DOCSLIB.ORG

Party Reform and Political Realignment: the New Politics Movement in the Democratic Party

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Party Reform and Political Realignment: the New Politics Movement in the Democratic Party PARTY REFORM AND POLITICAL REALIGNMENT: THE NEW POLITICS MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ADAM HILTON A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO October 2016 © Adam Hilton 2016 ABSTRACT This dissertation offers an analysis of the New Politics movement to reform and realign the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The central problem is to develop an understanding of the origins, nature, and limits of the reform movement. This study also addresses questions regarding the interactive relationships between political parties and social movements, the capacity of social movement actors to transform party institutions to better influence American public policy, and the role of contingency and agency in moments of political crisis. Whereas many scholars have interpreted the New Politics movement as a conflict between “amateurs” and “professionals” or “blue collar” workers and “white collar” reformers, I offer an explanation that roots the New Politics reform project in the longer historical struggle over Democratic Party structure and programmatic identity going back to the early New Deal period. By placing the New Politics movement in its proper historical and institutional context, this dissertation draws on extensive archival research as well as participant interviews to reassess this episode of reform, not as an effort to “dismantle the party” but to renew it by transforming it into a party of a different type. This study finds that the New Politics movement, while scoring many important victories, such as including more women, young people, and people of color in the party hierarchy, failed in its ultimate ambition to build a national programmatic party due to the staunch opposition of state party leaders, cold war intellectuals, and especially the leadership of the trade union federation. This was due primarily to the labor movement’s own institutional position in the party, which channeled its influence through the smoke- ii filled back rooms of elite brokerage – an arrangement which democratizing the party threatened. Rethinking the New Politics movement challenges the predominant narrative that treats the post-1980 reorientation of the Democratic Party toward the political center as the inevitable and “common sense” response to the “excesses” of the late 1960s. As I try to show, rather than the inexorable result of liberalism’s failures, the making of the modern Democratic Party was the result of a struggle between contending political projects. While the New Politics did not succeed in winning that war, it did decisively shape the contours of Democratic Party politics today. iii For Ashlee iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As the product of years of intensive work, I feel there is no better way than to begin this dissertation with a note of thanks to all those on whom I have often relied for love, encouragement, and support during the research and writing of this study. First and foremost, I want to thank my excellent committee. Leo Panitch, my supervisor, mentor, and friend, trained me to cross-examine the thinking of giants, taking no assumption or conclusion for granted. Over the course of my graduate studies this often involved loosening my grip on tightly held beliefs, some of which were drawn more from the world of wishful thinking than from reality. He has taught me the invaluable lesson that solidarity involves asking the hard questions, not turning a blind eye to shortcomings of those with whom you sympathize. Stephen Hellman has been a constant source of support for me, from his course on Comparative Politics to our frequently wide-ranging discussions over coffee. His consistent encouragement to roll up my sleeves and “get my hands in the pasta” motivated me to dig ever deeper, seek out more sources, and let the research lead me to unexpected conclusions. Dennis Pilon brought onboard both a contagious concern for historical-institutional methodology as well as an enthusiasm for the study of the complexity of democratization, which brought out similar themes in my own thinking. Guys, I could not have done it with you. Also, there are probably few other universities where I could have produced such a dissertation. York University’s graduate program in political science has provided me with the resources and intellectual stimuli to undertake a project of this scope. My sincere thanks to all the department faculty and staff who have made York political science a welcoming and productive environment for a student to pursue a PhD. My special thanks v to Judy Hellman, Elizabeth Dauphinee, George Comninel, Greg Albo, David McNally, Stephen Newman, and Sabah Alnasseri, as well as Marleen Quesenberry, Carolyn Cross, Judy Matadial, and Angie Schwartz. My fellow graduate students and Toronto friends, especially Paul Gray, Sara Bernardo, Bob Froese, Janaya Letkeman, Tom Cheney, Riiko Bedford, Jordan House, Sarah Ovens, Nicole Bernardt, and Kim Carty, have all been unconditional sources of support and comradery for me. I would have never made it to York, however, had it not been for the undergraduate experience I enjoyed at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. There I was fortunate enough to learn political economy from teachers who taught me how to think rather than what to think. I especially want to extend my gratitude to my professor and friend Alan Nasser, whose generosity and intellect over the years have continued to be a source of inspiration and motivation. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Jeanne Hahn, who convinced me that history “from the bottom up” was incomplete insofar as it could not be connected with history “from the top down,” and Tom Womeldorff, who provided me with my first opportunity to teach at the college level. My fellow Greeners, including Thomas Herdon, Ellis Scharfenaker, James Parisot, and Jenine Adam, have all continued to be sources of inspiration to me, even as we have pursued different paths since our time in Oly. I also want to thank Vivek Chibber at New York University for the urging me to clarify the party dynamics attending the decline and fall of the New Deal order from the Democratic side of the story. His encouragement of my progress at various stages of the process was invaluable. My thanks also to David Plotke at the New School for Social vi Research for corresponding with me at the very first stage of the project and generously sharing some of his unpublished manuscript with me. The enjoyment I have had digging through the archives of manuscript libraries around the United States has been made possible by the patience and expertise of their staffs. While there have been too many to name here, I am indebted to them all. Special thanks, however, are due to the Democratic National Committee, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations Committee on Political Education, as well as the National Women’s Political Caucus for granting me permission to access their records and unprocessed materials. Some of that research was made possible by a generous dissertation grant from the Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library at Harvard University, as well as various funds made available by York University’s Faculty of Graduate Studies and Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903. I owe so much to my family. Sadly, my stepmother, a constant source of loving support in my educational pursuits, is not able to see those pursuits come to fruition. However, this dissertation bears the mark of the positive influence she left behind. The members of both my immediate and wider family have been there for me throughout, providing encouragement and temporary respite from the project when necessary. I am lucky to have such a large family tree. I hope they excuse me for not namely them all individually. I owe the most to my partner Ashlee Wactor. Ashlee has been on the frontlines of my graduate career, joining me to celebrate my triumphs and consoling me during the inevitable frustrations. She has borne the brunt of the burdens of having a graduate vii student for a partner and I will spend the rest of my life repaying her. As a first act of gratitude, I dedicate this dissertation to her. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………... ii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………... ix LIST OF ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………….xii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………................................xiv LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xv INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 1. THE NEW POLITICS AND ITS CRITICS…………………………………………. 13 What Was the New Politics Movement? ………………………………………. 17 The Critique of the New Politics……………………………………………….. 20 Party Organization………………………………………………………22 Electoral Performance………………………………………………….. 25 Public Policy Influence…………………………………………………..26 Reformers’ Class Character……………………………………………..27 Assessing the Critique………………………………………………………….. 30 Explaining the Critique…………………………………………………………. 44 Reassessing the New Politics…………………………………………………….49 2. IN THE SHADOW OF STATES’ RIGHTS: DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRUCTURE AND THE NEW DEAL COALITION……………………………………………… 53 States’ Rights, Class Politics, and National Party Structure……………………. 55 The New Deal Coalition…………………………………………………………64 The Labor-Liberal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chiafalo-Reply-20-04-30 FINAL
    No. 19-465 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PETER BRET CHIAFALO, LEVI JENNET GUERRA, AND ESTHER VIRGINIA JOHN, Petitioners, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington REPLY BRIEF FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS L. LAWRENCE LESSIG Counsel of Record JASON HARROW EQUAL CITIZENS 12 Eliot Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 496-1124 [email protected] (additional counsel on inside cover) SUMEER SINGLA JONAH O. HARRISON DANIEL A. BROWN ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC HUNTER M. ABELL 1218 Third Ave. WILLIAMS KASTNER & Suite 2100 GIBBS, PLLC Seattle, WA 98101 601 Union St. (206) 428-3250 Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 628-6600 DAVID H. FRY J. MAX ROSEN MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission St., 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 512-4000 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... ii INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 I. The Framers Explicitly Rejected Any Direct Mode For Choosing The President, And Chose Instead An Indirect Method That Requires Elector Discretion. ............................................. 3 II. Recognizing A Constitutional Discretion In Electors Is Compelled By Ray v. Blair. ............ 7 III. Washington Has Identified No Power To Authorize Its Regulation Of The “Federal Function In Balloting.” .................................... 13 IV. A Political Pledge Has Never Been Legally Enforceable. ...................................................... 17 V. There Is A Continuing Need For Elector Discretion Within Our System For Electing The President. .................................................. 20 CONCLUSION ........................................................... 23 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE(S) FEDERAL CASES Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015) ..................... 13 Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Cesifo Working Paper No. 3752 Category 2: Public Choice February 2012
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Krasa, Stefan; Polborn, Mattias Working Paper Elites or masses? A structural model of policy divergence, voter sorting and apparent polarization in U.S. presidential elections, 1972-2008 CESifo Working Paper, No. 3752 Provided in Cooperation with: Ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich Suggested Citation: Krasa, Stefan; Polborn, Mattias (2012) : Elites or masses? A structural model of policy divergence, voter sorting and apparent polarization in U.S. presidential elections, 1972-2008, CESifo Working Paper, No. 3752, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/55874 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Facing up to Multi-Party Politics: How Partisan Dealignment and PR Voting Have Fundamentally Changed Britain's Party Systems
