Political Party Platforms

• Published date: 01 December 2008
• Author: Nancy E. Marion,Willard M. Oliver
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403408318829
• Date: 01 December 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice
Policy Review
Volume 19 Number 4
December 2008 397-413
Political Party Platforms
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0887403408318829
Symbolic Politics and
http://cjp.sagepub.com
hosted at
Criminal Justice Policy
http://online.sagepub.com
Willard M. Oliver
Sam Houston State University
Nancy E. Marion
University of Akron
The theory of symbolic politics is used to examine the elements of criminal justice
policy in political party platforms. It is hypothesized that political parties use their party
platforms to make symbolic, rather than substantive, statements. Data were collected
from the digital archives of both the American Presidency Project and the American
Reference Library consisting of all political party platforms from 1868 to 2004. A content
analysis of these party platforms, as they related to crime and justice issues, offers partial
support for the claim that presidents and political parties use these party platforms
primarily for evoking symbols.
Keywords:
symbolic politics; party platforms; criminal justice policy
“Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from
Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
George Orwell, 1946/1981
Although the U.S. Constitution never mentions political parties and President
Washington eschewed them, policy differences in both the executive and legislative
branches became the basis for this American institution within a decade of the estab-
lishment of the U.S. government (Cohen, Fleisher, & Kantor, 2001; Gordy, 2007;
Thomas & Pika, 1996). The rise of the party system altered the presidential election
process when it devised its own method for choosing their respective nominees.
Since the election of 1800, political parties have been “central structures in the pres-
idential selection process, nominating candidates, helping diverse social and eco-
nomic interests to coalesce under a common banner, mobilizing voters, organizing
campaigns, raising funds, recruiting personnel for the winning administration, medi-
ating relations with interest groups, and helping to develop programmatic appeals”
(Thomas & Pika, 1996, p. 128). Although it is true that many of these responsibili-
ties have been transferred to other campaign and governing entities throughout the
20th century and presidents are less dependent on their parties for both winning elec-
tions and governing, political parties still play a major role in the modern political
system (Cohen et al., 2001).
397

---

398
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Traditionally, theorizing about political party platforms had been dismissed
because of the old adage that the platform planks are for candidates to “run” on, not
to “stand” on. Yet research has consistently found that presidents take the pledges
they make seriously and that either by working with Congress or through executive
orders they try to achieve these promises (Fishel, 1985; Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000;
Pomper & Lederman, 1980). Hence, theories trying to explain the role of parties and
the political party platforms have flourished as they attempt to explain the influence
on how presidents win elections and govern (Cohen et al., 2001; Coleman, 1996;
Kernell, 1986; Skowronek, 1993), as well as attempting to explain both policy con-
vergence (Aldrich, 1995; Cox & McCubbins, 1993; Downs, 1957; Kiewiet &
McCubbins, 1991) and policy divergence (Bernhardt & Ingberman, 1985; Calvert,
1985; Palfrey, 1984; Snyder, 1994; Snyder & Groseclose, 2000; Wittman, 1983)
among the predominate parties.
One particular theory argues that there is policy convergence in the presence of
valence issues (Londregan & Romer, 1993), such as crime (Gusfield, 1963, 1967),
where everyone is against crime, but policy divergence on the appropriate policy to
address the issue (Scheingold 1984, 1995). Because these issues are often sympa-
thetic to the use of symbolic politics, presidents and their respective parties draw on
such sound bites as “getting tough on crime,” so that they do not have “to provide
any real, tangible proposal, benefit, or reward” (Marion & Farmer, 2003, p. 142; see
also Jensen & Gerber, 1998; Scheingold, 1995). In a sense, their symbols or words
become their policy action.
Research into the president’s use of political symbols when engaging in crime
policy has found general support for this theory (Hinckley, 1990; Marion, 1992,
1994a, 1994b, 1997; Marion & Farmer, 2003; Oliver, 2001). Still further, research into
Congressional use of political symbols has also found general support (Marion &
Farmer, 2003, 2004; Oliver, 2001; Stolz, 1983, 1992, 2002). These studies indicate
that crime is a salient issue in our political system, but to date no study has analyzed
how political parties use symbolic politics. Therefore, the present study will draw on
the theory of symbolic politics to assess the use of symbols in the various political
party platforms as they relate to crime policy. This approach will reveal how political
parties, through their platforms, use the issue of crime to win electoral support for
their political candidates and their political party.
Symbolism and Political Party Platforms
Every 4 years, political parties convene to officially nominate a candidate who
will represent their political ideology in an upcoming presidential campaign. At the
same time, party loyalists and officials also meet to write a party platform. In this
document, party representatives develop and put forward their positions on many
issues. They describe issues, principles, and goals that party members generally support.

