University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 Powerless In Movement: How Social Movements Influence, And Fail To Influence, American oliticsP And Policy Matthew Mongiello Mongiello University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the American Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Mongiello, Matthew Mongiello, "Powerless In Movement: How Social Movements Influence, And ailF To Influence, American oliticsP And Policy" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2481. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2481 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2481 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Powerless In Movement: How Social Movements Influence, And ailF To Influence, American Politics And Policy Abstract Much of the literature on social movements centers on cyclical theories of political opportunity. While such work lays an important foundation for understanding contentious politics, it fails to fully integrate movements as actors in the American political system and public policy process. As such, the ways movements exercise power in the American political system, and the ways that power is constrained, are often not clearly conceptualized. This dissertation argues that movements exercise political power in the US in three distinct but overlapping ways; pluralist interest group power, plebiscitary opinion power, and disruptive contentious power. Through public law and empirical analyses, it shows that opportunities to exercise these types of power are limited by three patterns of American Political Development; insiders building structural constraints such as tax and campaign finance laws, political inflation causedy b the expansion of political resources such as campaign spending, and institutional thickening that commits government resources to existing issues and limits slack resources for new issues. Case law analysis shows that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrines on tax law, campaign finance law, and time, place and manner restrictions disadvantage movements. Empirical analysis of nonprofit tax filings shows that movements have increasingly relied on apolitical organizational forms such as charities. Analysis of protest news reports shows that policing policies have reduced confrontations between police and protesters in ways that lower this visibility of movements. Analysis of congressional hearings and public laws shows that an increasing share of government activity is devoted to administering existing policy commitments. The dissertation concludes that emerging constraints increasingly limit movement power in the future of American politics. As such, this project suggests that declines in social movement influence since the 1960s may not be a cyclical phenomenon, and that political outsiders must learn to adapt to a closed political system. Movement cases considered include LGBTQ Rights, Animal Rights, Disability Rights, and Antiabortion. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Political Science First Advisor Adolph Reed Keywords American Political Developmet, Animal Rights, Antiabortion, Disability Rights, Gay Rights, Social Movements Subject Categories American Studies | Political Science | Public Policy This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2481 For Brooks ii Acknowledgments This dissertation has taken a long time to write, and consequently, the list of people who deserve my thanks is also a long one. Adolph Reed chaired the committee that oversaw this work. His confidence in the project got it off the ground and over the finish line. I will always be grateful for his faith and patience. Rogers Smith did everything from correcting my understanding of Locke to correcting my spelling and grammar. His supportive comments on my early chapters provided me with the motivation I needed to keep plugging away. Daniel Gillion joined the project at a critical moment and I am especially grateful for his help in completing it. I couldn’t ask for a better committee. I’d also like to thank the rest of Penn’s Political Science faculty, especially Nancy Hirschmann, Marc Meredith, Matt Levendusky, John Lapinski, Don Kettl, Marie Gottschaulk, and John DiIulio. Each of you played a special role in getting me through the program. Also, a big thank you to the tremendous staff in the department. Thank you also to Christianna Leahy and my new colleagues at McDaniel College for being so welcoming and patient as I prepared to defend this dissertation. My fellow graduate students offered me invaluable feedback, encouragement, and solidarity. Since I’ve been around the program longer than just about anyone, there are too many friends to individually name, but special thanks to Allison, Rosella, Meredith, and Chelsea. And extra special thanks to Elspeth, my dissertation and job search buddy until the very end. My nonacademic friends also played a crucial role in helping me through this process. I’m especially grateful to my emotional support team of Jackie and Gautam for always having a friendly ear iii and a kind word, my Philly friends Dan and John, as well as my oldest and dearest friends Jeremy, Matt, and Tim. You’ve all been there for me through the highs and lows. And super- duper thanks to Jes, who has been calling me “professor” for the past decade. I had to live up to that nickname somehow. And thanks also to MRF for leaving. It forced me to double-down on my career and successfully complete this dissertation. And to my activist friends, particularly those working for animal rights, you were the inspiration for this project. I hope someday my work contributes to the effectiveness of our struggle for social justice. My deepest thanks to Cassia, whose love and support sustained me through the final chapters of this project, and who proved a constant companion to work with in coffee shops across the Northeast. You are a remarkable woman. My parents Patrick and Billie Jean Mongiello have been an unwavering source of support for my entire life (emotional and financial), but especially throughout this dissertation. They are the best parents and I am very grateful for them. I couldn’t have done this without you. In the end this project is for my son, Brooks. He is the absolute best little boy in the world and finishing this dissertation is about building a life for the two of us. Thank you Brooks for being my inspiration and my motivation. You are my world. iv ABSTRACT POWERLESS IN MOVEMENT: HOW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS INFLUENCE, AND FAIL TO INFLUENCE, AMERICAN POLITICS AND POLICY Matthew Patrick Mongiello Adolph Reed Much of the literature on social movements centers on cyclical theories of political opportunity. While such work lays an important foundation for understanding contentious politics, it fails to fully integrate movements as actors in the American political system and public policy process. As such, the ways movements exercise power in the American political system, and the ways that power is constrained, are often not clearly conceptualized. This dissertation argues that movements exercise political power in the US in three distinct but overlapping ways; pluralist interest group power, plebiscitary opinion power, and disruptive contentious power. Through public law and empirical analyses, it shows that opportunities to exercise these types of power are limited by three patterns of American Political Development; insiders building structural constraints such as tax and campaign finance laws, political inflation caused by the expansion of political resources such as campaign spending, and institutional thickening that commits government resources to existing issues and limits slack resources for new issues. Case law analysis shows that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrines on tax law, campaign finance law, and time, place and manner restrictions disadvantage movements. Empirical analysis of nonprofit tax filings shows that movements have increasingly relied on apolitical organizational forms such as charities. Analysis of protest news reports shows that policing policies have reduced confrontations between police and protesters in ways that lower this visibility of movements. Analysis of congressional hearings and public laws shows that an increasing share of government activity is devoted to administering existing policy commitments. The dissertation concludes that emerging constraints increasingly limit movement power in the future of American politics. As such, this project suggests that declines in social movement influence since the 1960s may not be a cyclical phenomenon, and that political outsiders must learn to adapt to a closed political system. Movement cases considered include LGBTQ Rights, Animal Rights, Disability Rights, and Antiabortion. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii ABSTRACT iv LIST OF TABLES vi CHAPTER 1: RETHINKING SOCIAL MOVEMENT POWER 1 CHAPTER 2: THEORY 10 CHAPTER 3: DISRUPTIVE POWER AND MOVEMENT PROTEST 57 CHAPTER 4: MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PLURALIST POWER 129 CHAPTER 5: PLEBISCITARY POWER: LEVERAGING THE PEOPLE 182 CHAPTER 6: THE LGBTQ AND ANTIABORTION CASES 232 CHAPTER 7: ANIMAL RIGHTS AND DISABILITY RIGHTS 279 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 318 BIBLIOGRAPHY 333 vi LIST OF TABLES FIGURE 3.1 61 FIGURE 3.2 68 FIGURE 3.3 69