Political Parties Political Science (POS) 6453
Dr. Daniel A. Smith Fall 2008, Mon, 8:30-11:00am
Office: 003 Anderson Hall 216 Anderson Hall
Office Hours: MW 12:45-2:45pm (and by appointment)
Phone: 352.273.2346
Email: dasmith@polisci.ufl.edu
Home Page: www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/
Course Objectives:
The declining health of political parties in America has been routinely overstated by political scientists, journalists, and practitioners alike. Unfazed by the apparent societal decline in partisanship, increased regulations on their fundraising tactics, and entreaties for bipartisanship policymaking, the party, contrary to David Broder’s pronouncement in 1971, is not yet over. Parties have proven to be amazingly resilient, able to adapt to the changing times and political conditions. In turn, the study of political parties is once again in vogue amongst political scientists. Showing renewed interest, scholars are drawing on a host to theoretical and methodological approaches to generate new questions about the representativeness of parties, their ability to include and mobilize citizens, their place in governmental policymaking and legitimacy, and their relationship to state capacity and development. While E.E. Schattschneider’s claim—that “political parties created democracy and that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties”—is perhaps a truism, political parties have shown themselves to be central to the democratization of American political institutions and practices.
This graduate seminar is intended to provide students with a scholarly overview of American political parties. Over the course of the semester, we will probe the origins, conceptions, dynamics, importance, relevance, strength, and impact of political parties in American politics. We’ll tackle several open-ended theoretical, normative, and empirical questions, including: What are parties and how should we define them? What explains the emergence and development of political parties? Are American parties ideological or functional? Should parties be responsible? What are party systems, realignments, and critical elections, and they useful prisms through which to compartmentalize and explain parties? Why is there a two party duopoly in the U.S.? What is the role of the state in party formation and evolution? Are parties declining or resurging (in terms of party organization, parties in government, and party identification)? What is the relationship between parties and interest groups, and have parties become captured? Is the decline in voter turnout related to a decline of political parities? How do campaign finance reforms affect party organizations, and vice versa? How do parties inform questions of representation and participation? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, do parties matter?
Participation
Your weekly attendance is expected. If you think you may have to miss more than one class during the semester, it is advised that you drop this course immediately. If for some unforeseen reason you are unable to attend class, it is imperative that you contact me ASAP. All students are expected to participate in class discussions, which means not only showing up for class, but being fully prepared to critically discuss the required readings. Participation is worth 10% of your final grade. Do not assume that by merely showing up for class you will earn full participation credit.
Discussion Leader
Each student will be designated to co-lead one class discussion on the readings. This responsibility is worth 10% of your final grade. For the presentation, students must provide a handout in class to fellow students. The handout should provide a brief summary of each assigned reading, including: 1) the research question being addressed; 2) the theories or hypotheses tested; 3) summary of the data used or the logic of the argument; 4) findings. Presentations on the readings should take roughly 30-45 minutes. Open discussion of the readings will follow.
Thought Pieces
Students are required to write four response papers, or what I like to call “thought pieces.” Rather than summarizing, you are to react to the assigned material, critically analyzing the theses, themes, and assumptions of the readings and evaluating the appropriateness of the research designs or methodological techniques. When analytically questioning, comparing, and criticizing the texts, you should relate and interpose the arguments and empirical findings of the readings to other readings or current political events. You should only briefly summarize the arguments of the readings. Each thought piece is to be roughly 800-1000 words. They may be written in the first person. There is no need to provide a reference page unless you cite material not listed in the syllabus. When quoting from or citing the assigned articles, just refer to them by the author’s name, date, and page numbers in the body of the text (e.g., Smith 1998: 45-6).
You will sign up for your four thought pieces during our first session. You must email your thought pieces to me as a Microsoft Word attachment. They are due in my office by noon on Sundays, prior to our Monday morning classes. Turning your assignments in early allows me to consider your thoughts, which in turn, helps to give me an idea of how to structure our discussions. I do not accept late thought pieces. Each essay is worth 10% of your final grade (40% total). I expect students who turn in thought pieces to be especially ready and willing participants during class.
Research Paper
All students will write a substantial research paper for the course, worth 40% of your final grade. You have three options: 1) a 15-20 page original research paper on some aspect of political parties; 2) an in-depth, extended (20-25 page) literature review on a given topic found in the syllabus; or 3) a 20-25 page research proposal/prospectus on your dissertation topic (for those thinking of writing dissertations that touch on political parties). You may co-author your paper with another member of class, and I also might be interested in collaborating with you on one of my ongoing research projects.
