of Family Social Status." Sociology of Education 4 6 (Spring 1973):219-47. Kerpelman, Larry C. "Student Political Activism and Ideology: Comparative Characteristics of Activists and Nonactivists." Journal of Counseling Psy chology 16 (January 1969):8-13. Lacy, Virginia P. "Political Knowledge of College Activist Groups: SDS, YAF, and YD." Journal of Politics 33 (August 1971) : 840-45. Lewis, Stephen H., and Kraut, Robert E. "Correlates of Student Political Activism and Ideology." Journal of Social Issues 28 (1972) :131-49. Lipset, Seymour M., and Altbach, Philip G. "Student Politics and Higher Education in the United States." In Student Politics, pp. 199-252. Edited by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Basic Books, 1967. McCleskey, Clifton, and Merrill, Bruce. "Mexican American Political Behavior in Texas." Social Science Quarterly 53 (March 1973) :785-98. Marvick, Dwaine. "The Middlemen of Politics." In Approaches to the Study of Party Organization, pp. 341-76. Edited by WiTliam J. Crotty. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19 68. Marvick, Dwaine, and Nixon, Charles. "Recruitment Contrasts in Rival Campaign Groups." In Political Decision-Makers, pp. 193-217. Edited by Dwaine Marvick. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Mauss, Armand L. "The Reluctant Right: Right-wing Anti-Communism Among Libertarian University Students." Sociology of Education 40 (V7inter 1967):39-54. Middleton, Russell, and Putney, Snell. "Political Expression of Adolescent Rebellion." American Journal of Sociology 68 (March 1973):527-35. 128 Middleton, Russell, and Putney, Snell. "Student Rebellion Against Parental Political Beliefs." Social Forces 41 (May 1963) :377-83. Patterson, Samuel C. "Characteristics of Party Leaders." Western Political Quarterly 16 (June 1963):332-53. Prewitt, Kenneth. "From the Many are Chosen the Few." American Behavioral Scientist 13 (November-December 1969) :169^1ty: Prewitt, Kenneth. "Political Socialization and Leader ship Selection." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social ScTence 361 (September 1965) :96-lll. Prewitt, Kenneth, and Eulau, Heinz. "Social Bias in Leadership Selection, Political Recruitment, and Electoral Context." Journal of Politics 33 (May 1971):293-315. Prewitt, Kenneth; Eulau, Heinz; and Zisk, Betty H. "Political Socialization and Political Roles." Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Winter 1966) :569-82. Rustow, Dankwart A. "The Study of Elites: Who's Who, When and How." World Politics 18 (July 19 66) : 690-717. Salisbury, Robert H. "An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (February 1969):l-32. Salisbury, Robert H. "The Urban Party Organization Member." Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (v:inter 1965-66):550-64. Schelsinger, Joseph A. "Political Party Organization." In Handbook of Organizations, pp. 764-801. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965. Schiff, Lawrence F. "Dynamic Young Fogies—Rebels on the Right." Transaction 4 (November 1966):31-36. Schiff/ Lawrence F. "The Obedient Rebels: A Study of College Conversions to Conservatism." Journal of Social Issues 20 (October 1964) :74-95. 129 Searing, Donald. "The Comparative Study of Elite Socialization." Comparative Political Studies 1 (January 1969) :471-500. Schwartzkopf, Chuck. "Teacher Wants National Role." Houston Post 28 (September 1975), sec. A, p. 20. Seligman, Lester G. "Elite Recruitment and Political Development." Journal of Politics 26 (August 1964): 612-26. Seligman, Lester G. "Party Roles and Political Recruit ment." Western Political Quarterlv 11 (June 1958) : 359-61. Seligman, Lester G. "Political Parties and the Recruit ment of Political Leadership." In Political Leadership in Industrial Societies, pp. 294-315. Edited by Lewis J. Edinger. New York: John V7iley and Sons, 1967. Seligman, Lester G. "Political Recruitment and Party Structure: A Case Study." American Political Science Review 55 (March 1961) :77-86. Seligman, Lester G. "The Study of Political Leadership." American Political Science Review 44 (December 1950):904-15. Sigel, Roberta. "Assumptions About the Learning of Political Values." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 361 (September 1965):l-9. Smith, Joel; Kornberg, Allan; and Bromley, David. "Patterns of Early Political Socialization and Adult Party Affiliation." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 5 (August 1968) :T2"3-55. Solomon, Fredric, and Fishman, Jacob R. "Perspectives on the Student Sit-in Movement." American Journal of Ortho-Psychiatry 33 (October 1963):873-74. Solomon, Fredric, and Fishman, Jacob R. "Youth and Peace: A Psycho-Social Study of Student Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C." Journal of Social Issues 20 (October 1964) :54-73. 130 Solomon, Fredric, and Fishman, Jacob R. "Youth and Social Action II: Action and Identity Form.ation in the First Student Sit-in Demonstration." Journal of Social Issues 20 (April 1964) :36-45. Somers, Robert H. "The Mainsprings of the Rebellion: A Survey of Berkeley Students in November 1964." In The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Inter pretations, pp. 530-57. Edited by Seymour Martin Lipset and Sheldon S. Wolin. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1965. Tedin, Kent L. "The Influence of Parents on the Political Attitudes of Adolescents." /-jr.erican Political Science Review 68 (December 1974) : 1579-92. Tedin, Kent L. "On the Reliability of Reported Political Attitudes." American Journal of Political Science (forthcoming). Trent, James W., and Craise, Judith L. "Commitment and Conformity in the American College." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July 1967):34-51. Watts, William A., and Whittaker, David N. "Free Speech Advocates at Berkeley." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2 (January-March 1966):41-62. Watts, William A.; Lynch, Steve; and Whittaker, David. Alienation and Activism in Today's College-Age Youth: Socialization Patterns and Current Family Relationships." Journal of Counseling Psychology 16 (January 1969):l-7. Wellhofer, E. Spencer. "Dimen::ions of Party Development; A Study in Organizational Dynamics." Journal of Politics 34 (February 1972):153-82. Westby, David L., and Braungart, Richard G. "The Alien ation of Generations and Status Politics: Alternative Explanations of Student Political Activism." In Learning About Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization, pp. 476-89. Edited by Roberta S. Sigel. New York: Random House, 1970. 131 Westby, David L., and Braungart G. "Class and Politics in the Family Backgrounds of Student Political Activists." American Sociological Review 3 2 (October 1966):690-92. Whittaker, David, and Watts, William A. "Personality Characteristics Associated with Activism and Disaffiliation in Today's College Age Youth." Journal of Counseling Psychology 18 (May 1971): 200-206. Winborn, Bob B., and Jansen, David G. "Personality Characteristics of Campus Socio-Political Action Leaders." Journal of Counseling Psychology 14 (November 1967):509-13. Unpublished Materials Braungart, Richard G. "Family Status, Socialization, and Student Politics." Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1969. Browder, John Glen. "Political Style Among Grassroots Party Activists in a Southern Community." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Gatlinburg, Tenn., 11-13 November 1971. Conway, M. Margaret, and Feigert, Frank B. "Attitudinal Propensity to Support Change Among Party Workers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 111., 3-5 May 1973. Conway, M. Margaret, and Feigert, Frank B. "Motivations and Task Performance Among Precinct Workers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, La., 4-8 September 1973. Hunt, Alvin Lee, Jr. "Political Recruitment: A Study of Recruiters and Candidates for Local Office." Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, 1971. Lacy, Virginia Perrenod. "The Season of Our Discontent." M.A. thesis. University of Houston, 1969. 132 Murphy, William T., Jr. "Party Regulars and Student Activists: Politicians and Purists?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 111., 3-5 May 1973. Schiff, Lawrence Fred. "The Conservative Movement on American College Campuses." Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1964. Government Document U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Vol. 1, Character istics of the Population, pt. 45, Texas. APPENDIX Texas Tech University Department of Government P.O. Box 4200 Lubbock. Texas 704O0 Ptione (8O6) 7*3-3iai February 10,1971 Dear Young Republlcani I am a graduate student at Texas Tech in Lubbock, majoring in government. I am very interested in politics-- especially youth groups such as The Young Republicans. Several other students and I are currently working on a study of young people uiho are active in politics. At present, uie are particularly interested in Young Republican leaders. Ue feel that the best uuay to find out uihat Young Republican leaders do, what they like (or don't