‘The Party Isn’t Over: Incentives for Activism in the 1980 Presidential Nominating Campaign Alan Abramowitz; John McGlennon; Ronald Rapoport The Journal of Politics, Vol, 45, No. 4. (Nov., 1983), pp. 1006-1015. Stable URL: bhutp:flinks,jstor-org/sici?sici~0022-38 16%28 1983 11%2945%3A4%3C 1006%3 A TPIOIP®3E2.0.CO®IB2-3 ‘Tae Journal of Politics is curcently published by Souther Political Science Association, ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htp:sseww jstor org/aboutiterms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you hhave obtained prior permission, you may aot download an entie issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and ‘you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use Please contact the publisher eegarding aay Fuster ue ofthis work, Publisher contact information ray he abained at fp jstoronpournalspsahi Each copy of any part ofa JSTOR transenission must contain the same copyright tice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ot scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppom@jstor org. hup:thrww itor orgy Fri Mar 3 08:40:25 2006The Party Isn’t Over: Incentives for Activism in the 1980 Presidential Nominating Campaign Alan Abramowitz State University of New York at Stony Brook John McGlennon College of William and Mary Ronald Rapoport ‘College of William and Mary Based an evidence from a survey of 17,628 delegates attending twenty-two state purty co ventions in connection with the 1950 presidental nominating campalgn, this artile argues ‘thatthe fears expressed by Kirkpatrick and other scholars concern the dangers tothe par ties from the growing involvement of iae-orlented activi have been exaggerated. While ‘ur evidence does support the conclusions of earlier stlesregatding the importance of pure posive: matvations among contemporary party activists, we also find strong party at ‘achments among thse activists. Candicte and sae orientation were not at odds with par tisancipy indeed, they were pestvely elatod. Finally, we show that party loyalty played ‘an important tole in determining the outcome of the Democratie nominating campaign among thee ati by dampening the influence of ideology an candidate preference. May statist rent yours have pointed toa shift in the types of in- centives that motivate individuals to participate in party polities in the United States. ‘There is a broad consensus among students of American political parties that material rewards and party loyalty have been declin- ing in importance as incentives for activism while candidates and issues have become increasingly important as motivations for participation in “The reearch on which this article is based was partially supported by the Natlonal Science Foundatin, We are grateful to our eoleagues in the leven-state study for their partzipation inthe data collection.INCENTIVES FOR ACTIVISM (N THE 1980 CAMPAIGN 1007 party affaits. Moreover, this shift in the nature of the incentives for ac- tivism is generally seen as having negative consequences for the vitality of the parties as organizations. The “new breed” of issue-oriented activists has been characterized as an assortment of dogmatic “purists” more con- cerned with advancing their issue concerns within the party than with maintaining the effectiveness of the organization in order to win elections (Wildavsky, 1965; Polsby and Wildavsky, 1980; Kirkpatrick, 1976; 1978) ‘The involvement of issue-oriented activists in party affairs has been particularly evident in the presidential nominating process as a result of reforms which have reduced the ability of elected and party officials to control the selection of delegates to the national conventions (Ranney, 1974; Polsby and Wildavsky, 1980; Marshall, 1981). The proliferation of presidential primaries and the democratization of party caucuses and con- ventions have made it possible for individuals with little or no commit- ment to the organized patty to influence the selection of a candidate and even to become delegates to the national conventions, Kirkpatrick and other neoconservative crities of party reform (e.g., Polsby and Wildavsky, 1980) have used the evidence from the 1972 Democratic convention to generalize about the’ characteristies of a new breed of party activists in the United States, They have argued that 1972 ‘was not an aberration, but the first national convention dominated by the new type of party activist — motivated by issue and candidate concerns and low on party loyalty. According to Kirkpatrick, “Because attach- tment to party is related to many aspects of political behavior, a continued trend away from solidary incentives will probably mean ¢ major and fun damental change in the American political system” (1976, p. 114). Similarly, Polsby and Wildavsky conclude that, “the condition of ‘American political parties has changed greatly over the past twenty years. Today the influence of parties on government is extremely weak as a result of successful