A two-page research prospectus is due in class on September 22, 2008. All students should meet with me during office hours prior to that time to discuss their research proposals. The prospectus must state your research question, your tentative argument and hypotheses, and any data and research methods you plan to use. You might also mention any foreseeable limitations to your research. On October 13, students must submit to me a detailed outline of their research paper, a summary of the data being used, and a bibliography of sources used for the theoretical section of the paper. Students will meet individually with me on that day to discuss the progress they have made on their research papers. On December 8, students will present an overview of their research in class (approximately 10 minutes each), followed by suggestions from fellow students and me. The final research paper is due on December 15, at 5pm; I need both a hard copy and an emailed MS Word attachment.
UF Honor Code
All students are expected to abide by the UF Honor Code, which reads, in part: “I affirm that this work in its entirety is mine alone, and that I have received no outside assistance from anyone else, including classmates, other students, or faculty. I understand that plagiarism, seeking or receiving other unauthorized assistance, or any false representations regarding this exam [or other work] are serious offenses punishable under the Student Honor Code.”
Grading
Class Participation 10%
4 Thought Pieces 40% (10% each)
Discussion Leader 10%
Research Paper 40%
Required Texts (available at Goerings Bookstore):
John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Paul Frymer, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
E.E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960).
Raymond La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008).
Marian L. Currinder, Money in the House (Perseus Publishing, 2008).
Additional required readings are available through the library’s course reserves, online, or via JSTOR.
Course Outline
Week 1, August 25
Introduction & Overview of Course: What are Parties and Why Study Them?
Anson Morse, “What is a Party?” Political Science Quarterly 11 (1896): 68-81.
Leon Epstein, “The Scholarly Commitment,” Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989). [chapter 2]
Howard Reiter, “The Study of Political Parties, 1906-2005: The View from the Journals,” American Political Science Review 100 (2006): 613-618.
No Class September 1: Labor Day
Week 3, September 8
What Happened to the Republican Revolution?
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). [Intro, chpts 1 & 6]
Thomas Edsall, Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power (NY: Basic Books, 2006). [chpts 1-2]
Hayes, Danny and Seth McKee, “Toward a One-Party South? American Politics Research 36 (2008): 3-32.
Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas? (NY: Metropolitan Books, 2004). [chpts 1 & 5]
Larry Bartels, “What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?” (2004)
Thomas Frank, “Class Dismissed” (2005)
Week 4, September 15
Why Parties?
Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Anthony Downs, “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy,” Journal of Political Economy 65 (1957): 135-50.
Joseph Schlesinger, “The New American Political Party,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 1152-1169.
Week 5, September 22
In Need of a Realignment? Party Systems, Critical Elections and Realignment Theory
David Mayhew, “Electoral Realignments,” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (2000): 449-474.
Respond to Mayhew’s critique, from the perspective of one of the authors listed below.
John Aldrich, “Political Parties in a Critical Era,” American Politics Quarterly 27 (1999): 9-32.
Larry Bartels, “Electoral Continuity and Change, 1868-1996,” Electoral Studies 17 (1998): 301-26.
Walter Dean Burnham, “Party Systems and the Political Process,” in William Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds., The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (New York: Oxford, 1967).
Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: Norton, 1970). [chapter 7]
Paul Allen Beck, “A Socialization Theory of Partisan Realignment,” in Richard Niemi, ed., The Politics of Future Citizens (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974).
Paul Allen Beck and Kent Jennings, “Political Periods and Political Participation,” American Political Science Review 73 (1979): 737-750.
David Brady, “A Reevaluation of Realignments in American Politics: Evidence from the House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 28-49.
Edward Carmines, John McIver, and James Stimson, “Unrealized Partisanship: A Theory of Dealignment,” Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 376-400.
Edward G. Carmines and Michael Wagner, “Political Issues and Party Alignments: Assessing the Issue Evolution Perspective,” Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006): 67-81.
Clubb, Jerome, William H. Flanigan; Nancy H. Zingale, Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990. [Chapter 1].
Ronald Formisano, “’The Party Period’ Revisited,” Journal of American History 86 (1999): 93-120.
V.O. Key, “A Theory of Critical Elections,” Journal of Politics 17 (1955): 3-18.
V.O. Key, “Secular Realignment and the Party System,” Journal of Politics 21 (1959): 198-210.
Richard McCormick, “The Realignment Synthesis in American History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13 (1982): 85-105.
Richard McCormick, “Walter Dean Burnham and ‘The System of 1896,’” Social Science History 10 (1986): 245-62.
