Party Position Change in American Politics

Abstract

America's two party system is highly stable, but its parties' issue positions are not. Democrats and Republicans have changed sides on many subjects, including trade, civil rights, defense spending, and fiscal policy, and polarized on newer issues like abortion and gun control. Yet party position change remains poorly understood. In this book David Karol views parties as coalitions of groups with intense preferences on particular issues managed by politicians. He explains important variations in party position change: the speed of shifts, the stability of new positions, and the extent to which change occurs via adaptation by incumbents. Karol shows that the key question is whether parties are reacting to changed preferences of coalition components, incorporating new constituencies, or experimenting on 'groupless' issues. He reveals that adaptation by incumbents is a far greater source of change than previously recognized. This study enhances our understanding of parties, interest groups, and representation.

Legislative Responsiveness to Constituency Change

“…9. This is consistent with recent work on political parties that argues that party positions are not fixed over time, but rather change in response to changes in the electoral coalition of the party (Bawn, Cohen, Karol, Masket, Noel, & Zaller, 2012;Karol, 2009). 10.…”

Politics is local: State legislator voting on restrictive voter identification legislation

“…This comports with the expectation that the composition of a legislator's district-the local setting of politics-greatly influences their voting behavior. It is also worth noting that, in alignment with the coalitional bases of support for the major parties (Green et al, 2002;Karol, 2009), among Republican legislators, a higher black district population increases legislators' support for voter ID, whereas among Democratic lawmakers, a higher black district population reduces legislators' likelihood of voting in favor of restrictive voter ID legislation.…”

Partisan Infighting Among House Republicans: Leaders, Factions, and Networks of Interests

“…Although seemingly contradictory, these two views of congressional parties are not incompatible. Both camps contend that the main role of parties is to act as “long coalitions,” quelling policy differences among their members and creating the appearance of a united front (Aldrich ; Karol ). That means a highly coordinated team will have members whose preferences do not align on all major issues, and a factious party will advance legislation that most members support in order to quiet internal policy disputes.…”