Suburban Voting and National Trends: a Research Note

• Date: 01 September 1968
• DOI: 10.1177/106591296802100312
• Published date: 01 September 1968
• Author: Herbert Hirsch
• Subject Matter: Articles

508

SUBURBAN

VOTING

AND

NATIONAL

TRENDS:

A

RESEARCH

NOTE

HERBERT

HIRSCH

University

of

Texas

at

Austin

NE

OF

THE

most

significant

redistributions

of

the

United

States

popu-

lation

since

World

War II has

taken the form

of

suburbanization.

This

lation

since

World

War

II

has

taken

the

form

of

suburbanization.

This

~~~

movement

from

city

to

suburb

has

spawned

speculation

concerning

its

effect

upon

the

American

political

universe.

Early

observers

theorized

that

the

urban

dweller

who

was

climbing

the

occu-

pational

and

income

scales

moved

to

the

suburbs,

and

once

he

was

there,

&dquo;sur-

rounded

by

neighbors

of

unimpeachable

respectability

and

Republicanism,

the

new

suburbanite

would

gradually

be

absorbed

into

the

GOP.&dquo;~

This

movement

was

eventually

to

weaken

the

Democratic

party

as

increasing

numbers

moved

to

the

suburbs

and

changed

their

party

allegiance.

These

conclusions

were

reached

by

examining

such

factors

as

status,

class,

and

social

mobility.

One

may

take

as

a

classic

example

Clinton

Rossiter’s

statement

that

the

&dquo;sharpening

urban-suburban

cleavage

in

our

mid-century

politics

is

a

product

of

difference

in

status....

&dquo;2

At

the

base

of

this

type

of

thinking

is

the

assumption

that

suburbs

are

homo-

geneous

-

inter-

as

well

as

intra-suburban

homogeneity.

V.

O.

Key,

however,

warns

that

one

must

be

wary

of

this

assumption.

&dquo;There

are

suburbs

and

suburbs:

working-class

suburbs,

middle-class

suburbs,

and

doubtless

a

few

of

the

old-fashioned

upper-class

suburbs

dedicated

to

gracious

living.&dquo;

Key

is

pointing

out

one

of

the

most

difficult

problems

found

in

studying

suburbia.

That

is,

one

must

be

careful

to

note

the

type

of

suburb

upon

which

a

generalization

is

based.

Otherwise

one

may

overlook

differentiation

within

suburban

areas.

Even

before

Key’s

warning

empirical

studies

had

begun

to

appear.

In

1956,

Janosik’s

study

of

Bucks

County,

Pa.,

demonstrated

that

when

this

suburban

area

experienced

the

building

of

a

new

steel

plant

and

a

new

Levittown

which

brought

in

17,000

new

residents,

the

traditional

Republican

majority

was

cut

down

quite

rapidly

4

Robert

C.

Wood

made

a

similar

finding

in

the

Boston

suburbs.5

5

His

study

showed

a

lack

of

consistent

voting

trends

in

the

Boston

area.

Democratic

suburbs

were

becoming

more

Democratic,

Republican

suburbs

more

Republican.

While

some

suburbs

changed

from

Republican

to

Democratic

&dquo;as

lower-income

1

V.

O.

Key,

Politics,

Parties,

and

Pressure

Groups

(4th

ed.;

New

York:

Crowell,

1963),

p.

275.

Also

see:

Samuel

Lubell,

The

Future

of

American

Politics

(Garden

City:

Double-

day,

1956), p.

56.

2

Clinton

Rossiter,

Parties

and

Politics

in

America

(Ithaca:

Cornell

U.

Press,

1960),

p.

89.

3

Key,

op.

cit.,

p.

276.

In

the

5th

edition

of

this

work

Key

elaborates

further

on

this

thesis.

For

an

interesting,

though

impressionistic

work

which

takes

issue

with

the

notion

of

suburban

homogeneity

see:

William

M.

Dobriner,

Class

in

Suburbia

(Englewood

Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall,

1963).

4

G.

Edward

Janosik,

"The

New

Suburbia,"

Current

History

(August

1956),

pp.

91-95.

5

Robert

C.

Wood,

Suburbia:

Its

People

and

Their

Politics

(Boston:

Houghton

Mifflin,

1959),

pp.

146-49.