Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:24:49.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Path to Polarization: McGovern-Fraser, Counter-Reformers, and the Rise of the Advocacy Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

Adam Hilton
Adam Hilton*
Affiliation:
Mount Holyoke College
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

American politics has been transformed by the emergence of the advocacy party—a form of organization in which extraparty interest groups, advocacy organizations, and social movements substitute for the diminished institutional capacity and popular legitimacy of the formal party apparatus. Many scholars have rightly pointed to the presidential nomination reforms made by the Democratic Party's post-1968 Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission) as a key contributor to polarization by increasing the influence of ideological activists. However, I argue that polarization is not the direct result of the actions of McGovern-Fraser reformers, but rather the outcome of their pitched battle with intraparty opponents of reform, who, while failing to prevent changes to presidential nominations, were ultimately successful in defeating the party-building dimension of the reformers’ project of party reconstruction. The product of their intraparty struggle was a hybrid institutional amalgam that layered new participatory arrangements over a hollow party structure, thus setting the Democratic Party on a path toward the advocacy party and its polarizing politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2019 , pp. 87 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgments: For all their very helpful suggestions, I extend special thanks to Leo Panitch, Gwen Alphonso, Richard Bensel, Marisa Chappell, Dan Galvin, Marjorie Hershey, Rob Mickey, Bruce Miroff, Elizabeth Sanders, Byron Shafer, Stephen Skowronek, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of Studies. Generous support was provided by the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library, Harvard University's Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library, Mount Holyoke's Office of the Dean of Faculty, as well as York University's Faculty of Graduate Studies.

References

1. Schlozman, Daniel, When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Krimmel, Katherine, “The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship,” Studies in American Political Development 31 (2017): 149–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenfeld, Sam, The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018)Google Scholar; Baylor, Christopher, First to the Party: The Group Origins of Party Transformation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018)Google Scholar.

2. Thurber, James A. and Yoshinaka, Antoine, American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Robert Mickey, Steven Levitsky, and Lucan Ahmad Way, “Is America Still Safe for Democracy?” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2017): 20–29.

4. Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties; Baylor, First to the Party.

5. Grossman, Matt and Hopkins, David A., Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. McAdam, Doug and Kloos, Karina, Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Rosenfeld, The Polarizers; Sanders, Elizabeth, “The Meaning, Causes, and Possible Results of the 2016 Presidential Election,” The Forum 15 (2017): 711–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Milkis, Sidney M., Political Parties and Constitutional Government: Remaking American Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 6, 113Google Scholar.

8. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, “Political Development and Contemporary American Politics,” in The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, ed. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Schlozman, Daniel and Rosenfeld, Sam, “Party Blobs and Partisan Visions: Making Sense of Our Hollow Parties,” in The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties, Eighth Edition, ed. Green, John C., Coffey, Daniel, and Cohen, David (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming)Google Scholar. For the perspective that parties are long coalitions of “intense policy demanders,” see Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands, and Nominations in American Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 10 (2012): 571–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Herrnson, Paul S., “National Parties in the Twenty-First Century,” in The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns, ed. Brewer, Mark D. and Maisel, L. Sandy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

11. Julia Azari, “Weak Parties and Strong Partisanship Are a Bad Combination,” Vox, November 3, 2016.

12. See, for instance, Rosenfeld, The Polarizers, 149–58. For earlier recognition of the party building dimension of the reformers’ project, see Crotty, William J., Decision for the Democrats: Reforming the Party Structure (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Crotty, William, Party Reform (New York: Longman, 1983)Google Scholar; Klinkner, Philip A., The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956–1993 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

13. Rosenfeld, The Polarizers. This reform vision went well beyond the boundaries of the Democratic Party and the presidential nomination process. Many of the same reformers (e.g., Donald Fraser, Eugene McCarthy) and reform organizations (e.g., Americans for Democratic Action, Common Cause) inside the party organization were also instrumental in the congressional reforms that would dismantle the seniority system, improve transparency, and generally transform the way Congress worked. See Zelizer, Julian E., On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and Its Consequences, 1948–2000 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

14. For an intriguing account of factions in American party development, see DiSalvo, Daniel, Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868–2010 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Some contemporaneous accounts of the New Politics include Dutton, Frederick, Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971)Google Scholar; Davis, Lanny, The Emerging Democratic Majority: Lessons and Legacies from the New Politics (New York: Stein and Day, 1974)Google Scholar; Harrington, Michael, Toward a Democratic Left: A Radical Program for a New Majority (New York: Macmillan, 1968)Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Stephen, The New Reformers: Forces for Change in American Politics (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975)Google Scholar. For a later reassessment of the McGovern coalition from the turn of the twenty-first century, see Judis, John B. and Teixeira, Ruy, The Emerging Democratic Majority (New York: Scribner, 2002)Google Scholar.