like) about their Jobs, and what they think about things, is to ask the leaders themselves. Therefore, we have compiled a questionnaire which uie are mailing to Young Republican leaders throughout Texas. Our questionnaire is patterned after questionnaires which have been used in other surveys. I hope you will please take the time to answer the attached questionnaire and re> turn it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Your opinions are important to us and we would very much appreciate your prompt cooperation. Uie guarantee that anything you say will be kept in the strictest confidence. Uie intend to prepare a summary report and will be glad to send you a copy of it tihen it 13 finished if you so desire. With appreciation of your understanding and cooperation, I am Yours respectfully, Curtis Fortbtoh 133 134 THE YOUNG REPuBLICA'i STUDY DEPARTr.EfJT OF COVER'.-^E*.T TEXAS TECH UNIUERSITY ALL Af.3'.'JER5 A.^T or-^IZTLY C C.":F I DE:JT^ 1. What is your present age? years old. 2. Please circle one of the numbers below to indicate horn many years of school you have completed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 more than 16 3. Are you presently a student? D Yeis D N< If "Yes," are you a— n high school student LJ graduate student LJ college student O technical or vocational 3a. If you are a high school student, do you intend to go to college? n Yes D No 135 Page 2 3b. If you are a student (other than high school), what is your major field of study? 4. If you are not a student, what is your present occupation? 5. Are you-- ri married Q divorced n single O widowed 6. What is your father's occupation? 7. What is your mother's occupation? 6. Please circle one of the letters below to indicate roughly what your parents' total income category is. (A) under 83,000 (E) 10,000-14,999 (B) 3,000-4,999 (P) 15,000-19,999 (C) 5,000-7,499 (C) 20,000-24,999 (D) 7,500-9,999 (H) over 25,000 9. If you are financially independent of your parents, please indicate what your (including spouse's) total income category is by placing the appropriate letter ("A," "B," "C," ect.) in the space below. 10. What is your religious preference? 136 Page 3 11. Please indicate below how rrany children your parents had by ciyclinq the appropriate number. Underll-e the number xhich represents your position among those chilcren. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 more than 16 12. Please circle one of the numbers below to indicate how many years of school your father has completed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 more than 16 13. Please circle one of the numbers below to indicate how nany years of school your mother has completed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 more than 16 14. Do you presently hold an office in the Young Republicans? D Yes D No 15. Have you previously held an office in the Young Republicans? D Yes D No 15a. If "Yes," what office(s) have you held? 137 Page 4 16. How long have you been a member of Young Republicans? 17. Would you say that people like you have quite a lot of say about what the government does, or that you don't have much say at all? LJ Have a lot of s ay O Don't have much say 18. Have you ever done any of the activities listed below? Yes No a) Donate money to a particular candidate . . . Donate money to your party Work actively for your party Work actively for a particular candidate . 8 Speak publicly for your party Speak publicly for a particular candidate . Ran for public office Ran for party office (Senior party) . . Held public office Held a party office (Senior party) 138 Pago 5 19. How old were you when you first became active in politics, that is, when you decided you wanted to do something other than just vote? years old. 20. Why do you think you became interested at that time? 21. What is it that maintains your interest at the present time? 22. How many hours a week would you say you spend on your job as a Young Republican leader during non-election periods? 