TX

Western Political Science Association University of Utah

The Ideological Characteristics of Party Leaders: A Case of Texas Author(s): John J. S. Moon and Nancy Bowen Saunders Source: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 209-214 Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/448181 Accessed: 17-09-2019 01:58 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/448181?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Western Political Science Association, University of Utah are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

THE IDEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTY

LEADERS: A CASE OF TEXAS

JOHN J. S. MOON and NANCY BOWEN SAUNDERS

University of Texas at Arlington

rT HE PURPOSE of this research note is to examine the ideological character- istics of the Democratic and Republican leaders of Texas.1 In spite of the Democratic party domination in the state since Reconstruction, it is sus-

pected that these party leader groups distinguish themselves, at least in terms of political attitudes and policy preferences. In order to describe such differences, we will compare these party leader groups in terms of ideological context and consen- sus. Further, we will compare them with their counterparts at the national level and in other states.2

IDEOLOGICAL CONTENT

McClosky et al. find the ideological dimensions of Democratic and Republican political strata at the national level to be different,3 and Soule and Clarke report their findings on the counterparts in 1968 generally consistent with the earlier information.4 They ascertain that "the contrast between Democratic and Republi- can delegates remains sharp and unequivocal (gamma = -.61), and that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans."5

Table 1 reveals the differences between Texas Democrats and Republicans in terms of their responses to selected issue-situations. Further distinctions between them are revealed in Table 2. They share differing attitudes in general; and the attitudinal differences become sharper, as they perceive domestic issues.

IDEOLOGICAL CONTENT: COMPARISON

We hypothesize that Texas party leaders may reflect their regional character- istics in their political attitude and that, therefore, there would be differences be- tween Texas groups and their national counterparts. Table 3 summarizes differ- ences speculated. The table shows that both Texas Democratic and Republican leaders are more conservative than national Democrats and Republicans. Further, Table 4 describes the differences between the party leaders in the national groups and the Texas groups. The national and Texas groups are, however, relatively similar in terms of party differences with the exception of two key issues - public employees' right to strike and foreign aid. Unfortunately, we have no way of ex- plaining these points in this study.

This survey is based on a random sample of 360 delegates (180 Democrats and 180 Republi- cans) selected from 345 Texas delegates and alternates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention and to the 1974 Democratic Mid-Term Convention and 254 Texas dele- gates and alternates to the 1972 Republican National Convention and district delegates and alternates to the Republican State Convention. The return rate was 48 percent (Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 54%) with 174 completed questionnaires. Eleven com- pleted questionnaires were discarded, for the respondents identified themselves as Ameri- can Independent party members.

2 Herbert McClosky et al., "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; John W. Soule and James W. Clarke, "Issue Conflict and Consensus: A Comparative Study of Democratic and Republican Delegates to the 1968 National Conventions," Journal of Politics 33 (Feb- ruary 1971): 72-91; Edmond Costantini and Kenneth H. Craik, "Competing Elites Within a Political Party: A Study of Republican Leadership," Western Political Quar- terly 22 (December 1969): 879-903.

' McClosky et al., "Issue Conflict and Consensus," p. 426. 4 Soule and Clarke, "Issue Conflict and Consensus," p. 77. 5 Ibid., pp. 77-79.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

210 Western Political Quarterly

TABLE 1. LIBERAL ORIENTATION OF TEXAS DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS ON SELECTIVE ISSUES

Issue Dem. %* Rep. %* Dif. %t Gamma

1. Public Employee Strike ........................ 43.1 17.5 25.6 -.570 2. Treatment of Criminals ..................... 36.9 8.5 28.4 -.394 3. Eavesdropping ..................................... 48.7 22.9 25.8 -.540 4. Foreign Aid ......................................... 38.5 42.8 -4.3 .091 5. Treatment of Radicals ....................... 46.2 26.8 19.4 -.407 6. Busing ................................................... 24.6 5.1 19.5 -.717 7. No Communist Inspired Wars ............ 24.6 9.2 15.4 -.527 8. Unjust Laws ................................. 12.3 6.1 6.2 -.365

Issuest 1. Public employees should not have the right to strike for higher wages. 2. The best way to deal with people who break the law is to punish them so they fear the

consequences of breaking it again. 3. Law enforcement agencies should be allowed limited eavesdropping by wiretapping and

other devices.

