Inter-Party Ideological Differences in Eleven State Parties: 1956-1980

• Author: Joel Paddock
• DOI: 10.1177/106591299204500310
• Published date: 01 September 1992
• Date: 01 September 1992
• Subject Matter: Articles

INTER-PARTY

IDEOLOGICAL

DIFFERENCES

IN

ELEVEN

STATE

PARTIES:

1956-1980

JOEL

PADDOCK

Southwest

Missouri

State

University

merican

political

parties

have

been

traditionally

described

as

pragmatic,

non-ideological,

and

decentralized

(Schattschneider

1942;

Key

1958;

Rossiter

1960;

Duverger

1964).

Competition

between

state

and

local

party

activists,

motivated

by

material

rewards

rather

than

a

coherent

political

philosophy,

characterized

the

tradi-

tional

American

party

system.

The

non-conscious

ideology

of &dquo;Lockean

Individualism,&dquo;

coupled

with

the

winner-take-all

nature

of

the

elec-

toral

system,

fostered

a

form

of

accommodationist

politics:

what

Maurice

Duverger

called

&dquo;a

conflict

without

principles,

a

struggle

between

the

ins

and

outs

which

never

becomes

fanatical

and

creates

no

deep

cleav-

age

in

the

country&dquo;

(Duverger

1964:

418;

Ladd

and

Hadley

1978:

305;

Hartz

1955).

In

this

system,

inter-party

ideological

differences

were

seen

as

minimal.

A

body

of

literature

developed

in

the

1960s

and

1970s

which

sug-

gested

that

American

parties

were

becoming

more

ideological

and

programmatic.

One

of

the

first

scholars

to

recognize

this

change

was

James

Q.

Wilson

(1962),

who

described

the

emergence

of

a

new

&dquo;amateur&dquo;

party

activist:

&dquo;one

who

finds

politics

intrinsically

interest-

ing

because

it

expresses

a

conception

of

the

public

interest&dquo;

(Wilson

1962:

3).

Following

Wilson’s

cue,

Aaron

Wildavsky

(1965)

analyzed

Barry

Goldwater’s

1964

nomination,

which

seemed

to

fall

outside

the

realm

of

accommodationist

politics.

Wildavsky

labeled

the

Goldwater

delegates

&dquo;purists,&dquo;

who

were

more

concerned

with

being

ideologically

consistent

than

with

nominating

a

likely

winner.

The

Goldwater

phe-

nomenon,

he

concluded,

&dquo;represents

the

beginning

of

ideology

in

the

United

States&dquo;

(1965:

413).

Other

studies

of

party

activists

(primarily

national

convention

delegates)

in

the

1960s

and

1970s

reached

similar

conclusions,

and

suggested

the

emergence

of

a

substantial

ideological

gap

between

party

activists

(namely,

national

convention

delegates)

and

party

identifiers

(Soule

and

Clarke

1970;

Kirkpatrick

1976;

Ladd

Received:

April

26,

1991

Revision

Received:

August

20,

1991

Accepted

for

Publication:

September

12,

1991