    LSE Research Online Article (refereed) Patrick Dunleavy Facing up to multi-party politics : how partisan dealignment and PR voting have fundamentally changed Britain’s party systems Originally published in Parliamentary affairs, 58 (3). Pp. 503-532 © 2005 Oxford University Press. You may cite this version as: Dunleavy, Patrick (2005). Facing up to multi-party politics : how partisan dealignment and PR voting have fundamentally changed Britain’s party systems [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2673 Available in LSE Research Online: August 2007 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final manuscript version of the journal article, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer review process. Some differences between this version and the publisher’s version remain. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk Contact LSE Research Online at: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and All Delegates to the Democratic National Convention
    Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and all delegates to the Democratic National Convention: The undersigned organizations hope that all Democrats agree that the will of the voters should be decisive in determining the Democratic nominees for the country’s highest offices. We therefore urge the Democratic Party – via action at this month’s Democratic National Convention – to eliminate the concept of so-called “superdelegates.” This change would not impact the ongoing nomination proceedings, but would take effect for all future national nominee selection processes and conventions. The superdelegate system is unrepresentative, contradicts the purported values of the party and its members, and reduces the party’s moral authority. • The system undermines representative democracy and means that the electorate is not necessarily decisive in determining who will be the Democratic nominees for president and vice president and dilutes the voters’ say over the party’s platform and the rules under which it operates. Astonishingly, these unelected delegates have essentially as much weight as do the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined. • The system undermines the Democratic Party's commitment to gender equity. While the party’s charter rightfully mandates that equal numbers of pledged delegates be male and female, a near super-majority of superdelegates are men. • The Democratic Party prides itself on its commitment to racial justice and the racial diversity of its ranks. Yet the superdegelates appears to skew the party away from appropriate representation of communities of color: Proportionately, approximately 20% fewer of this year’s superdelegates hail from communities of color than was true of the 2008 and 2012 pledged delegate cohorts, or of the voters who supported President Obama in those years’ general elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe
    This page intentionally left blank Populist radical right parties in Europe As Europe enters a significant phase of re-integration of East and West, it faces an increasing problem with the rise of far-right political par- ties. Cas Mudde offers the first comprehensive and truly pan-European study of populist radical right parties in Europe. He focuses on the par- ties themselves, discussing them both as dependent and independent variables. Based upon a wealth of primary and secondary literature, this book offers critical and original insights into three major aspects of European populist radical right parties: concepts and classifications; themes and issues; and explanations for electoral failures and successes. It concludes with a discussion of the impact of radical right parties on European democracies, and vice versa, and offers suggestions for future research. cas mudde is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Antwerp. He is the author of The Ideology of the Extreme Right (2000) and the editor of Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe (2005). Populist radical right parties in Europe Cas Mudde University of Antwerp CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521850810 © Cas Mudde 2007 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • The NDP's Approach to Constitutional Issues Has Not Been Electorally
    Constitutional Confusion on the Left: The NDP’s Position in Canada’s Constitutional Debates Murray Cooke [email protected] First Draft: Please do not cite without permission. Comments welcome. Paper prepared for the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 2004, Winnipeg The federal New Democratic Party experienced a dramatic electoral decline in the 1990s from which it has not yet recovered. Along with difficulties managing provincial economies, the NDP was wounded by Canada’s constitutional debates. The NDP has historically struggled to present a distinctive social democratic approach to Canada’s constitution. Like its forerunner, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), the NDP has supported a liberal, (English-Canadian) nation-building approach that fits comfortably within the mainstream of Canadian political thought. At the same time, the party has prioritized economic and social polices rather than seriously addressing issues such as the deepening of democracy or the recognition of national or regional identities. Travelling without a roadmap, the constitutional debates of the 80s and 90s proved to be a veritable minefield for the NDP. Through three rounds of mega- constitutional debate (1980-82, 1987-1990, 1991-1992), the federal party leadership supported the constitutional priorities of the federal government of the day, only to be torn by disagreements from within. This paper will argue that the NDP’s division, lack of direction and confusion over constitution issues can be traced back to longstanding weaknesses in the party’s social democratic theory and strategy. First of all, the CCF- NDP embraced rather than challenged the parameters and institutions of liberal democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections Director Ohio Democratic Party Columbus, Ohio About Ohio