16. Plotke, David, “Party Reform as Failed Democratic Renewal in the United States, 1968–1972,” Studies in American Political Development 10 (1996): 223–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Plotke, David, Building a Democratic Political Order: Reshaping Liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. See in particular the exhaustive accounts in Shafer, Byron E., Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage, 1983)Google Scholar; Crotty, Decision for the Democrats.

18. Shafer's Quiet Revolution is characteristic in this regard, but see also Ranney, Austin, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Jean, The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics (New York: Russell Sage, 1976)Google Scholar; Kirkpatrick, , Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Polsby, Nelson, Consequences of Party Reform (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Ceaser, James W., Presidential Selection: Theory and Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Shefter, Martin, Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 86–94Google Scholar. For notable exceptions to this trend, see Crotty, Decision for the Democrats; Crotty, Party Reform; Klinkner, The Losing Parties.

19. Ahmed, Amel, “Reading History Forward: The Origins of Electoral Systems in European Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies 43 (2010): 1059–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Shafer, Quiet Revolution; Kirkpatrick, The New Presidential Elite; Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties; Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction; Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform; Ceaser, Presidential Selection.

21. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform, 76

22. Shafer, Byron E., “The Pure Partisan Institution: National Party Conventions as Research Sites,” in The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, ed. Maisel, L. Sandy and Berry, Jeffrey M. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010), 264–302Google Scholar.

23. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform, 77.

24. I claim no original insight here. See Wekkin, Gary D., “National-State Relations: The Democrats’ New Federal Structure,” Political Science Quarterly 99 (1984): 45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Epstein, Leon D., Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), 209Google Scholar.

25. James Ceaser grants that one could see the reforms as strengthening the party if one focuses on the assertion of national party authority over its state affiliates. However, he further asserts that “the reformers in the Democratic Party have used this power … to weaken the influence of existing state organizations and have made no effective provision for their replacement either by state organizations of a different sort or by a national organization.” As we will see, proposals for replacement organizations of a different type were indeed provided, but subsequently defeated in the course intraparty struggle. Ceaser, Presidential Selection, 291.

26. For scholarship that does integrate the post-1972 phase of party reform into the analysis, see Crotty, Decision for the Democrats; Klinkner, The Losing Parties; Rosenfeld, The Polarizers.

27. James O'Hara, quoted in Alan L. Otten, “Charter,” Wall Street Journal, June 1, 1972.

28. Rosenfeld, The Polarizers, 142.

29. Plotke, “Party Reform,” 252–53.

30. The Democrat, January 1969, box 174, folder: DNC Meeting, January 14, 1969, Lawrence F. O'Brien Papers, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Boston, MA.

31. Bawn et al., “A Theory of Political Parties; Cohen et al., The Party Decides.”

32. Heersink, Boris, “Politicians, Interest Groups, and the Next Steps in the Study of American Political Parties as Institutions,” The Journal of Politics 80 (2018)Google Scholar, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/699328?journalCode=jop.

33. Herrnson, Paul S., “The Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections,” Journal of Politics, 71 (2009): 1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. McCarty, Nolan and Schickler, Eric, “On the Theory of Parties,” Annual Review of Political Science 21 (2018): 175–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. Milkis, Sidney M., The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 54Google Scholar.

36. Grossman and Hopkins, Asymmetric Politics; Skocpol, Theda and Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism,” Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 681–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Sheingate, Adam D., “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 17 (Fall 2003): 185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Hubert Humphrey, “How About Yesterday?” The Democrat, January 1969, box 174, folder: DNC Meeting, January 14, 1969, O'Brien Papers; O'Brien, quoted in Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 98–99.

39. Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph Institute Press Release, November 10, 1972, box 42, folder: Coalition for a Democratic Majority, 1972, AFL-CIO Records, George Meany Memorial Archives, University of Maryland, Silver Springs, MD.

40. “Come Home, Democrats,” box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, By-Laws, Minutes, Etc., James O'Hara Collection, Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

41. Penn Kemble and Josh Muravchik, “The New Politics and the Democrats,” Commentary, December 1, 1972.

42. CDM Notes, October 1974, box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, October 1973–November 1974, O'Hara Collection.

43. Remer Tyson and Ralph Orr, “Woodcock Frets Over Democrats’ Selection System,” Detroit Free Press, July 27, 1975.

44. O'Brien to DNC Members, Governors, Senators, and Representatives, November 10, 1972, box 241, folder: McGovern/Shriver Campaign, 1972, O'Brien Papers.

45. Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, Mandate for Reform, box 157, folder: Mandate for Reform, George S. McGovern Papers, Seely G. Mudd Library, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

46. Ibid.

47. McGovern to Commission Members, “Proposed Guidelines, ‘Full, Meaningful, and Timely Opportunity to Participate’ in Delegate Selection Process,” September 1969, box 157, folder: Democratic National Committee—Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection 1972, McGovern Papers. For an in-depth analysis of each guideline, see Crotty, Decision for the Democrats, 59–103; Shafer, Quiet Revolution, 133–93.

48. Mandate for Reform: A Report of the Commission for Party Structure and Delegate Selection to the Democratic National Committee, box 157, folder: Mandate for Reform, April 1970, McGovern Papers.

49. As two political scientists concluded a few years after, “compared to the total population, the 1972 convention was in most respects more representative than was the 1968 convention.” Soule, John W. and McGrath, Wilma E., “A Comparative Study of Presidential Nomination Conventions: The Democrats 1968 and 1972,” American Journal of Political Science 19 (1975), 502CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A Harris poll also found that a majority (52–25 percent) of Americans expressed a “highly positive reaction” to the 1972 Convention. Richard Harris, “52% Back Reforms by Dems,” New York Post, August 19, 1972.

50. Mandate for Reform, McGovern Papers.

51. Donald Fraser to Dave, March 27, 1972, box 149.C.14.2F, folder: Miscellaneous Packet II, Donald Fraser Papers, Minnesota History Center, Saint Paul, MN.

52. Commission Staff to Commission Members, “Purpose of Hearings,” April 15, 1969, box 1, folder: Correspondence to Commission Members, Democratic National Committee Records, National Archives, Washington, DC. A full account of the range of opinions and recommendations offered at the regional hearings is, of course, beyond the scope of this article. However, the representativeness of the following account is confirmed by the Commission staff in a document composed midway through the hearing schedule, summarizing its recurrent themes. See Commission Staff Memo to Commission Members, “Task Force Hearing Themes,” May 27, 1969, box 6, folder: Subcommittees: Party Structure, DNC Records, National Archives, Washington, DC.

53. Report of the Grass Roots Participation Subcommittee, August 22, 1969, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: Democratic Party Reform, 1969, Fraser Papers.

54. Commission Staff to Commission Members, “Purpose of Hearings,” DNC Records.

55. Leroy Collins to Party Structure Subcommittee Members, April 4, 1969, box 6, folder: Subcommittees: Party Structure, DNC Records.

56. Testimony of Stephen Jelin, chair of the Citizens’ Caucus of the Franklin Country Democratic Party, box 13, folder: 4A Detroit Hearing, April 26, 1969, DNC Records.

57. Testimony of William Haber, box 13, folder: 4A Detroit Hearing April 26, 1969, DNC Records.

58. Testimony of Joseph Duffey, box 17, folder: Boston Hearing July 10, 1969, DNC Records.

59. Testimony of Katherine Robinson, vice chair of the New Democratic Coalition and member of NDC National Task Force on Party Reform, box 13, folder: 4A Detroit Hearing April 26, 1969, DNC Records (emphasis added).

60. Testimony of Robert Toal, chair of Indiana New Democratic Coalition, box 13, folder: 4A Detroit Hearing April 26, 1969, DNC Records.

61. Robinson, DNC Records (emphasis added).

62. Testimony of Eugene O'Grady, chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, box 13, folder: 4A Detroit Hearing, April 26, 1969, DNC Records.

63. George McGovern, “The Lessons of 1968,” Harper's Magazine, January 1970.

64. American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System (New York: Reinhart, 1950)Google Scholar. This was noted at the time, especially by reform skeptics. See Kirkpatrick, Evron M., “‘Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System’: Political Science, Policy Science, or Pseudo-Science?” American Political Science Review 65 (1971): 965–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction. For the intellectual history of responsible party theory in postwar party reform, see Rosenfeld, The Polarizers.

