Controlling the Mischief of Faction: Party Support and Coalition Building Among Party Activists.” Green, John C and James L. Guth

Factions Parties: Coalitions (234) Parties are supposed to build coalitions Coalitions are import for winning elections Factionalism: Obstacle to Coalition-building Major obstacle to coalitions: factionalism (which reflects the diversity of the polity as well as the weakness of party orgs).

Factions Parties Respond Recently, Party leader have sought to control factions through stronger party orgs. Two Paths to Controlling Factions: Reform and Renewal 1) Dems “reform” efforts which sought to deal with factions from the break up of the New Deal coalition. 2) Reps “renewal” efforts (started by Bliss, cont by Brock) sought to deal with factions in the post-New Deal era.

Factions Parties as Mediating Force: Both approaches see parties as mediating forces. (Sources: McCorkle and Fleishman, 1982, Ranney 1975) Point of Article: Look at relationship between factions, party support and coalition- building...and a particular set of party activists: financial donors.

Factions Roadmap: The authors found different types of factions among Dems and Reps: Dems Factions: support policy positions, amateur style politics (undermined coalitions). Reps Factions: organizational support, professional style (enhances coalition building).

Factions Party Factions and Party Support (235) Founders: distrusted factions. Conflict between parties is accepted, but conflict within parties is more problematic

Factions Definitions of Factions: Definition: “narrow interests expressed within parties that underlie any broader consensus.” (235) Factions: raw material from which coalitions are fabricated. Coalition: “cooperation among political actors with non-congruent interests. Faction v. Coalition: conflict between narrower and broader interests

Factions Different Types of Factions: 1) Vertical 2) Horizontal 3) Temporal

Factions Different Types of Factions: Vertical: distinguishes among levels of partisan politics: Three Levels Common: 1) Party leaders (Goldman, 1990) 2) Activists (Eldersveld, 1989) 3) Identifiers (voters)(Petrocik, 1983) Critical Question: What resources do activists control?

Factions Different Types of Factions: Horizontal: distinguishes between the substantive foci at a particular level Again three types are common: 1) Leadership or candidate followings (Miller and Jennings, 1986) 2) Issue or ideological groupings (Kessel, 1984) 3) Socio-Demographic bloc (Axelrod 1972) Critical Question: What are the variety of interests do activists have?

Factions Different Types of Factions: Temporal: degree of mobilization at a particular level and substantive foci (at a certain time?) Three Types: 1) Actors mobilized for a specific decision… (platform fights) 2) General decisions-making processes (conventions and campaigns) 3) Broader forms of participation (primaries, general elections) Critical Question: What is the outcome activists want? (Belloni and Beller 1976)

Factions Coalitions: How Parties Try to Build Consensus (237) Issue Proximity: “actors with the most similar issue positions are the most likely to coalesce … less diversity exists among actors, the easier coalition building will be. It is considered key to the success of any coalition effort. Note: it is important to distinguish between instances where party unity results from “natural” conditions and not successful coalition-building.

Factions Other Factors that aid coalition-building, once issue proximity has been taken into account: 1) Involvement in organized politics 2) Support for common policy and leaders 3) Material and solidary benefits 4) Professional politics These variables are distinct from issue proximity (Orren 1982)

Factions Strong Parties and Coalition-building: (237) Strong Parties are thought to facilitate coalition-building because they encourage party support among activists. There are two approaches: Reform: more inclusive rules will make party policy more coherent and attractive to activists (Crotty 1978). Renewal: more effective services make parties more competitive and thus more valuable to activists (Pomper 1980).

Data and Methods Methodology: The article is based on mail surveys of a random sample of major party donors in 1988.

Data and Methods Major Party Factions (238) Dems (239) From left to right: New Politics (29.5%) Regular Liberals (29.2%) Neo-conservatives (21.3%) Populists (11.0%) Republicans (8.95%) Dem activists more ideological diverse than…factionalism revolved around ideological content of party… (deeper disagreements?)

Data and Methods Major Party Factions (238) Reps (244) From left to right: Dems (.6%) Progressives (9.9%) Moderates (10.7%) Stalwarts (28.1%) Supply-Siders (14.8%) Populists (25.5%) Hard Right (10.5%) Less ideological polarization than Dems, but more variation across issues domains (concerned about a greater diversity of issues).

Data and Methods Dems: policy and issue-oriented activism most important: 1) Support for party policy 2) Amateur or purist orientation 3) Traditional organizational support 4) Professional style.

Data and Methods Reps: gave more stress to organizational activity and econ policy: 1) Traditional organizational support 2) Support for party policy 3) Amateur or purist orientation 4) Professional style.

Data and Methods Summary: (252) Dems more policy oriented, participatory and interest group-center. Reps more organ focused hierarchical and less group-oriented.