23. When you first gained your present office, was there D a serious contest for the office. D a contest, but you were pretty sure of winning. U another candidate, but he didn't have a chance. LJ no opposition at all. 139 Page 6 24. Are you interested in holding any other post in politics or in government, at the local, state, or national level? D Y D N( Ies 24a. If "Yes," what post(s) are you interested in? 25. Would you say that voting is the only way that people like you can have any say about the way the government runs things, or that there are lots of ways that you can have a say? D Lots of ways IZl Voting is the only way LJ NO way to have a say 26. What would you say is the political party affiliation of your- father? n Republican LJ None LJ Democrat Q Other (please specify) n Independent 26a. Do you consider this affiliation to be-- D Strong D noderate D Weak n leaning Oenocrat n leaning Republican 140 Page 7 27. What would you say is the political party affiliation of your mother? LJ Republican LJ None LJ Democrat LJ Other (please specify) LJ Independent 27a. Do you consider this affiliation to bo— LJ Strong LJ Moderate LJ Ueak LJ leaning Democrat LJ leaning Republican 28. What is the highest position in government that you would like to obtain? 29. As a Youno Republican leader, what are the most important things you do? (Please list in order of importance) rtost important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important 30. Wloul( d you say that politics and governTient are so complicated that peoplleople like you can't reaiireally understand what's going on, or that you can understand what's going on pretty well? Q Can understand LJ Can't understand 141 Page 8 31. What do you think are the most import?.nt qualities that a Young Republican leader needs to have? xould you please tell us how important you think each of the follojaing qualities is :;y making a check mark in one of the boxes to the right of each one. Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Important Important Important Important a) Works hard for his organiza tion b) Dependable c) Well-known in his school 1 1 d) Will represent the best inter 1 ests of his club e) Will represent the best inter ests of the i Y.R. Federation f) Contributes financially to his party g) Has strong views on policy 1 h) Likeable person^ I ality, easy to 1 get along with i) Well-known in the community 1 • 142 Page 9 32. People give quite different reasons for getting involved in politics. Below is a list of reasons that have been given by party leaders in different places. Please tell js how important each of these reasons is to you by making a check mark in one of the boxes opposite each one. Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Important , Important Important I-^portant a) The fun and ex- citment of cam paigns b) Waking social contacts and friends c) Politics is just a part of my way of life d) Personal friend of"candidates • e) A sense of community ob ligation f) Furthering poli - tical ambitions g) A sense of strong party loyalty h) Being close to influential people i) A desire to influence pa tronage j) Concern with public issues k) Waking business contacts 32a. What is the single most important reason? 143 Page 10 33. Suppose you had to classify yourself as either a liberal or a conservative, which would you say you are? LJ Conservative D Liberal 34. One of the things we are most interested in le-irning is uhy people become active in politics. From your own observations, u.nat do you think are the satisfactions and rewards that the 3v:.rc:"c Young Republican gets out of his political activities? 35. From your own observations would you say the Young Republican and the Young Democratic workers differ at all in the kinds of rewards and satisfactions they get out of political activities? D Y8 3 D N( i 35a. If "Yes," then in what ways do they differ? 144 Page 11 36. What is your party affiliation? LJ Republican LJ None LJ Democrat LJ Other (please specify) LJ Independent 36a. Do you consider this affiliation to be— LJ Strong LJ moderate IZl Weak LJ leaning Democrat LJ leaning Republican 37. And now, most important to all of us, would you please tell us .^hit you like most about being a Young Republican leader? 38. And what do you dislike most about being a Young Republican leader? 145 Page 12 39. Is there anything in particular that you like about the Young Republicans? D Y es D N. ^ 39a. If "Yes," what do you like? 40. Is there anything in particular that you dislike about the Young Republicans? D Y D N< Ie s 40a. If "Yes," what do you dislike? 41. If you had to drop out of political activity tomorrow what.things would you miss most from your work as a Young Republican? 146 Page 13 42. Is your father a-- LJ Conservative D Liberal 43. Is your mother a— LJ Conservative D Liberal 44. Please tell us how often you and your parents have talked about politics by placing a check mark in the appropriate box belojj. Frequently Often Seldom Never While you were growing up? . . . Within the last year? 45. Are you a-- n male LJ Female THANK YOUII