4. The U.S. should give help to foreign countries even if they are not as much against Communism as we are.

5. People who advocate radical changes in our way of life are overprotected by our laws. 6. School children should be bused to achieve racial balance in elementary and secondary

schools.

7. Communism today has changed greatly and we must recognize that most wars and revo- lutions are not Communist inspired.

8. One has a moral responsibility to disobey laws he believes are unjust.

* Percentage of liberal response. t Democrat % - Republican % = Difference % t These issue items are from the Soule and Clarke study.

TABLE 2. TEXAS POLITICAL LEADERS AND IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

DOMESTIC DIMENSION* FOREIGN DIMENSIONt PARTISAN PARTISAN

Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

Conservative ......................... 57% 83% 50% 65% M oderate ............................... 7 2 19 9 Liberal .................................. 36 15 31 26

100% 100% 100% 100% (N=65) (N= 98) (N=65) (N=98)

Gamma = -.533 Gamma = -.213

p<.01 p>.01

* Composed of items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 in Table 1. t Composed of items 4 and 7 in Table 1.

TABLE 3. COMPARISONS OF LIBERAL ORIENTATIONS BETWEEN NATIONAL AND TEXAS PARTISANS ON SELECTED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS

Issues National* Texas Dif.t National* Texas Dif/.

1. Public Employee Strike .............. 69.0% 43.1% 25.9% 28.0% 17.5% 11.5% 2. Treatment of Criminals ............. 49.0 36.9 12.1 18.0 8.5 9.5 3. Eavesdropping .......................... 50.0 48.7 1.3 21.0 22.9 -1.9 4. Foreign Aid ................................. 79.0 38.5 40.5 52.0 42.8 9.2 5. Treatment of Radicals ................ 63.0 46.2 16.8 39.0 26.8 12.2 6. Busing ........................ ... 33.0 24.6 8.4 10.0 5.1 4.9 7. No Communist Inspired Wars .... 38.0 24.6 13.4 17.0 9.2 7.8 8. Unjust Laws ................................ 17.0 12.3 4.7 4.0 6.1 -2.1

* National Group Data from the Soule and Clarke study. t National % - Texas % = Difference %.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Ideological Characteristics of Party Leaders 211

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES AND LEVELS OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NATIONAL AND TEXAS POLITICAL LEADERS' RESPONSES TO SELECTED ISSUES

GROUP Issues National* Texas

1. Public Employee Strike .................... 41.0% 25.6% 2. Treatment of Criminals .................... 31.0 28.4 3. Eavesdropping .................................. 29.0 25.8 4. Foreign Aid ............................... ..... 270 -4.3 5. Treatment of Radicals .................... 24.0 19.4 6. Busing ................................................ 23.0 19.5 7. No Communist Inspired Wars ........ 21.0 15.4 8. Unjust Laws .............................. 13.0 6.2

* National group data from the Soule and Clarke study.

GAMMA

Difference National* Texas

15.4% 2.6 3.2

31.3 4.6 3.5 5.6 5.8

-.65 -.50 -.52 -.51 -.37 -.50 -.36 -.42

-.57 -.39 -.54 -.09 -.41 -.72 -.53 -.37

Table 5 shows that the ideological distance between national leaders and the difference between Texas party elites are essentially similar, though Texas groups finds themselves to be more conservative as compared with their national counter- parts. In addition, whereas the differences between Texas Democratic and Re- publican leaders are far less distinct on foreign issues (gamma = -.21), on domestic issues, their differences become sharper (gamma=0.53). As the national Demo- cratic and Republican delegates of the McClosky and Soule-Clarke studies indicate, Texas Republicans are more conservative than Texas Democrats, as measured by the liberalism score6 (Democrats, 2.929; Republicans, 2.097).

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND TEXAS PARTY LEADERSHIP ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

DOMESTIC NATIONAL* TEXAS

Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep.