efforts to centralize national parties and spread par- ticipation toward candidate activists and away from party regulars” (1980, p. 265). Based on evidence from a survey of 17,628 delegates attending twenty- two state party conventions in connection with the 1980 presidential nominating campaign (see the Appendix for a description of the methodology of the state convention delegate survey), this article will argue that the dangers to the parties from the growing involvement of issue-oriented activists have been exaggerated. Morivartons oF Panty AcTIViSsTs IN 1980 In order to assess the motivations for participation of delegates to state party conventions in 1980, our survey included a series of questions,008 ‘THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 45, 1983, similar to those used in other studies of party activists, asking delegates to sate the importance of various motivations for their decision to. par- Ueipate in the 1980 nominating campaigns. When the responses to these ‘tems were factor analyzed, two distinct factors emerged.? The first fac- tor included four items: carcer advancement; the excitement of pat ticipating in the campaign; the opportunity to meet other people with similar interests; and the visibility of serving as a delegate. While seem- ingly disparate in content, all of these items involve personal benefits received from participation in thecampaign. ‘The second factor included only two items: advaneing issue concerns and working to nominate a par- ticular candidate, These two items clearly correspond to the more imper- sonal or purposive motivations for participation. Finally, two ‘tems ~ party loyalty and civic duty —did not load clearly on either factor, Table 1 presents the delegates’ ratings of the importance of each of the ‘eight motivations included in the survey. As we expected based on other recent studies of party activists, purposive motivations were rated as the ‘most important by delegates in both parties; the overwhelming majority ‘of both Democratic and Republican delegates rated issues and candidates, as “very important” factors in their decision to participate in the 1980 nominating campaigns. What is somewhat more surprising is that party loyalty was rated right behind purposive motivations in importance. In ‘contrast, the personal benefits received from participation in the nominating process were rated much lower in importance by delegates in both parties. We have seen that Democratic and Republican state convention "The introduction to these questions was worded as follows: “We'te interested in your becoming actively invalved jn this year’s presidential campaign. Pleas indicate how iraportant each ofthe following factors was for you." ‘The individual items were: "To support my party"; “To help my own pottical career", “To enjoy the eneftement of the cu ‘palgn", “To meet ather people with serdar interes “To support a particular candidate [ believe in"; “To work for isue I fee very strongly about"; “To enjoy che visbllty of being a delegate"; and “To fulfil my civic responsibilities.” The response categories were: “very (at portant”; “somewhat important “ot very important"; and “oot at all important,” "The principal component analysis produced only two significant factors. After a vverimax rotation war performod the fllowing faetar loadings were obtained Factom 1 Fxcron 2 ey lvaey 296 Exciternent c Mecting people Candidate lasses Viatiiey 287 ost 098 238 68 6 (058 Civ duty 263INCENTIVES Fon ACTIVISM IN THE 1980 CAMPAIGN 1009 Taate 1 Momwvarions oF State Party Convention DELEGATES Denocaars Rewunican Party Layaty cs @ tase 6 a Candidate a Py Career 8 Braman a 8 Mex People 2 2 Vai i 4 ivie Duty 3 3 {sini 7003 rt) Note: Each entry is percentage of delegates rating motivation as “very important. [Minimum i shown is actual umber of eases, Percentage hated an weighted N. delegates rated the importance of party loyalty almost as highly as the im- portance of issue and candidate concerns as @ mativation for thetr involve~ ment in the nominating campaigns. Moreover, there was a positive cor- relation between partisan and purposive motivations in bath parties (+ = .23 for Democratic delegates; r = .13 for Republican delegates) OF the delegates in each party who rated both issue and candidate con- cerns as “very important” motivations for participating, 70 percent also rated party loyalty as a “very important” motivation. ‘There is no evidence among these activists that “the increasing importance of issues ‘was accompanied by the decreasing pull of party” (Kirkpatrick, 1976, p. 116). Like the local party committee members studied by Burrell (1982), ‘most of these state convention delegates were concerned about issues and eandidates and loyal to thelr party. Table 2 shows the relationships between partisan and purposive motivations and a variety of political background characteristics and at- titudes.? There was a strong relationship between strength of party iden- 2 