---

Oliver, Marion / Political Party Platforms
399
The platform is a reflection of the party members’ beliefs and positions on major
issues facing the country (Cohen et al., 2001; Gordy, 2007). More importantly, though,
it is also a reflection of the presidential nominee’s agenda as well. Nonincumbent
presidential nominees have some say in the party platform, whereas incumbent
presidents seeking reelection have “the greatest influence in the writing of the party
platform at the national convention” (Thomas & Pika, 1996, p. 135). In a sense, a
sitting president is the political party. Regardless, in the end, the party platforms are
an important reflection of what direction the party is going to take in the upcoming
4 years (Cohen et al., 2001; Coleman, 1996; Milkis, 1993).
Although party platforms have never been officially binding on individual presi-
dential candidates, in recent years the platform has sometimes been tailored to the
individual presidential nominee (Coleman, 1996; Milkis, 1993). In some cases, the
nominees work out platform compromises with their opponents. Some nominees
insist that major planks in the platform conform to their views and that controversial
minor planks be omitted.
Crime control is one issue that appears in the party platforms each 4 years. Some
years the issue gets more attention than in other years, and the specific issues that are
mentioned also change from year to year. In adding the issue of crime to the platform,
each political party is acknowledging the importance of crime as a national concern.
They are indicating that their party understands that people are worried about crime,
and want to know what their party members will do about it.
Past research has shown that the issue of crime is often used by different political
actors as a way to increase their public support (Cronin, Cronin, & Milakovich, 1981;
Finckenauer, 1978; Gusfield, 1963, 1967; Scheingold, 1984, 1995). In this way, the issue
of crime becomes a symbolic issue for these political actors, including presidents,
candidates, and members of Congress. Murray Edelman (1964, 1971, 1988), in his
pioneering work, was the first to acknowledge the importance of symbolism in pol-
itics. Edelman explained that “every symbol stands for something other than itself,
and it also evokes an attitude, a set of impressions, or a pattern of events associated
through time, through space, through logic, or through imagination with the symbol”
(Edelman, 1964, p. 6). In a later writing, he explained, “Symbols become that facet
of experiencing the material world that gives it a specific meaning” (Edelman, 1988,
p. 8). In other words, symbols derive their meaning not from content, but from the
value people attach to them.
This notion has clear application for politics in that politicians, like the party
leadership, use symbols to convey a value, an attitude, or a sentiment without having
to provide details or substantive policies. This strategy can benefit a politician by
enhancing his or her popularity and electability. It also reassures the public that
something is being done about a particular problem, as well as minimizing the
complexity of the issue and government’s limited resources with which to address
the situation. Other advantages include giving guidance to subgovernments, educat-
ing both the law-abiding and law-breaking about what is acceptable behavior, and

---

400
Criminal Justice Policy Review
informing the public about problems and their potential solutions (Cronin et al., 1981;
Edelman, 1964, 1971, 1988; Marion, 1997; Scheingold, 1984, 1995; Stolz, 1992).
Thus, political symbols do matter and can be very important not only to the president
and Congress, but also to the political parties.
To be clear on what these political symbols entail, Hinckley (1990, p. 7) formally
defines them as “the communication by political actors to others for a purpose,...