65. Heersink, Boris, “Party Brands and the Democratic and Republican National Committees, 1952–1976,” Studies in American Political Development 32 (2018): 79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also, Klinkner, The Losing Parties.

66. This idea is reflected in the Minutes for Commission Meeting, April 28, 1972, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: R/C—Charter 1972, Fraser Papers.

67. Donald Fraser to Lawrence O'Brien, March 17, 1971, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, 1971, Fraser Papers; Lawrence O'Brien to James O'Hara, March 24, 1971, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, 1971, Fraser Papers.

68. For analysis of the O'Hara Rules Commission, see Crotty, Decision for the Democrats, 148–221.

69. See the transcript of the November joint meeting in box 149.C.14.2F, folder: Committee Meeting Notebook, Fraser Papers.

70. National Democratic Party Structure, Draft Cover Letter, box 44, folder: Democratic Party, O'Hara Rules Commission, Charter Proposal 2, O'Hara Collection.

71. Charter Proposal, box 44, folder: Democratic Party, O'Hara Rules Commission, Charter Proposal 2, O'Hara Collection.

72. Cronin, Thomas E., “On the American Presidency: A Conversation with James MacGregor Burns,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 16 (1986), 536Google Scholar.

73. Austin Ranney, “The Democratic Party,” in We Reform That We May Preserve: A Proposed Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, box 14, folder: Democratic National Convention, Peter Rosenblatt Papers, Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

74. Transcript of Interview with Donald Fraser, August 9, 1972, box 149.G.11.10F, folder: Draft of Interview with Fraser with Jim and Iric Nathanson, Fraser Papers.

75. Neil Staebler, “Why a Charter,” December 31,1973, box 10, folder: CDM Task Force on the Party Charter (Sanford Commission), Rosenblatt Papers.

76. Draft Party Charter, box 44, folder: Democratic Party, O'Hara Rules Commission, Charter Proposal 1, O'Hara Collection.

77. James O'Hara and Donald Fraser to undisclosed recipients, box 44, folder: Democratic Party, O'Hara Rules Commission, Formation of Commission, Finances, O'Hara Collection.

78. Staebler, “Why a Charter,” Rosenblatt Papers.

79. Charter Proposal, box 44, folder: Democratic Party; O'Hara Rules Commission; Charter Proposal 2, O'Hara Collection.

80. Miroff, Bruce, The Liberals’ Moment: The McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007)Google Scholar.

81. Scammon, Richard M. and Wattenberg, Ben J., The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970), 143Google Scholar.

82. A complete list of CDM members is available at the companion website for Vaïsse's, Justin Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2010)Google Scholar, http://neoconservatism.vaisse.net/doku.php.

83. Josh to Max, Tom, Penn and others, n.d., box 14, folder: Democratic National Convention 1972, Rosenblatt Papers.

84. Penn Kemble, “The Proposals for a New Party Structure: Some Alarming Facts,” n.d., box 14, folder: Democratic National Convention 1972, Rosenblatt Papers.

85. Agenda, November 8, 1972, box 7, folder: Board of Directors—Minutes, Rosenblatt Papers.

86. “Come Home, Democrats,” O'Hara Collection (emphasis in original).

87. Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph Institute press release, 1972, AFL-CIO Records.

88. Ben Wattenberg, quoted in David S. Broder, “New Democratic Coalition Plans Reforming Reforms,” Washington Post, January 7, 1973.

89. Midge Decter, quoted in “Power Struggle,” The New Republic, December 16, 1972.

90. CDM Notes, October 1974, O'Hara Collection.

91. Wattenberg, Ben J., Fighting Words: A Tale of How Liberals Created Neo-Conservatism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2008), 145–46Google Scholar.

92. The New Class argument can also be found in Shafer, Quiet Revolution. For a critical debunking of this view, see Plotke, “Party Reform,” especially 228–29.