Ralogates wore clasified as high in partisan motivation if they indicated that pasty lay Ally wae a "very important” reason for their bmvolvernent ja the campaign. All thers were Classified as low in partisan motivation. Purposive motivation was measured by combining the candidate and tasue motivation tems. Delegates were clanfled as high fa parposive ‘motivation ifthe indicated that concer with ise and support fora candidate were bath “very Importane” eeasons for thelr participation. Delegates who indicated that only one of these factors was “very important” were cassie as moderate n purposive motivation, aad delegates who indicated that neither factor was “very Important” ware classified as low in ppurpative motivation,1010 ‘THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VoL. 45, 1983 tification and partisan motivation. The prevalence of party motivation among Democratic and Republican activists was a reflection of the fact that the large majority of these activists (72 percent of Democratic delegates and 85 percent of Republican delegates) were strong party iden- tifiers, What is somewhat more surprising is the finding that there was also a fairly strong positive relationship between strength of party iden- tification and purposive motivation. Among these delegates, issue and candidate concerns were not only compatible with party loyalty, they were actually stronger amiong delegates with strong party loyalties, Moreover, purposive motivations were just as prevalent among party and elected officials as among other delegates. “Professionals” were no less concerned about candidates and issues than were “amateurs.” Issue and candidate concerns were positively related to bath length of Involvement in the party and regularity of campaign participation. Far from being the “morning glories” derided by George Washington Plunkite, purposive activists tended to be the most experienced and dedicated party workers. Morrvartons ap CaNpipate PREFERENCE, ‘Thus far we have demonstrated that partisan motivations were an im- portant stimulus to participation among state party convention delegates in 1980 and that strong party loyalties were quite compatible with strong purposive orientations among these delegates. We are also interested in ‘whether these motivations Had any impact on the mast important activity Of these delegates — the selection of a presidential candidate. Kirkpatrick and other scholars have argued that activists with strong purposive orien- In table2, party identification was measured by the following question: “How would you deserbe your own party affiation in national polities?” The response eategories were: "Strong Democrat’; "Democrat, but not toa strong": “Independent, closer to Democrat “Completely Independent"; “Independent, closer to Republicans"; “Republican, but nat £00 strong", and “Strong Republican.” Tdrclogy was measured by the following question: “How would you dascrbe your own politcal philosophy?” The response categories were: “Very liberal’: “Somewhat Uber "Middle of the road"; “Somewhat conservative"; and “Very conservative.” Length of party activity was measured by the following question: “How long have you been active in party polities in (ame of state}?". ‘The response categories were: “Las than 5 years" “Betwoen 5 and 10 years"; "Betwoen 10 and 20 yeas"; and “More than 20 years.” ‘Regularity of part activity was measured by the following question: “How often have you been actively invelved in recent state and national politeal campaigns?” The response centegorics wete: “Active In all" “Active in mast" “Active i afew" and “Active im none.” Party organizational experience end electoral experience were measured by a series of Hers in which delegates were asked to check thelr pat and present political activities Delegates were clasified on the party organizational experience sale according to ther press cent and part party organizations) activities. Likewise, dlogates wore clasified as having loctoral experience if they had ever held any elected national, state, oF loa! offic,INCENTIVES FOR ACTIVISM IN THE 1980 CAMPAIGN tou. Taste 2 Conner ations oF PARTISAN aNp Punrosive. Morrvations wir Poriricat. ATTITunes AND EXPERIENCES Dewocnars Reovanicane (senncone N= 7072) oumeone N= 7548) Pangan Punroaive Pageant Porson Morsanow — Momvaren Morvarcon _ Morvarton. Party Identification 7 at 6 a7 Conservation ~ -.10 uw a ‘Yeats Active in Party 4 16 a2 2 Regulasty of ‘Campaign Invalvement 43 a8 3 18 ‘Organizational Experience 20 oO 4 2 Electoral Experience 28 a Ey a Note. Entries shown are gamma couficients. Minimum N i actual number of cases. (Correlations based cn weighted N” tations will seek to nominate candidates who represent their own issue concerns, regardless of the electoral consequences for the party. However, if party loyalty is an important consideration in the minds of activists, it ‘may temper their enthusiasm for candidates who appeal to their issue concerns but who threaten to undermine