The relationship between political parties and citizens' groups in the United States contains elements of both competition and cooperation. Citizens' groups have the potential to compete with parties for individuals' loyalty, time, and money; for influence on the media's agenda; and for candidates' attention. In fact, voter attachment to the major parties began to decline just at the time that the number of citizens' groups was increasing, during the 1960s and 1970s. But other aspects of the parties either held their own or strengthened during this time. During the Reagan era, the increasingly ideological tone of national politics polarized both groups and parties and stimulated greater efforts at collaboration between them. Substantial conflict between groups and party leaders remains in the presidential nominating process, however, as can be seen in a case study of the 1992 Republican platform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Jack L. Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), p. 20.
2.
2. Ibid., pp. 21-23.
3.
3. Frank J. Sorauf, “PACs and Parties in American Politics,” in Interest Group Politics, 3d ed., ed. A. Cigler and B. Loomis (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1991), p. 220.
4.
4. Kay Lehman Schlozman and John T. Tierney, Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: HarperCollins, 1986), p. 201.
5.
5. Mark P. Petracca, “The Rediscovery of Interest Group Politics,” in The Politics of Interests, ed. M. Petracca (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1992), pp. 26-27.
6.
6. Joseph A. Schlesinger, “The New American Political Party,”American Political Science Review, 79:1156 (Dec. 1985).
7.
7. Jeffrey M. Berry, “Public Interest vs. Party System,”Society, 17:44 (May-June 1980).
8.
8. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups, pp. 23-26.
9.
9. Sorauf, “PACs and Parties.”
10.
10. Paul Allen Beck and Frank J. Sorauf, Party Politics in America, 7th ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 389-391.
11.
11. Cornelius P. Cotteret al., Party Organizations in American Politics (New York: Praeger, 1984).
12.
12. James W. Ceaser, “Political Parties—Declining, Stabilizing, or Resurging?” in The New American Political System, 2d version, ed. A. King (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1990).
13.
13. Russell J. Dalton, Citizen Politics in Western Democracies (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1988), p. 191.
14.
14. Ibid., p. 148.
15.
See also Jeffrey M. Berry, “Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America,” in this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
16.
16. Berry, “Public Interest,” p. 43.
17.
17. Robert H. Salisbury, “The Paradox of Interest Groups in Washington—More Groups, Less Clout,” in New American Political System, ed. King, p. 216.
18.
18. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups, p. 22.
19.
19. Sorauf, “PACs and Parties,” p. 219.
20.
20. Russell J. Daltonet al., “The Challenge of New Movements,” in Challenging the Political Order, ed. R. Dalton and M. Kuechler (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 14-15.
21.
21. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups, pp. 10, 150.
22.
22. Clyde Wilcox, “Political Action Committees and Abortion: A Longitudinal Analysis,”Women & Politics, 9(1):3 (1988).
23.
23. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups, p. 14.
24.
24. Ibid., p. 22.
25.
25. Byron E. Shafer, Bifurcated Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 108.
26.
26. Ibid., p. 115.
27.
27. Salisbury, “Paradox of Interest Groups,” pp. 222-223.
28.
28. Shafer, Bifurcated Politics, p. 136.
29.
29. Jo Freeman, “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties,”Political Science Quarterly, 101(3):328-332 (1985-86).
30.
30. Jo Freeman, “Women at the 1988 Democratic Convention,”PS, 21(3):875 (Fall 1988).
31.
31. Joyce Gelb, “Feminism and Political Action,” in Challenging the Political Order, ed. Dalton and Kuechler, p. 145.
32.
32. Ibid.
33.
33. Freeman, “Women at the 1988 Democratic Convention,” pp. 875-877.
34.
34. Schlozman and Tierney, Organized Interests, p. 209.
35.
35. Elizabeth Adell Cooket al., “The Electoral Politics of Abortion” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1991), pp. 7-9.
36.
36. Joan Biskupic, “The Pressure's On,”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 13 Apr. 1991, p. 917.
37.
37. Fred Barnes, “Pregnant Silence,”New Republic, 19-26 Aug. 1991, p. 12.
38.
38. Beth Donovan, “AuCoin's Challenge of Packwood Divides Rights Activists,”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 15 June 1991, p. 1609.
39.
39. Jeffrey M. Berry, The Interest Group Society, 2d ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1989), p. 231.
40.
40. Hugh Heclo, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment,” in The New American Political System, ed. A. King (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), pp. 116-117.
41.
41. Berry, “Public Interest,” p. 43.
42.
42. Salisbury, “Paradox of Interest Groups,” p. 213.
43.
43. Sorauf, “PACs and Parties,” pp. 235-236.
44.
44. See Mark A. Peterson, “Interest Mobilization and the Presidency,” in Politics of Interests, ed. Petracca, p. 240.