93. Kemble and Muravchik, “The New Politics and the Democrats.”

94. See Jean Westwood's written recollection of her involvement in the party reform movement and the NWPC in box 1, folder 8: Founders Notebooks, National Women's Political Caucus Records, Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

95. “Changing Chairmen,” Congressional Quarterly Political Report, December 16, 1972. Strauss was not a reluctant nominee for DNC chair. On his return from the Miami Beach convention, he told his wife, “I'm going to get control of the Democratic Party, throw these bastards out, and put this party back together and elect a president.” Having spent several years trying to revolutionize the party's fundraising apparatus, Strauss reported that he was “angry” and wanted to become chair “to get even” with the McGovernites who were jeopardizing the fruits of his efforts. See McGarr, Kathryn J., The Whole Damn Deal: Robert Strauss and the Art of Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2011), 107Google Scholar.

96. David S. Broder, “Labor Exerting New Muscle in Democratic Party,” Washington Post, September 2, 1973. See also McGarr, The Whole Damn Deal, 115–27.

97. McGovern, quoted in McGarr, The Whole Damn Deal, 112.

98. Westwood, Jean, Madame Chair: The Political Autobiography of an Unintentional Pioneer (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99. Wattenberg, quoted in Broder, “New Democratic Coalition Plans Reforming Reforms.”

100. CDM Press Release, “CDM Calls for Changes in McGovern-Fraser Guidelines,” April 26, 1973, box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Correspondence November 1972–September 1973, O'Hara Collection.

101. All quotes in this paragraph are from Towards Fairness and Unity for ’76: A Review of the McGovern-Fraser Delegate Selection Guidelines, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, 1971, Fraser Papers.

102. All quotes in this paragraph are from Towards Fairness and Unity for ’76.

103. These numbers are reported in CDM Notes, December 1973, box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, By-Laws, Minutes, Etc., O'Hara Collection.

104. Crotty, Party Reform, 64.

105. Crotty, Decision for the Democrats, 230.

106. Democrats All: A Report of the Commission on Delegate Selection and Party Structure, box 27, folder 27, Charter Commission, Mildred Jeffrey Collection, Walter Reuther Library, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

107. Farenthold to McGovern, April 17, 1973, box 281, folder 43: Delegate Selection Project, NWPC Records.

108. Testimony of Eli Segal to Mikulski Commission, box 13, folder: Democratic Charter Commission, 1973, Jeffrey Collection (emphasis added).

109. Davis to Jeffrey, April 5, 1973, box 30, folder 15, Jeffrey Collection.

110. Donald Fraser, Testimony to Mikulski Commission, August 11, 1973, box 13, folder 11: Delegate Selection Committee 1973, Jeffrey Collection.

111. Kemble to Howard Klueter, July 19, 1975, box 41, folder: Delegate Selection/Proportional Representation, Rosenblatt Papers (emphasis in original).

112. Democrats All, Jeffrey Collection.

113. McGarr, The Whole Damn Deal, 162; Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 129–30.

114. DACEO Interim Report, box 196, folder 14: Democratic Advisory Council of Elected Officials, 1974, Leonard Woodcock Collection, Reuther Library.

115. Barkan, quoted in Paul R. Wieck, “Chairman Strauss’ Hot Seat,” The New Republic, April 20, 1974.

116. Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Unity Out of Diversity, box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Papers on Party Charter, O'Hara Collection.

117. Confidential Memo from Penn Kemble to undisclosed recipients, n.d., box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Correspondence, November 1972–September 1973, O'Hara Collection.

118. James P. Sterba, “Democrats Vote to Limit ’74 Meeting,” New York Times, July 23, 1973.

119. David S. Broder, “Mid-Term Agenda Divides Democrats,” Washington Post, July 23, 1974.

120. Sterba, “Democrats Vote to Limit ’74 Meeting.”

121. Patricia Derian to Robert Strauss, August 15, 1973, box 185, folder: (New) Charter Commission 1, October 1973–September 1974, Neil Staebler Collection, Bentley Historical Library.

122. “First Written Rules for the Democrats Won by Reformers,” New York Times, March 18, 1974. See also Carol Casey, “The Democratic National Charter and Mid-Term National Conference: A Background Analysis,” box 149.G.8.6F, folder: Charter Reform Research, Fraser Papers.

123. Al Barkan to George Meany, “Strauss and the DNC,” May 14, 1974, Committee on Political Education Files (unprocessed), AFL-CIO Records.

124. Report on Charter Commission, March 16–17, 1974, box 157, folder: Democratic National Committee; Draft Charter—1974 Convention (1972), McGovern Papers.

125. Ibid.

126. Quoted in Vaïsse, Neoconservatism, 95.

127. Barkan to Shapp, May 29, 1974, box 43, folder: Charter Debate, Rosenblatt Papers.

128. Democratic Governors Conference, “Resolution on the Democratic Charter,” box 16, folder 15: Charter of the Democratic Party 1974, Jeffrey Collection.

129. Democratic Members of Congress to Terry Sanford, July 31, 1974, box 16, folder 15: Charter of the Democratic Party 1974, Jeffrey Collection.

130. Press Release, “CDM Proposes Broad New Charter for Democratic Party,” July 22, 1974, box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Correspondence, November 1972–September 1973, O'Hara Collection.

131. Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Unity Out of Diversity, O'Hara Collection.

132. Press Release, “CDM Proposes Broad New Charter for Democratic Party,” July 22, 1974, O'Hara Collection.

133. Coalition for a Democratic Majority, “Resolution on the Charter,” box 47, folder: Democratic Party, Charter Commission, Drafts and Background Material 2, O'Hara Collection; Josh Muravchik, “The Democrats Divided,” The New Leader, September 16, 1974.

134. Coalition for a Democratic Majority, “An Analysis of the Draft Charter for the Democratic Party,” box 48, folder: Democratic Party, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Correspondence, October 1973–November 1974, O'Hara Collection.

135. David S. Broder, “Rift Ends Charter Session,” Washington Post, August 19, 1974.

136. “Resolution on the Charter,” O'Hara Collection; Ben Wattenberg, quoted in Penn Kemble and Josh Muravchik, “Balancing the Democrats,” The New Leader, January 20, 1975.

137. CDM Notes, October 1974, O'Hara Collection.

138. Robert Strauss to Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, October 14, 1974, box 149.G.8.5B, folder: Party Reform, Fraser Papers.

139. David S. Broder, “Democrats Pass Rules to Slow Controversy,” Washington Post, October 19, 1974.

140. Arthur Krim and John G. Stewart of DACEO to Midterm Delegates, box 43, folder: 1974 Charter Conference, Rosenblatt Papers.

141. Ibid.

142. See the series of letters contained in box 149.G.8.4F, folder: Charter, Fraser Papers.

143. Robert S. Boyd, “Charter Nails Down Reforms But Is Short of Dems’ Goals,” Detroit Free Press, December 9, 1974.

144. Christopher Lydon, “The Democrats and Reform,” New York Times, December 1, 1974.

145. “CDM Begins New Phase,” Political Observer, box 32, folder: Newsletter—Summer 77, Rosenblatt Papers.

146. Ware, Alan, The Breakdown of Democratic Party Organization, 1940–1980 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Mayhew, David R., Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

147. See Rosenfeld, The Polarizers, 129–31.

148. James O'Hara and Donald Fraser to Rules Committee, “Proposed New Charter for the Democratic Party,” n.d., box 44, folder: Democratic Party, O'Hara Rules Commission, Charter Proposal 3, O'Hara Collection; Report of the Grass Roots Participation Subcommittee to the Executive Committee of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, August 22, 1969, box 149.C.12.3B, folder: Democratic Party Reform, 1969, Fraser Papers.

149. Shafer, Byron E., Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Conventions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150. Adam Hilton, “The Democratic Party's Latest Reform Commission Just Met. It's Likely to Slash the Power of Superdelegates,” Washington Post, December 12, 2017; Adam Hilton, “The Twilight of the Superdelegates,” Jacobin, September 13, 2018.

151. Galvin, Daniel J., “Changing Course: Reversing Organizational Trajectory of the Democratic Party from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama,” The Forum 6, no. 2 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1251.

152. Milkis, Sidney M. and York, John Warren, “Barack Obama, Organizing for Action, and Executive-Centered Partisanship,” Studies in American Political Development 31 (2017), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

153. Ibid., 2.

154. Dan Balz, “This Is the Week That the GOP Truly Became the Party of Trump,” Washington Post, February 3, 2018; Jane Mayer, “Trump vs. Koch Is a Custody Battle Over Congress,” The New Yorker, August 1, 2018; Heersink, Boris, “Trump and the Party-in-Organization: Presidential Control of National Party Organizations,” The Journal of Politics 80 (2018): 1474–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155. Strolovich, Dara Z., Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156. Fisher, Dana R., Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), 17–19Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, “Advocates without Members: The Recent Transformation of American Civic Life,” in Civic Engagement in American Democracy, ed. Skocpol, Theda and Fiorina, Morris P. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999), 461–509Google Scholar.