IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v54y1960i02p406-427_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers1

Author

Listed:
  • McClosky, Herbert
  • Hoffmann, Paul J.
  • O'Hara, Rosemary

Abstract

American political parties are often regarded as “brokerage” organizations, weak in principle, devoid of ideology, and inclined to differ chiefly over unimportant questions. In contrast to the “ideological” parties of Europe—which supposedly appeal to their followers through sharply defined, coherent, and logically related doctrines—the American parties are thought to fit their convictions to the changing demands of the political contest. According to this view, each set of American party leaders is satisfied to play Tweedledee to the other's Tweedledum.

Suggested Citation

  • McClosky, Herbert & Hoffmann, Paul J. & O'Hara, Rosemary, 1960. "Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(2), pages 406-427, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:54:y:1960:i:02:p:406-427_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540012132X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Byron Shafer & Richard Spady, 2002. "The issue context of modern American politics: semiparametric identification of latent factors from Discrete data," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Moshe Maor, 1995. "Intra-Party Determinants of Coalition Bargaining," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 65-91, January.
    3. Wagner, Aiko & Lehmann, Pola & Regel, Sven & Schultze, Henrike, 2014. "Räumliche Modelle des Repräsentationsgefühls. Vergleichende Analysen mit Fokus auf die Bundestagswahl 2009," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 29-56.
    4. Cees Van Der Eijk, 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 325-341, August.
    5. James M. Snyder, 1994. "Safe Seats, Marginal Seats, And Party Platforms: The Logic Of Platform Differentiation," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 201-213, November.
    6. Malek Abduljaber & Ilker Kalin, 2019. "Globalization and the Transformation of Political Attitude Structures at the Party Level in the Arab World: Insights from the Cases of Egypt and Jordan," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Oluwole Owoye & Matthew Dabros, 2017. "The Analysis of White House Occupant and Political Polarization in the United States," Review of Social Sciences, LAR Center Press, vol. 2(4), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Fiachra Kennedy & Pat Lyons & Peter Fitzgerald, 2006. "Pragmatists, Ideologues and the General Law of Curvilinear Disparity: The Case of the Irish Labour Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 786-805, December.
    9. Alexandra L. Cooper, 2002. "The Effective Length of the Presidential Primary Season," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 71-92, January.
    10. Muhammad Azhar, 2015. "The concept of religious democracy as a new political philosophy for countries with Moslem predominant," Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Yi-Hsing Hsieh, vol. 1(1), pages 19-28.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:54:y:1960:i:02:p:406-427_12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.