    Elections Director Ohio Democratic Party Columbus, Ohio About Ohio Over the next two years the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) will build an organization to win highly consequential elections up and down the ballot. With new leadership comes a new vision for our Party, refocusing on the core fundamentals that move the needle. ODP is building back better as a focused, modern, and nimble force to elect Democrats statewide now and in the future. Ohio is a top tier U.S. Senate pick up opportunity for national Democrats because of retiring Republican incumbents. The battle to save the Senate majority will be fought in Ohio. 2022 offers the chance to take control of the Ohio Supreme Court, make gains under new legislative maps, and win control of state government constitutional including Governor/Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Auditor. These opportunities give Democrats in Ohio early and strategic gains in rebuilding the Ohio Democratic Party. About the Opportunity The Ohio Democratic Party is seeking a talented, passionate professional to build an elections operation that will reimagine how we connect with, train, support, and activate volunteers and candidates in Ohio. In partnership with the Chair and the Executive team, the Elections Director will lead a highly integrated team of field, training, data, and digital staff responsible for building a volunteer organization that can be maintained cycle to cycle. They will set strategic goals for 2021, 2022, and manage the engagement of multiple in-state entities (County parties, progressive groups, caucuses) candidate campaigns across the ballot, and a variety of local, statewide, and national stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • POL 462/2313: Comparative Political Parties and Elections
    POL 462/2313: Comparative Political Parties and Elections INSTRUCTOR: Professor Lawrence LeDuc, 329 Alumni Hall (416-9261300, x3232) e-mail: [email protected] TEXTS: Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi & Pippa Norris (eds.) Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting [CD2] Paul Abramson, John Aldrich & David Rohde, Change and Continuity in the 2000 and 2002 Elections [CC] Readings packet incorporating articles not included in the above texts [PKT] The following books also contain material on the party systems and/or electoral systems of the countries covered in this course, and are recommended as additional reference sources. David Farrell, Electoral Systems: a Comparative Introduction Steven Wolinetz, Parties and Party Systems in Liberal Democracies Peter Mair (ed.), The West European Party System Mark Kesselman & Joel Krieger, European Politics in Transition Warren Miller & J. Merrill Shanks, The New American Voter Hans-Dieter Klingemann & Dieter Fuchs, Citizens and the State Leon Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democracies Paul Allen Beck, Party Politics in America David Broughton & Mark Donovan, Changing Party Systems in Western Europe Herbert Kitschelt, The Transformation of European Social Democracy Simon Hix & Christopher Lord, Political Parties in the European Union Herb Asher, Presidential Elections and American Politics Michael Gallagher et al, Representative Democracy in Western Europe David Farrell & Rüdiger Schmtt-Beck (eds.), Do Political
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
    Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues -name redacted- Analyst in Elections February 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL34222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Summary After a period of uncertainty over the presidential nominating calendar for 2012, the early states again settled on January dates for primaries and caucuses. Iowa held its caucuses on January 3 and New Hampshire held its primary on January 10. These two states, along with South Carolina and Nevada, are exempt from Republican national party rules that do not permit delegate selection contests prior to the first Tuesday in March, but specify that these contests may not be held before February 1. Officials in Florida announced that the state would hold a January 31, 2012, primary, in violation of party rules, which prompted South Carolina and Nevada to schedule unsanctioned events as well. South Carolina scheduled its primary on January 21; Nevada Republicans originally scheduled party caucuses for January 14, but changed the date to February 4. States that violate the rules risk losing half their delegates, as a number of states already have. Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and proposed modifications, often directed at the seemingly haphazard and fast-paced calendar of primaries and caucuses. The rapid pace of primaries and caucuses that characterized the 2000 and 2004 cycles continued in 2008, despite national party efforts to reverse front-loading. The Democratic Party approved changes to its calendar rules in July 2006, when the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee extended an exemption to Nevada and South Carolina (Iowa and New Hampshire were previously exempted) from the designated period for holding delegate selection events; and the committee proposed sanctions for any violations.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics
    Journal of Political Science Volume 23 Number 1 Article 2 November 1995 Forgotten But Not Gone: Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics Robert P. Steed Tod A. Baker Laurence W. Moreland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Steed, Robert P.; Baker, Tod A.; and Moreland, Laurence W. (1995) "Forgotten But Not Gone: Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics," Journal of Political Science: Vol. 23 : No. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol23/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Political Science by an authorized editor of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORGOTTEN BUT NOT GONE: MOUNTAIN REPUBLICANS AND CONTEMPORARY SOUTHERN PARTY POLITICS Robert P. Steed, The Citadel Tod A. Baker, The Citadel Laurence W. Moreland, The Citadel Introduction During the period of Democratic Party dominance of southern politics, Republicans were found mainly in the mountainous areas of western Virginia, western North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee and in a few other counties (e.g., the German counties of eas't central Te_xas) scattered sparsely in the region. Never strong enough to control statewide elections, Republicans in these areas were competitive locally, frequently succeeding in winning local offices. 1 As southern politics changed dramatically during the post-World War II period, research on the region's parties understandably focused on the growth of Republican support and organizational development in those geographic areas and electoral arenas historically characterized by Democratic control.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly fi'om the original or copy submitted- Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from aity type of conçuter printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to r i^ t in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9427761 Lest the rebels come to power: The life of W illiam Dennison, 1815—1882, early Ohio Republican Mulligan, Thomas Cecil, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]