Controlling the Mischief of Faction: Party Support and Coalition Building Among Party Activists.”

1. Controlling the Mischief of Faction: Party Support and Coalition Building Among Party Activists.” Green, John C and James L. Guth. 1994.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

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

7. 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

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

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. 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).

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

16. 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?)

17. 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).

18. 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.

19. 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.

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