Perter Nardulli, “The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change,” American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 391-99.
Daniel Shea, “The Passing of Realignment and the Advent of the ‘Baseless’ Party System,” American Politics Quarterly 27 (1999): 33-57.
Joel Silbey, “Beyond Realignment and Realignment Theory: American Political Eras, 1789-1989,” in Byron Shafer, ed., The End of Realignment? Interpreting American Electoral Eras (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).
Jeffrey Stonecash and Everita Silina, “The 1896 Realignment: A Reassessment,” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 3-32.
James Sundquist, Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1973). [chapters 1-2]
Week 6, September 29
Electoral Capture
Paul Frymer, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
V.O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf, 1949) [chapter 14].
Week 7, October 6
Should/Can Parties be Responsible?
E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1942). [chpt 3]
APSA Committee on Political Parties, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Report of the Committee on Political Parties” 44 American Political Science Review 44 (1950) Supplement, “Summary of Conclusions and Proposals.”
Austin Ranney, “Toward A More Responsible Two-Party System: A Commentary,” American Political Science Review, 45 (1951): 488-499.
Gerald Pomper, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System? What Again? Journal of Politics 33 (1971): 916-940.
John Green and Paul Herrnson, “Party Development in the Twentieth Century: Laying the Foundations for Responsible Party Government?” (APSA 2000)
Leon D. Epstein, “A Persistent Quest” (APSA 2000)
David B. Magleby, Kelly D. Patterson, and James A. Thurber, “Campaign Consultants and Responsible Party Government” (APSA 2000)
Week 8, October 13
Research Session: Individual & Group Meetings with Prof. Smith about Research Papers & Projects
Party Organization
Sidney Milkis, The President and the Parties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). [chapt 3]
J.P. Monroe, The Political Party Matrix: The Resistance of Organization (Albany: SUNY Press, 2001). [chpts 1 & 2]
Cornelius Cotter and John Bibby, “Institutional Development of Parties and the Thesis of Party Decline,” Political Science Quarterly 95 (1980): 1-27.
John Coleman, “Party Organizational Strength and Public Support for Parties,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 805-824).
Partisan Identification and Macropartisanship
Warren E. Miller, “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics,” The American Political Science Review 85 (1991): 557-568.
Morris P. Fiorina, “Parties and Partisanship: A 40-Year Retrospective,” Political Behavior 24 (2002): 93-115.
Michael MacKuen, Robert Erikson, and James Stimson, “Macropartisanship,” The American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 1125-1142.
Donald Green, Bradley Palmqest, Eric Schickler, Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) [chpts 1-2].
Robert Erikson, Michael Mackuen, and James Stimson, What Moves Macropartisanship? A Response to Green, Palmquist, and Schickler, The American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 901-912.
Week 11, November 3
The Two Party Duopoly
Ron Rappaport and Walter Stone, Three’s a Crowd (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005). [chpts 1 & 2]
Barry Burden, “Minor Parties and Strategic Voting in recent U.S. Elections,” Electoral Studies 24 (2005): 603-18.
Abramson, Paul, et al., “Third-party and independent candidates in American politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot,” Political Science Quarterly 110 (1995): 349-67.
Steven Rosenstone, Roy Behr, and Edward Lazarus, Third Parties in America, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). [chpts 1 & 2]
Joel Rodgers, “Pull the Plug,” Administrative Law Review 52 (2000): 743-768.
Week 12, November 10
Mobilization
E.E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960).
Steven Schier, By Invitation Only: The Rise of Exclusive Politics in the United States (Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2000). [chpts 1 & 6]
Robert Huckfeldt and John Sprague, “Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass,” The American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 70-86.
Peter Wielhouwer, “Releasing the Fetters: Parties and the Mobilization of the African-American Electorate,” The Journal of Politics 62 (2000): 206-222.
Sunshine Hillygus and Todd Shields, The Persuadable Voter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008) [chpt 1]
Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg, Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). [chpt 1]
Week 13, November 17
The Partisan Politics of Campaign Finance
Raymond La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008).
Week 14, November 24
Research Week
Week 15, December 1
Raising Money in Congress
Marian L. Currinder, Money in the House. Perseus Publishing, 2008.
Eric Heberlig, Bruce Larson, Daniel A. Smith, and Kristen Soltis. 2008. “Look Who’s Coming to Dinner: Direct versus Brokered Member Campaign Contributions to the NRCC.” American Politics Review 36 433-450.
Week 16, December 8