Changes in political structure, coalitions, and ideology provide the context in which specific policies and programs are adopted and, once adopted, expanded or trimmed. This article assays a portrait of American politics in the early 1980s and the major trends relevant to welfare choice. It is shown that voters have loosened their ties to parties even while the parties have strengthened their organizational capacities. Although there is little evidence that American voters wish to dismantle the welfare state, the growing strength of the Republican party as a campaign vehicle and the greater party competition among parties in all regions suggest that Republican congressional and senatorial strength will be stronger than in the fifties and sixties. Moreover, trends to expand citizen rights that bear on welfare issues may have been arrested. Issue heterogeneity, the dissolution of older political coalitions, and economic trends suggest that broad welfare state issues will be on the back burner, though there is no evidence that broad-based programs face significant cutbacks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Harold L. Wilensky, The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), pp. 3-7.
2.
2. The political-legislative history of the adoption of welfare state policies in the 1960s is told in James L. Sundquist, Politics and Policy: The Eisenhowever, Kennedy, and Johnson Years (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1968).
3.
William C. Birdsall and John L. Hankins, “The Future of Social Security,” ibid.
4.
4. Public Expenditure Trends, OECD Studies in Resource Allocation, no. 5 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1978).
5.
5. A comprehensive review of many of the issues raised in this section is found in Donald R. Kinder and David O. Sears, “Public Opinion and Political Action,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed., ed. Gardner Lindzey and Eliot Aronson (Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, forthcoming).
6.
6. Paul R. Abramson and John H. Aldrich, “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America,”American Political Science Review, 76: 502-552 (Sept. 1982).
7.
7. Robert R. Alford, Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963).
8.
8. John R. Petrocik, Party Coalitions: Realignments and the Decline of the New Deal Party System (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).
9.
9. Norman H. Nie, Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik, The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 221-223.
10.
10. Lawrence Bobo, “Racial Hegemony: Group Conflict, Prejudice, Ambivalence and the Paradox of American Racial Attitudes” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, forthcoming), chap. 3.
11.
11. Everett Carll Ladd, Jr., and Charles D. Hadley, Transformation of the American Party System: Political Coalitions from the New Deal to the 1970s (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), pp. 332-335.
13. Richard M. Coughlin, Ideology, Public Opinion and Welfare Policy: Attitudes toward Taxing and Spending in Industrialized Societies (Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Spending, 1980).
14.
14. Warren E. Miller, Arthur H. Miller, and Edward J. Schneider, American National Election Studies Data Sourcebook, 1952-78 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 171.
15.
15. James Q. Wilson, “The Economy of Patronage,”Journal of Political Economy69:369-380 (Aug. 1961).
16.
16. James L. Gibsonet al., “Assessing Party Organization Strength,”American Journal of Political Science, 27(2): 193-222 (May 1983).
17.
17. Washington Post, 6 and 7 June 1984.
18.
18. Ladd and Hadley, Transformation of the American Party System.
19.
19. Gary L. Jacobson and Samuel Kernell, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981), p. 97.
20.
20. Sundquist, Politics and Policy, pp. 512-523.
21.
21. Heinz Eulau and Vera McCluggage, “Proliferation and the Institutional Structure of the Congressional Committee System,” in The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern Society; Essays in Honor of Morris Janowitz ed. Gerald Suttles and Mayer N. Zald (Norwood, NJ: ABLEX, forthcoming).
22.
22. John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald, The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization (Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1973).
23.
23. Jack L. Walker, “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,”American Political Science Review, 77:390-406 (June 1983).
24.
24. Ronald J. Troyer and Gerald E. Markle, Cigarettes: The Battle over Smoking (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983).
25.
25. Thomas L. Gais, Mark A. Peterson, and Jack L. Walker, “Interest Groups, Iron Triangles, and Representation Institutions in American National Government,”British Journal of Political Science, 14: 180-182 (Jan. 1984).
26.
26. Philippe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch, Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation, Contemporary Political Sociology, vol. 1 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979).
27.
For a conservative view of the process, see Jeremy Rabkin, “The Judiciary in the Administrative State,”Public Interest, 71: 62-84 (Spring 1983).
28.
28. T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship, and Social Development (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1965), pp. 78-91.
29.
29. This argument follows that of Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969).
30.
30. See Birdsall and Hankins, “Future of Social Security.”
31.
31. See Irwin Garfinkel, “The Role of Child Support Insurance in Antipoverty Policy,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