the party as an organization. ‘The 1980 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination pro- vides an opportunity to test this hypothesis because it involved a challenge to the renomination of the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, by an in- surgent candidate, Edward Kennedy. Although he had originally cam- paigned for the presidency in 1976 as an outsider without close ties to the ‘Washington establishment or to the leadership of his awn party, in 1980 Jimmy Carter clearly sought to identify himself with the traditions and past leaders of the Democratic Party. Carter appealed to loyal Democrats for suppart as an incumbent whose relatively moderate record ‘and positions offered the party the best hope of retaining the White House. Edward Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1980 was based largely on his outspoken sup- port for liberal positions on national issues. As a result, we would expect Kennedy to have appealed primarily to liberal activists with strong pur-1012 “Tite JOURNAL OF FoLITICS, VOL. 45, 1983 posive orientations. We are interested in whether party loyalty reduced support for Kennedy among these purpdsive liberal activists. Table 3 shows the joint effect of purposive and partisan motivations on, support for the two major candidates among Democratic state convention delegates. Purposive motivation was related to support for Kennedy, as expected. However, party loyalty clearly worked against Kennedy's challenge to the incumbent among these activists. Table 4 shows that the effect of partisanship was greatest among the mest liberal activists in the Democratic Party —those who belonged to Kennedy's natural ideological constituency. Support for Kennedy was thirty percentage points lower among “very liberal” Democrats with strong partisan motivations than ‘among “very liberal” Democrats with weak partisan motivations. Taate 3 (Canppate PReFERENce ny PARTISAN aND Punpostve MoTivaTion Pencentace of Democnats ron KENNEDY Ponvoniva Momvarion Parmsan Moriarton Mex Hee. Low a 8 0 waa) oy = 667) (y= 33) High 4 a ry Ww = 384) ww = 87) (w= 2025) ‘Note: N shown 1s actual number of eases. Percentages based on weighted N Based on Aelegates supporting Kennedy or Cater for Democratie nomination Taste 4 PRRERRENCE FoR Kewxeny ny Innotoce AND Parrisan Morryatton, Democranic DetecaTes ve Sowewnar——— Motinare 70 Pamuan Monaro nous Tiamat Conserve Low 78 2 21 (vasa) a = 97 w= 9a Hi “8 2 16 wey w= 187 ev = 1995) ‘Note: N shown is actual numberof eases. Percentages based on weighted N, Based on elegates supporting ether Kennedy or Carter for Democratic nomination,INCENTIVES FOR ACTIVISM IN THE 1980 CAMPAIGN 1013 Concrusions Party loyalty, as well as issue and candidate concerns, were the most important motivations for participation in the presidential nominating campaign among state party convention delegates in 1980. Personal benefits such as career advancement, social contacts, prestige, and the ex- citement of the campaign were rated as much less important reasons for participation by these delegates. The importance of eandidate and issue concerns to these activists did not undermine their attachment to their party, as some recent studies of party activists would have led us to ex- pect. The large majority of Democratic and Republican delegates in our survey were interested in issues and candidates and in achieving success for their party. ur evidence indicates that party loyalty was an important factor in the outcome of the contest between Jimmy Carter and Edward Kennedy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1980. Kennedy's challenge to the incumbent, based largely on his outspoken support for liberal positions on a wide range of domestic and international issues, ‘might have been expected to appeal strongly to issue-arlented Iberal ac- tivists within the Democratic Party. But most of these liberal activists were alsa mativated by party layalty, which made many of them reluc- tant to repudiate their party's leader even though they preferred the challenger's ideological stance. In general our findings indicate that partisanship is alive and well among presidential party activists. Perhaps these findings reflect condi- tions peculiar to the 1980 Democratic and Republican campaigns or to the states included in our study. But this does not appear very plausible. The contests in both parties in 1980 involved candidates — Edward Kennedy for the Democrats and Ronald Reagan for the Republicans —with strong appeal to issue-oriented activists. While the eleven states which we studied cannot be described as “typical” of the country, they did vary con- siderably in size, regional location, economic development, and partisan orientation. The rather pessimistic view of party activists that is prevalent in the political science literature is based to a large extent on the 1972 Democratic National Convention. This convention has been studied more thoroughly than any other party