The Ideological Characteristics of Party Leaders: A Case of Texas

• Author: John J. S. Moon,Nancy Bowen Saunders
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297903200211
• Published date: 01 June 1979
• Date: 01 June 1979
• Subject Matter: Article

THE

IDEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF

PARTY

LEADERS: A CASE

OF

TEXAS

JOHN

J.

S.

MOON

and

NANCY

BOWEN

SAUNDERS

University

of

Texas

at

Arlington

HE

PURPOSE

of this research note is

to

examine the ideological character-

istics

of

the Democratic and Republican leaders

of

Texas.’ In spite

of

the

T

Democratic party domination in the state since Reconstruction, it is

sus-

pected that these party leader groups distinguish themselves, at least in terms

of

political attitudes and policy preferences. In order to describe such differences,

we

will

compare these party leader groups

in

terms of ideological context and consen-

sus.

Further, we will compare them with their counterparts at the national level

and in other states.*

IDEOLOGICAL

CONTENT

McClosky

et

al.

find the ideological dimensions

of

Democratic and Republican

political strata

at

the national level to be different; and

Soule

and Clarke report

their findings on the counterparts in

1968

generally consistent

with

the earlier

information? They ascertain that “the contrast between Democratic and Republi-

can delegates remains sharp and unequivocal (gamma

=-.Sl)

,

and that Democrats

are more liberal than Republicans.’’6

Table

1

reveals the differences between Texas Democrats and Republicans in

terms

of

their responses to selected issue-situations. Further distinctions between

them

are

revealed in Table

2.

They sham differing attitudes in general; and the

attitudinal differences become sharper,

as

they perceive domestic issues.

IDEOLOCICAL

CONTENT: COXWARISON

We

hypothesize that Texas party leaders may reflect their regional character-

istics in their political attitude and that, therefore, there would be differences be-

tween Texas groups and their national counterparts. Table

3

summarizes differ-

ences speculated. The table shows that both Texas Democratic and Republican

leaders are more conservative than national Democrats and Republicans. Further,

Table

4

describes the differences between the party leaders in the national groups

and the Texas groups. The national and Texas groups are, however, relatively

similar

in

terms of party differences with the exception of

two

key issues

-

public

employees’ right to strike and foreign aid. Unfortunately,

we

have no way of ex-

plaining these points in this study.

‘This survey is based

on

a

random sample

of

360

delegates

(180

Democrats and

180

Republi-

cans) selected

from

345

Texas

delegates and alternates to the

1972

Democratic National

Convention and to the

1974

Democratic Mid-Term Convention and

254

Texas

dele-

gates and alternates to the

1972

Republican National Convention and district delegates

and alternates to the Republican State Convention. The return rate was

48

percent

(Democrats,

36%

;

Republicans,

54%)

with

174

completed questionnaires. Eleven com-

pleted questionnaires were discarded, for the respondents identified themselves

as

Ameri-

can Independent party members.

*

Herbert McClosky

et al.,

“Issue Conflict and Consensus

Among

Party Leaders and Followers,”

American Political Science Reuiew

54

(June

1960)

:

406-27;

John

W. Soule and James

W. Clarke,

“Issue

Conflict and Consensus:

A

Comparative Study of Democratic and

Republican Delegates

to

the

1968

National Conventions,”

Journal

of

Politics

33

(Feb-

ruary

1971):

72-91;

Edmond Costantini and Kenneth

H.

Craik, “Competing Elites

IVithin

a

Political Party:

A

Study of Republican Leadership,”

Western Political Quar-

terly

22

(December

1969)

:

879-903.

’

McClosky

ef

al.,

“Issue Conflict and Consensus,” p.

426.

‘

Soule and Clarke, ‘%sue Conflict and Consensus,” p.

77.

Ibid., pp.

77-79.