Conservative ........... 21% 58% M oderate .................. 27 31 Liberal ...................... 52 11

100% 100% Gamma = -.68

57% 83% 7 2 36 15

100% 100% Gamma = -.53

FOREIGN POLICY NATIONAL* TEXAS

Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep.

20% 33% 50% 65% 31 32 19 9 49 35 31 26 100% 100% 100% 100% Gamma = -.26 Gamma = -.21

* National group data from the Soule and Clarke study.

Another level of comparison carried out in this study is between Texas and other state political leaders. For this comparison, the California Republican study by Costantini and Craik is used. Texas leaders and their California counterparts are compared on the basis of the liberal support ratio.7 The result of the compari- son is shown in Table 6. Costantini and Craik report that California Republicans proved to be significantly more conservative than the Democratic sample.8 Table 6 reveals that Texas Democrats and Republicans follow a pattern similar to that of the California groups. However, it shows also that both Texas Democrats and Republicans are somewhat more conservative than their California counterparts. While Texas Democrats are generally more conservative than California Democrats, Texas Republicans are more liberal on some issues and more conservative on others than their counterparts in California. On the issues of national health insurance and nationalization of industry, Texas Republicans appear to be more liberal than

e Liberalism score is computed on the basis of the values assigned to differing degrees of re- sponses to the items as follows: Strongly disagree - 1; Disagree - 2; No opinion - 3; Agree- 4; and Strongly agree - 5. The greater the score, the more conservative.

7The support ratio is computed on the basis of the values assigned to differing degrees of responses to the issue items as follows: Strongly disagree--.000; Disagree-.333; Agree- .667; and Strongly agree- 1.000. The greater the value, the more supportive of liberal programs. See Costantini and Craik, "Competing Elite," p. 882.

8 Costantini and Craik, "Competing Elite," p. 882.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

212 Western Political Quarterly

California Republicans; and on the recognition-of-Communist-China issue, Texas Republicans are substantially more liberal.

TABLE 6. COMPARISON IN LIBERAL SUPPORT RATIO OF PARTISAN ELITES OF CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS ON SELECTED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS

Issues California Texas California Texas

Progressive Tax ......................... 857 .639 .578 .443 Federal Health Insurance ............ .803 .494 .240 .257 Recognition of China .................... .437 .533 .135 .459 Nationalization of Industry .......... .190 .274 .028 .082 War on Poverty ........................... .867 .467 .211 .159 Aid to Education ......................... .947 .672 .574 .383 Pro Union ......................... ......722 .539 .323 .126

Mean ............................ .689 .516 .298 .273 Group Homogeneity ...................... .214 .090 .166 .133

With regard to the interparty ideological distance, the California groups are farther apart than the Texas party leaders though the distance difference is minus- cule (California, .391; Texas, .383).

Of the four groups, the most liberal are the California Democrats and the least liberal are the Texas Republicans.

IDEOLOGICAL CONSENSUS

For the test of intraparty ideological consensus, the standard deviation mea- sure was used. The S.D.s for Texas Democrats and Republicans on all issues are 1.429 and 1.084, respectively. They indicate then that the Republican leaders are more homogeneous than the Democrats, though the S.D. difference between them is small. As shown in Table 7, however, consensus within the groups is greater on some issues than on others. The table also shows that Texas Democratic leaders' views are more varied on all issues than are those of the Republicans. While the Democrats seem to agree among themselves most on the unjust law issue, the Re- publicans achieve greater consensus on such issues as nationalization of basic in- dustry, public ownership of resources, war on poverty, treatment of criminals, Communists, busing, unions, and unjust law.

IDEOLOGICAL CONSENSUS: COMPARISON

The findings on ideological consensus of this study are basically consistent with the studies of McClosky et al.9 and Soule and Clarke,10 although in general the degree of homogeneity among Texas groups seems greater. Like their national counterparts, in terms of their issue-orientation, Texas Democrats are, though frag- mented, more liberal than Texas Republicans.