gathering, As the first presidential ‘campaign following the major reforms adopted by the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the 1968 presidential election, it was believed that the +See Stone and Abeamouits(forthooming) foram analysis ofthe effets of Weology and lectabity on candidate choice arong state party convention delegates in 1980. According to this study, elaetablty had a greater Impact on candidate preference than ieotogeal prox fimiky among these party activists1014 “THR JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 45, 1983 1972 Democratic nominating campaign and convention would establish a pattern for future postreform nominating earmpaigns. Yet in some ways the 1972 contest for the Democratic nomination was extremely tnust Gearge McGovern was an unusually strong “insurgent” candidate who skillfully exploited the new rules and appealed to issue-oriented liberal ac tivists largely on the basis of his dovish stance on the war ia Vietnam. The McGovern delegates at the 1972 Democratic convention tended to be liberal neweomers with relatively weak party ties, In 1976, however, the Democrats chose the relatively moderate Jimmy Carter as their standard bbearet, and in 1980 they rejected a challenge to the incumbent's renomination from the most visible and glamorous spokesman of the party's heral wing, Between 1972 and 1980 there was a substantial is crease in the strength of party loyalties among Democratic National Con- vention delegates (Farah, Jennings, and Miller, 1983). Based on our evidence, party activists do not appear to be dogmatic “purists.” They are motivated by concern with issues and candidates, but they are also motivated by loyalty to their party. In a period of mass-media cam- paigns, single-issve interest groups, and declining party identification in the electorate, the party activists are one of the last remaining bastions of partisanship. As far as these activists are concerned, David Broder was ‘wrong — the party isn’t over. Arpenonx: Tre Stare CoNvENTION Del.eca® SunveY ‘The data analyzed in this study come from a survey of delegates attend- ing party conventions in eleven states between April and June of 1980. These eleven states (Arizona, Colorado, Towa, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia) all used a caucus-convention system (rather than a primary election) to elect their delegates to the 1980 Democratic and Republican presidential nominating conventions. Delegates attending the state conventions were responsible for electing the delegates to the national nominating conven- tions. In each state, a team of political seientists distributed and col- lected self-administered questionnaires at the Democratic and Republican conventions. ‘The questionnaires used in every state were identical except for their covers and a few optional questions dealing with state issues and, political leaders, ‘The number of completed questionnaires returned at each party con- vention varied considerably, depending upon the size of the convention itself as well as the response rate among delegates. A total of 17,628 delegates (8790 Democratic delegates and 8838 Republican delegates) returned questionnaires. Recause of the variation in the number of respondents at each convention, we have weighted respondents to equalize the weight of each state party convention, Therefore, theINCENTIVES FOR ACTIVISM IN THE 1980 CAMPAIGN 1015 results presented in this article represent an average of the eleven states for each party. All of the analyses presented in this article were replicated with the unweighted data. The results were almost identical. Rerenences Borrell Barbara C. (1982). “The Congruence of Purposve Incentives and Party Loyalty of Local Party Offi: Tmplications for Pary Maintenane.”_Papet delivered atthe An- tal Meeting of the Midwest Polite Seionse Association, Mifwaulee, Wisconsin. Farah, Barbara G., M. Kent Jeoningy, and Waren E, Miler (188), “Convention Dee- tes inthe Pot-eforn Era.” In fues I Lenle and Byron E. Shafer (cs), Preider tet Polit, New Verk: St. Martin's Pres. Kicpavisk, Jeane (10), The New Preidentil Ete. Now York: Rusel Saye Founde tien (108), Diomanting the Parties. Washington, D.C. American Enterprie Institute, Marsal, Thomas R. (1961), Presidential Nominations in a Reform Age. New York Praege. Poliby, Neon, and Aaron Wildasky (180). Prendontal Bacon: Strategie of American Elatoral Poti. Neve York: Sertbnes ‘ama, Austin (174), “Changing the Rules of tbe Nominating Game.” th James David Bacher (ed), Choong the President Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Kall ‘Stone, Water j,and Alan [Abramowitz (frtheoming). “Waning May Not be the Ooly “Thing, But Mote Than We Thought Presidential Party Aetivits in 1980." Amerizon PeltialSolance Resin.” Scheduled for publication in Mach, 1984. Widdwsky, Aaroo (065). “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Ports, Policians, and the Two Panty Sytem.” ‘The Review of Poice 27: 388-413.