However, if Texas and California party leaders are compared on a limited number of issues as listed in Table 6 (the Costantini-Craik study items), California party leaders emerge as less homogeneous than Texas partisans. (See the homo- geneity score11 in Table 6.) Of the four groups, Texas Democrats seem to achieve

9 McClosky et al., "Issue Conflict and Consensus," pp. 424-25. 10 Soule and Clarke, "Issue Conflict and Consensus," pp. 78-81. The group homogeneity score based on liberal support ratio is computed by the following

formula:

Group Homogeneity = x,

xi: Liberal Support Ratio X: The Mean of Liberal Support Ratios of a Group N: Number of Issues

The less the computed value, the more homogeneous the group.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Ideological Characteristics of Party Leaders 213

TABLE 7. INTRA-PARTY CONSENSUS AMONG TEXAS POLITICAL

LEADERS ON SELECTED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS

Issues* t SD ft SD

1. Public Employees Strike .......................... 2.769 1.508 1.959 1.330 2. Treatment of Criminals .......................... 2.692 1.550 1.642 .910

3. Eavesdropping ........................ ......... 3.282 1.568 2.406 1.245 4. Foreign Aid ............................................. 2.800 1.265 2.827 1.193 5. Treatment of Radicals .......................... 3.123 1.463 2.433 1.241

6. Busing ......... ............................... .... 2.231 1.444 1.449 .910 7. No Communist Inspired Wars ................ 2.323 1.288 1.806 .938 8. Unjust Laws ...................................... 1.969 1.060 1.602 .870 9. Public Ownership of Resources ............. 2.969 1.532 1.722 .944 10. Regulated Economy ................................ 3.185 1.457 2.053 1.105 11. Public W elfare ....................................... 3.385 1.307 2.333 1.043

12. Progressive Taxation .............................. 3.603 1.386 2.779 1.248 13. International Organizations ................... 3.613 1.219 3.156 1.136 14. Federal Health Insurance ...................... 2.862 1.704 1.990 1.188

15. Recognition of China ............................. 3.092 1.455 2.776 1.336 16. Nationalization of Basic Industry .......... 2.046 1.351 1.265 .726 17. W ar on Poverty ..................................... 2.800 1.632 1.612 .881 18. Aid to Education .................................... 3.778 1.313 2.553 1.292 19. Pro-Union ............. ................................. 3.111 1.647 1.474 .991

M ean ....................................................... 2.929 1.429 2.097 1.080

* Issue items 1-8 are from the Soule and Clarke study, issue items 9-13 are from the McClosky et al. study and issue items 14-19 are from the Costantini and Craik study.

t Mean of liberalism scores.

most consensus; California Democrats, least consensus. Further, it is noted in Table 6 that the Republicans of both California and Texas are more like-minded than the Democrats of the two states (the liberal support ratio differences for the Demo- crats, .173; for the Republicans, .025). These patterns are deviant from the earlier findings in this study. Such variations of intraparty ideological congruence may be explained in terms of the particular function of the issue-situations used for the test in the politics of the two states.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research note has been to describe the ideological charac- teristics of Texas political party leaders and to compare them with those of national and other state counterparts. It has been shown that ideological content differences exist between Texas Democratic and Republican leaders. The ideological concepts of these leaders are all in directions suggested by the McClosky et al., Soule and Clarke, and Costantini and Craik studies. However, as a whole, Texas party leaders are more conservative than the national party delegates. The comparison between Texas and California groups has produced the same results.

With regard to the ideological consensus of the groups, Texas Republicans appear to be more homogeneous than Texas Democrats. Though both Democrats and Republicans display varying degrees of intraparty congruence on different policy issues, the groups' consensus patterns are substantially similar to their national counterparts. Comparisons between the California parties and Texas party "gladiators" with reference to ideological congruence reveal diverse relation- ships, at least on the basis of their responses to the selected policy issues.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

214 Western Political Quarterly

These findings suggest that Texas Democratic and Republican leaders are two distinct ideological groups. So divided, they can constitute the central element of a viable two-party system in Texas.

Finally, the disparity between Texas party elites and the national party dele- gates as well as the difference between Texas party leaders and California partisan influentials have definite implications for national and regional bases of the political and ideological groupings. The findings of this study suggest regional political and ideological variations in America. Such developments of ideological dimensions among party leaders deserve further attention.

This content downloaded from 34.237.109.119 on Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:58:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms