Citation
The influence of county party chairmen upon county party activity

Material Information

Title:
The influence of county party chairmen upon county party activity
Creator:
Lambert, Dwight, 1949-
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Censuses ( jstor )
Conservatism ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Liberalism ( jstor )
Political attitudes ( jstor )
Political campaigns ( jstor )
Political organizations ( jstor )
Political parties ( jstor )
Politicians ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Dwight Edward Lambert. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
23357053 ( ALEPH )
6630657 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON
COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY













By

DWIGHT LAMBERT
























A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1980



































Copyright 1980

by

Dwight Lambert




































For My Parents
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Before finishing this study, I regarded acknowledgments as

necessary but usually gratuitous exercises, prompted more by politeness than by genuine appreciation. Five years and three states later, I have changed my opinion. No one is more conscious of the errors in this work than am I; no one is more aware than I of the errors it has been spared by the advice and help of friends.

First, my thanks to friends in Texas, Charles Hansen and Mary

Fontenot, both of Lamar University, for their long suffering patience in helping me overcome problems presented by the computer. I want also to thank friends at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg: Dr. Evan Krauter of the Department of Psychology for his willingness to listen to me talk about the whole project and for his excellent suggestions; Dr. Michael Dressman of the Department of English for such superb editing it almost succeeds in transforming my social science prose into standard English; Choong Lee of the Political Science Department for his invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript on the computer: a great expenditure of his time and a great saving of mine; and Gretchen Worth, who put it all into final form; her corrections were always better than my own.

From Florida, where it both began and ended, I must thank Dr.

Clubok for his fortitude in refusing to accept what was unacceptable work, probably saving me future embarrassment, if causing me momentary iv









distress. And, thanks to Dr. Conradt for his sense of humor, which helped me keep mine at a time when I most needed it.

I owe a debt also to G.S.B., without the memory of whom the research would never have been completed.

Last, I would like to thank all those who, from pure loving kindness, never asked me how it was going.















































v

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................. . . . . ....... iv

ABSTRACT .... . ............ . . . . . .... . . vi

CHAPTER

ONE THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND
THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY . . . . . . . 1

TWO THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHAIRMEN. .. ............. . . . . 13

THREE THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL
PARTY ACTIVITY . . .... ... ...... .. 30

The Dependent Variables . . . . . . . 31
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Party Activity . . . . . . . . 36
Demographic measures . . . . . . . 36
Population and occupation . . . . . .. 38
Attitudinal measures . . . . . . 41
Impact of the liberal-conservative
distinction . . . . . . . 43
Population and the liberal-conservative
distinction . ................... 49
Population and party activity . . . . . 52
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Frequency of Contacts . . . . . . 54
Demographic measures . . . . . . ... 54
Attitudinal measures . . . . . . . 58

FOUR THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMEN . . . . . 62

FIVE LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE AMATEUR
PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION . . . . . . . . 79

SIX THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES . . . . . . . 99


vi










TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDICES

A County Chairmen Questionnaire . . . . .. 112

B Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 118 C Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 121 D Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact . 124 E Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact . 130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................... ... 136







































vii















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to
the Graduate Council of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY


By


Dwight Lambert

March 1980


Chairman: Dr. David P. Conradt Major Department: Political Science


Despite the position of the county as the major political subdivision of party organization in the United States, little work has been done on the impact of county party leadership upon the activities of the local party organization. This study is based upon a questionnaire administered to Democratic and Republican county chairmen from across the country. Using these data, two models of local party activity are examined.

The first model is developed from earlier research on county party chairmen. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic traits of the county leadership. These traits have been assumed to be significant in explaining the activity of the local party organization. This study examines this hypothesis by looking viii









at two sets of characteristics of the chairmen: first, the demographic characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time served in office; and, second, the attitudinal characteristics of liberalconservative self-placement, attitudes toward the activity of the federal government, the level of government about which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assessment of the most important problem facing the state. Party activity is measured first as election activity, those tasks designed to influence voters, and, second, as the degree of interparty communication between the chairmen and various public and party officials. Little connection is found between the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen and the activities of the local party organization.

The second model examined links the political orientations of the chairmen with local party activity. Orientations are defined according to Wilson's division of party activists into amateur and professional politicians. This division is made on the basis of the degree of the chairman's party loyalty and the degree of commitment to issues. An additional distinction is made between those amateurs who believe politicians should make decisions based upon their own best judgment and those who feel the politician should follow the wishes of the constituency. The results indicate the amateurs are less likely than professionals to engage in campaign activity and less likely to participate in communications on party business with other party and public officials. On the other hand, those amateurs--"majoritarians"--who feel the politician should rely upon the wishes of the constituency in making policy decisions are less likely than both the remaining amateurs and the professionals to engage in campaign activity, but more


ix










likely than the other amateurs to contact the governor, congressmen, and U.S. Senators on party business.

























































x

















CHAPTER ONE


THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY


The county is the major unit of political party organization in the United States. Many congressional and judicial districts are drawn in accordance with county lines, and state statutes frequently give legal sanction to the position of the county party apparatus. For American parties many believe ". . that in most states the major locus of organization vitality, and thus of organizational authority, is the county committee" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 8). This research concentrates on the task performance of county party chairmen, focusing specifically upon the organization and activities of the local party organization. The chairmen will be examined from the perspective of two models of party organization activity. The first model suggests the behavior of the party organization is associated with the demographic and attitudinal structure of county chairmen; the second model relies upon the orientations of the chairmen toward politics. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic characteristics of the chairmen; this research also includes their political attitudes, motivations, and orientations. Such an approach helps to fill a deficiency in the literature of local party organizations.




1







2

Writing on the connection between public opinion and the maintenance of a Democratic political regime, V. 0. Key noted that "repeatedly, as we have sought to explain particular distributions, movements, and qualities of mass opinion, we have had to . make assumptions and estimates about the role and behavior of that stratum of persons referred to variously as the political elite, the political activists, the leadership echelons or the influentials" (1961, p. 536). Key laments the lack of "systemic knowledge" of the composition, social structure, and behavioral patterns of this "thin stratum." Sorauf attributes the lack of knowledge about this level of party leadership to limited data and limited interest (1975); these seem unusual circumstances given the important position of the county in American politics.

The lack of information about the local party organization and Key's suggestions, in particular, have spawned a number of examinations of local party leadership. A large part of the work dealing with the county party has involved examinations of the county chairmen, emphasizing comparisons of their demographic characteristics. Attitudinal and policy differences among the chairmen have been left almost wholly unexplored, rarely involving more than categorization as liberal or conservative. While these studies have sought to determine if the local county party leadership constitutes a layer of the thin stratum of political activists who might differ from the remainder of the population, the studies are predicated on the assumption that the chairmen have an impact upon the activities of their county organization.







3

A review of the research on the county party chairmen makes one fact apparent: there is little consensus among the case studies. Consequently, no ready summary of the previous work is possible. While the variables examined have been consistent--age, education, income, occupation, liberal or conservative--few of the findings coincide. Flinn and Wirt, studying state party chairmen in Ohio, conclude that there is very little difference with regard to age, education, occupation, and income (1965). Patterson's study of Oklahoma chairmen, on the other hand, finds Democratic chairmen older than Republican chairmen, but the Republicans more educated, with higher occupational status and higher incomes (1963). Pomper's study of chairmen in New Jersey reports few differences between Democratic and Republican chairmen in terms of age and income; in terms of occupation, however, Republicans rank above Democrats in status (1965). These differences in demographic characteristics imply the potential for differences in the actions and in the attitudes of the county chairmen.

The premise underlying the study of demographic and attitudinal

traits is that those characteristics influence the local party leadership which, in turn, influences the local party organization. This model may be specified as follows:

leadership

demographic traits
-party activity
political attitudes-The model implies that demographic characteristics of individuals in a party organization are an indicator of different types of party activity. If this is true, one would anticipate differing party activities from organizations directed by individuals who differ in







4

regard to demographic and attitudinal characteristics. The reasoning underpinning this assumption is readily understood. "The function of leadership," Meyer says, is ". . to mediate between environmental uncertainities and organizational structures" (1972, p. 516). The perception of what constitutes an "uncertainity" and an appropriate response for that uncertainty will be conditioned by the nature of the leadership that confronts alterations in the environment. The model implies that knowing the characteristics of the chairmen makes possible a prediction of the activities of the organization. As Key says:


The traits and characteristics of political activists assume
importance in the light of a theory about why the leadership and governing levels in any society behave as they do. That theory amounts to the proposition that these political actors constitute in effect a subculture with its own peculiar set of norms
of behavior, motives, and approved standards. (1961, p. 537) Patterson echoes this assessment, arguing that knowledge regarding demographic composition, political experience, and the self-perceptions of the chairmen is ". . suggestive of the nature and function of party leadership at the county level" (1963, p. 334). Crotty maintains that background characteristics of political leadership ". . shape an individual's perceptions and consequently his interpretation of his role while in office" (1967, p. 670). The implicit connection that has been made in some of the literature on local party personnel between the demographic variables of individuals and the activity of party leadership seems to be an effort to duplicate the connection that has been found between demographic variables and individual political participation (Verba and Nie, 1972). However, there is no reason to assume the traits that correlate with higher levels of participation among individuals--education, age, income, for example--will necessarily









translate into patterns of organizational activity. What is missing is the causal mechanism. For example, the characteristics producing higher levels of political participation can be linked to participation because they equip the individual with skills valuable in political life: higher levels of income and education produce greater resources to finance political activity as well as greater articulateness. There is no mechanism linking an individual's demographic traits and local party activity, no reason to assume a "spill-over" that would associate high levels of personal participation with different types of organizational activity. Age, education, and income may be highly correlated with political involvement on the part of county chairmen, but there is no theoretical reason to maintain these variables will be associated with different local party activities.

There has been no effort to relate, in a systematic and rigorous manner, either the demographic or the attitudinal characteristics of the county chairmen to the activity of the county organizations. While studies of the county chairmen imply that demographic differences among the chairmen may make a difference in the behavior of the county organization, this proposition has never been tested and the answer remains a deficiency in our knowledge of the county organization.

An examination of the connection between the demographic and

attitudinal variables and their influence upon local party activity is one objective of this research. I shall test the proposition that the demographic and attitudinal structures of the county party chairmen can be associated with the activities of the local party organization by correlating measures of county party activity with measures of the demographic and attitudinal attributes of the county chairmen.







6

Obviously, then, it is necessary to examine the demographic and attitudinal traits of the chairmen. This analysis may help to clarify the disjointed findings of earlier case studies as well as lay the groundwork for a systematic examination of the chairmen's demographic and attitudinal characteristics and the impact of those characteristics on party activity.

Examining the connection between the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the county leadership and local party activity is only one side of the problem. It leaves unexplored the potential impact upon the activity of the party organization of the chairmen's orientations toward politics. Earlier studies stop short of any detailed analysis of the political perceptions of the chairmen. This failure is significant, for there is substantial evidence that the county chairmen may also play an important role in shaping the local party's activity through their political values and beliefs. The county chairmen comprise a group for whom politics has a high degree of salience. The chairmen fulfill a role in what Easton calls the "political community": ". . a group of persons bound together by a political division of labor," participating in ". . a common structure and set of processes. .. ." (1965, p. 177).

There is reason to believe both that the role of the county organization in American politics has changed and that the performance of the county party leadership has changed with it. As part of the political milieu, the chairmen are subject to the same forces that influence American politics. Beginning in the 1950s and with increasing momentum in the 1960s, American society, and, as a consequence, American political parties appear to have undergone a profound change. The dimensions









of this transformation are only now apparent. Distinctions between party alignments based upon social and economic class have blurred, modified by new alignments based upon issues and attitudes (Ladd and Hadley, 1975; Sunquist, 1973). This emphasis upon issues and attitudes has produced a change in political leadership, a change amounting in some instances to a schism between "old" and "new" style political activists. This development points directly to the county party chairmen.

In control of the county party organization, the chairmen would be expected to have an impact upon the operation of that organization. The county chairmen may be unwilling to adopt strategies, espouse political philosophies, or advocate governmental solutions to political questions that they feel are in conflict with their own political outlook. As Walter Dean Burnham has observed, "no established political elite is prepared to incorporate demands the effective realization of which is incompatible with its fundamental interests or with the existing rules of the game" (1976, p. 148). Different orientations toward politics may result in different local party activity. From these observations a second model of party activity emerges:

Political orientations a party activity

This model implies that county leadership holding different orientations toward political activity may emphasize different aspects of party activity in the interest of maximizing its own interests. "Leadership incentives and orientation, as well as their stability and change over time, are likely to have considerable impact on the style of politics which prevails at the grassroots level of the party organization" (Gluck, 1972, p. 760). Several examples serve to illustrate







8

this point. In his study of party workers in Detroit, Eldersveld concludes party activists differed both in the type and the salience of their motivations for party activity (1964, p. 225). The consequence, he says, may manifest itself as a change in the orientations of the local party: ". . a consciousness of power as the goal of the party is intimately related to the individual's own ambitions, interests, and drives in political organizational life" (p. 243). Again, increased time in office may alter the motivational incentives of those occupying the office, and, subsequently, influence the party organization. Huckshorne's study of state party chairmen substantiates this view. He finds that with length of time in office ". . changes in performance often take place. Thus, at any given time, the role conception may differ when the actors remain the same" (1976, p. 70). Concomitant with this finding is that ". . the short tenure of party chairmen may be the most serious detriment to building an effective party organization" (Huckshorne, 1976, p. 70). As a result, tenure in office may have an impact upon local party organization and its activities because of the altered orientation even when the activists have held local party office and worked for candidates in their own party. This notable phenomenon is reported by Johnson and Gibson in their study of party activists in Iowa (1974, pp. 72-73).

As these examples indicate, the orientations of the chairmen to politics may have an impact upon the behavior of the individual and, ultimately, the political organization. This phenomenon may be seen most clearly in the increased participation in American politics of persons oriented not toward the traditional rewards of political parties such as patronage, but rather toward issues and policy. While







9

recent studies of American electoral behavior have indicated the emergence of this new figure (DeVries and Tarrance, 1972; Nie et al., 1976), the harbingers of the change among political activists were first described by James Q. Wilson in The Amateur Democrat. Studying the political clubs of New York and California, Wilson drew a distinction between political amateurs and political professionals. The amateur finds politics "intrinsically interesting" because it expresses a conception of the public interest. "The amateur politician sees the political world more in terms of ideas and principles than in terms of persons" (1968, p. 3). The professional politician, on the other hand, is ". . preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of winning or losing; the professional's goal is to keep everybody happy and thus to minimize the chance of electoral defeat" (p. 4).

A number of additional studies have confirmed the existence of this activist group in American politics. In an urban setting, Hirshfield, Swanson, and Blank have drawn attention to the "New Look" among activists in Manhattan. "The contemporary politician," they write, "considers his party organization an instrument for effectuating policy rather than a haven of personal security. He tends to be more interested in social reform than in catering to individual constituents" (1962, p. 505). Salisbury finds the amateur activists in urban areas concerned with policy issues, frowning on unquestioning party loyalty, while the professional emphasizes organization, discipline, rewards, and loyalty (1965). On the periphery of party officials, the amateur syndrome has been observed among campaign workers by Johnson and Gibson. Those workers who "bolted" the party following an unsuccessful primary campaign ". . were more likely to be political







10

amateurs; 80 percent had less than five years of political experience, 75 percent were not strong party identifiers, and nearly all had no previous campaign experience" (1974, p. 76).

The division between amateur and professional has also been observed within party leadership. Wildavsky explains the nomination of Barry Goldwater by the Republican party in 1964 as the product of the efforts of political "purists" (1971, pp. 248-265). A study of the Democratic counterpart of the Goldwater nomination, McGovern's presidential nomination in 1972, finds among the Democrats a similar division between amateurs and professionals in outlook (Sullivan et al., 1976), a conclusion confirmed by Soule and Clarke in their study of delegates to the Democratic conventions of 1968 and 1972 (1975).

The appearance of the amateur-professional syndrome in local party activity has serious implications for the local party. The amateurprofessional model of party organization postulates a portion of the party's activists for whom party electoral success and the rewards of that success are no longer adequate to sustain party activity. Increased emphasis among the amateurs upon policy goals results in decreased emphasis upon the success of the party organization, thus further weakening the organization. This fundamental difference between amateurs and professionals over the party's goals may finally result in disruption of the party organization and hostility between the amateur and professionally oriented politicians. This was apparently the case in the selection of delegates from California to the 1972 Democratic National Convention (Cavala, 1974).

Thus, there is evidence to suggest that political orientations and the view of politics brought by the individual to the post of










county chairman, may have an impact upon the county party organization. In addition, as discussed earlier, much previous research on county chairmen implicitly postulates a connection between the demographic traits of the chairmen and party activity. These are the propositions examined in this study.

The research in the following pages is based upon a national

sample of county party chairmen done by the Institute of Public Administration, Indiana University. The data themselves come from a mail questionnaire sent in 1970 to 2,786 county chairmen across the United States; 1,606 of the chairmen, or 57.6 percent, responded. The return rate among Democrats was 55.6 percent and among Republicans 59.7 percent. The questions asked may be grouped into five broad categories:

(1) campaign activities of the county and precinct party organizations,

(2) organization of the county party, (3) the chairmen's opinions on a variety of policy and government oriented issue areas at both the state and national level, (4) the chairmen's perceptions of the job of county chairman, and (5) demographic information on the chairmen. A copy of the questionnaire may be found in Appendix A. This study makes possible an exploration of the stratum of county party chairmen at the national level and the county organizations they lead. In addition, it allows for the analysis of the attitudes and political outlook of the chairmen, missing from earlier studies.

The balance of this research will examine local party organization in the United States in light of the models described earlier: (1) that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen are associated with party activity; and (2) that the personnel orientations of the chairmen toward political activity are related to differences in







12

their party activity. In short, I will look at the leadership of the local party organization to assess its impact upon the activities and organization of the local party.

In the remainder of this analysis, Chapter Two defines the demographic and attitudinal independent variables to be used in Chapter Three. Chapter Three first formulates the dependent variables of party activity to be used throughout the analysis, and, second, compares the demographic and attitudinal variables with the measures of party activity. Chapter Four begins the discussion of the political orientations of the chairmen by defining in operational terms the amateur-professional dimension; then the amateurs and professionals among the chairmen are compared in demographic and attitudinal makeup. Chapter Five builds upon Four by examining the relationship between the amateurs and professionals and the measures of party activity.


















CHAPTER TWO


THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHAIRMEN


Despite the emphasis analysts give to the importance of the county organization in American politics, little empirical work has been done on county party chairmen. The work that has been done is confined to studies of one or two states and the studies themselves limited to the analysis of socio-economic differences, only occasionally and only peripherally touching upon differences in the attitudes or the activities of the chairmen. This analysis is based upon a sample comprising all fifty states; the sample includes information on the social characteristics of the chairmen as well as their attitudes on a variety of policy positions. With these data it is possible to arrive, first, at a national profile of county chairmen, and, second, to explore their political attitudes and values. This chapter is divided into two sections: first, an examination of the demographic characteristics of the chairmen, and second, a comparison of the chairmen in terms of their political attitudes.

I will compare the chairmen in terms of the demographic variables of education, age, and occupation; in addition, length of time in the office of county chairman is considered. These variables have been selected to be consistent with earlier studies of county party chairmen. These characteristics are important in the context of political 13







14

life. As Bowman and Boynton say, ". .. background characteristics produce the competence to operate easily in the world of politics as well as a set of attitudes which dispose the individual to take an active part in the political world" (1966, p. 670). Only those with adequate resources, information, understanding, and sufficient political skills are able to fully participate in political life (Sorauf, 1976). Verba and Nie, for example, have demonstrated that political activity for the general population gradually increases throughout the life cycle, with only a "relatively minor decline" for those over age 65 after socio-economic status (education and income) and length of residence in the community have been statistically controlled (1972, p. 148). Key has argued that education contributes to a sense of political obligation and develops a "lively awareness" of the relevance of political activity (1961, p. 325). Additionally, Campbell has noted a high degree of association between education, political participation, and a sense of political efficacy, on one hand, and awareness of issues, on the other (Campbell et al., 1964).

The data presented in Table 2-1 indicate the demographic status of the chairmen. Regarding education, 48 percent of the Democratic and 53 percent of the Republican chairmen have a college education or better. The figures indicate Republican chairmen are slightly better educated than their Democratic counterparts--9 percent more Republicans have at least a college degree. These findings are inconsistent with the findings of other studies of county chairmen done at the state level. For North Carolina, Crotty reports that Democratic educational attainments are greater than those of Republicans, particularly at the post-graduate level, where 40 percent of the Democratic








15

Table 2-1

Demographic Variables by Party (in percents)

Party
Education Democrat Republican
none--some high school 6.3 3.9 high school 17.1 11.2 some college 28.2 27.2
college and post-grad. 48.4 57.7 = 2093a

N = 766 823 df = 3

Age
22 to 35 11.8 13.7 36 to 50 45.8 50.5 51 to 65 32.8 27.9
66 to 86 9.7 8.0 = 7.34
X2 = 7.34
N = 756 804 df = 3

Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers 46.0 39.9
Managers, officials 38.9 43.2
Farmers, farm workers 15.2 17.0 2
X = 4.94
N = 633 672 df = 2

Time in Office
2 years or less 37.8 45.5 3 or 4 years 26.6 23.2
5 years or more 35.6 31.3 = 9 b X2 = 9.35b

N = 756 805 df = 2



asignificant at .001 significant at .01








16

chairmen have post-graduate experience but only 13 percent of the Republican chairmen have had the same experience (1967). Similar findings are reported by Patterson for Oklahoma chairmen: more Democrats than Republicans have college degrees or better; Conway and Feigert reach similar conclusions for precinct committeemen in Illinois and Maryland (Patterson, 1963; Conway and Feigert, 1968). Nevertheless, the figures point toward high educational levels for the chairmen of both parties.

Age is significant in calculations of political participation. As Campbell has pointed out, the various changes in life style and activity brought by changes in age mean that certain age groups will have more interest and time to devote toward political activity; in addition increased age appears associated not only with increased party identification, but also with increased political awareness (Campbell et al., 1964). This conclusion is reached by Verba and Nie who find that participation, after controlling for social status and length of residence in the community, increases throughout the life cycle, with only a small downward trend among those sixty-five years of age or older. They conclude, "the longer one is exposed to politics, the more likely one is to participate" (1972, p. 148).

In their study of state party chairmen, Wiggins and Turk find 99.4 percent of the Republican state chairmen and 77.7 percent of the Democratic state chairmen over the age of forty with the highest percentage of chairmen between ages forty and forty-nine (1970). An analysis of Indiana chairmen in 1972 found 18 percent of the Democratic chairmen and 36 percent of the Republican chairmen below the age of







17

thirty-five; 19 percent of the Democrats and 29 percent of the Republicans were between ages fifty-six and sixty-five (Yeric, 1973).

As Table 2-1 indicates, for the national sample of chairmen,

Republicans tend to be slightly younger than Democrats, an average age of forty-eight and forty-nine years old, respectively. For both parties, most chairmen are between ages thirty-six and fifty: 46 percent of the Democrats and 51 percent of the Republicans. An additional 33 percent of the Democrats and 28 percent of the Republicans are found between ages fifty-one and sixty-five. Participation in the role of county chairman declines rapidly after age sixty-five. Between ages sixty-five and eighty-six are found only 10 percent of the Democrats and 8 percent of the Republicans. Differences between the parties in respect to age are minimal; the chairmen of both parties tend to be middle and slightly above middle age.

Because of the wide range of occupations held by the county chairmen, only those occupational classifications that comprise 10 percent or more of the whole sample (i.e., 160 chairmen or more) were included. These classifications are those of (1) professional, technical, and kindred workers, (2) managers, officials, and proprietors, and (3) farmers and farm managers. These categories comprise 81 percent of the whole sample (1,305 cases). The differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen are not statistically significant. The largest differences are found between Democratic and Republican chairman in professional occupations; 6 percent more Democrats than Republicans are found in that classification. Overall, the differences between the chairmen are small.







18

Finally, the tenure of the chairmen in office seems brief. Almost 46 percent of the Democratic chairmen report they have been in office two years or less. At the other extreme, nearly 36 percent of the Democratic chairmen and slightly more than 31 percent of the Republican chairmen have been in office five years or more. While, in both parties, there is a tendency for the numbers of chairmen to cluster at the extremes (two years or less, five years or more), the figures indicate that Democrats are slightly more likely to have served in office longer than Republicans.

Southern chairmen* show few differences when compared with chairmen from other areas of the country, as shown in Table 2-2. Six and one-tenth percent more Southern Chairmen than non-Southern chairmen have a college education or better; educational differences at other levels are even smaller. For age, differences are not statistically significant.

Occupational differences are also small. Among non-Southern chairmen, 42 percent are found in professional occupations, compared to 45 percent among the Southern chairmen. Four percent more Southern chairmen are in managerial positions than are non-Southern chairmen. The largest percentage difference between non-Southern and Southern chairmen is found in the classification of farmers and farm workers, 18 percent among the non-Southerners and 11 percent among the Southern chairmen. Occupational differences between regions are not substantial.



*The Southern states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.







19

Table 2-2

Demographic Variables by Region (in percents)

Region
non
Education Southern Southern
none--some high school 5.1 4.8 high school 14.7 12.6 some college 28.9 25.2
college and post-grad. 51.3 57.4 2
X2 = 5.34
N = 1073 516 df = 3

Age
22 to 35 12.7 12.3 36 to 50 47.9 46.8 51 to 65 31.3 31.4 66 to 86 8.2 9.6
X2 = 1.93
N = 1076 505 df = 3

Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers 41.9 44.9 Managers, officials 39.8 43.7 Farmers, farm workers 18.3 11.4
x = 10.16
N= 884 421 df = 2

Time in Office
2 years or less 44.5 36.1 3 or 4 years 24.3 26.0 5 years or more 31.2 37.9
X = 7.935
N = 1066 495 df = 2



asignificant at .001
significant at .01
significant at .01






20

Larger differences appear, however, in regard to length of time in office. Southern chairmen serve in office longer than their nonSouthern counterparts. While 45 percent of the non-Southern chairmen have been in office less than two years, only 36 percent of the Southern chairmen fall into that category. Conversely, nearly 38 percent of the Southerners, but only 31 percent of the non-Southerners, have been in office five years or more. With regard, then, to the demographic variables of age, education, occupation, and time in office, it may be said Democratic and Republican chairmen do not differ greatly one from another. Differences are minor between Southern and non-Southern chairmen, also, with the exception of tenure in office.

The second step in this analysis is to examine the opinion structure of the county chairmen. Differences in policy preferences among party leaders have been noted in several studies; McClosky's is probably the best known (McClosky et al., 1960). He examined delegates to the Democratic and Republican national party conventions, comparing their issue preferences with the preferences of a national sample of adults. The issues fell under five broad headings: Public Ownership, Government Regulation of the Economy, Equalitarianism and Human Welfare, Tax Policy, and Foreign Policy. McClosky found differences between Republicans and Democratic leaders ". . conform with the popular image in which the Democratic party is seen as the more 'progressive' or 'radical,' the Republican as the more 'moderate' or 'conservative' of

the two" (p. 410). A similar division has been reported by Nie, Verba, and Petrocik. They find that Democrats, especially the party activists, tend to cluster heavily in the liberal end of an issue scale while the Republicans are likely to be found at the conservative end of the






21

scale (1976). Among previous studies of county chairmen, there is little consistency in the attitudes that have been examined. Flinn and Wirt employed a "salience of issues" approach while Bowman reports only the generalized categories "concern with issues" and "community obligation," as the prime incentives for participation in politics among precinct chairmen in North Carolina and Massachusetts (Flinn and Wirt, 1965; Bowman et al., 1969). As these examples indicate, examination of attitudinal preferences among the chairmen has been erratic and ancillary to a concern with demographic traits. The question examined in the next pages is whether or not the chairmen hold differing attitudinal preferences and, if so, over what issues.

The chairmen's attitudes will be gauged from their responses to

several questions. They were asked to rank themselves on a five-place continuum from very liberal to very conservative; to facilitate presentation, this continuum is collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative by combining the very liberal with the liberal responses and the very conservative with the conservative responses. In addition, the chairmen were asked their views on whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease; with what level of government, local, state, or national, they are most concerned; and, last, an open-ended question regarding what they see as the most important problem facing their state. Responses to this question were grouped under three major categories: social issues, economic problems, and state government and political party responses.*



*Answers to the open-ended question regarding the major problem facing the state were categorized as follows: (1) Social: racial problems, corruption in government, welfare, education, urban problems,







22

These attitudes, crosstabulated by party, are reported in Table 2-3.

The greatest differences between Democratic and Republican chairmen are over the self-categorization as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. The Democratic chairmen are far more likely to call themselves liberal than are their Republican counterparts, 43 percent to only 5 percent. While almost equal percentages of the chairmen from each party classify themselves as middle-of-the-road, 38 percent of the Democrats and 33 percent of the Republicans, only 19 percent of the Democratic chairmen, but 62 percent of the Republican chairmen, call themselves conservatives.

Substantial differences are also apparent over the question of

whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease. One-quarter of the Democrats, but only 5 percent of the Republicans, would like to see an increase in the activity of the federal government; 20 percent of the Democrats would see federal government activity remain the same, as opposed to 9 percent of the Republicans. On the other hand, the figures show almost 31 percent more Republican chairmen than Democratic chairmen favor a decrease in the activity of the federal government, 86.4 percent to 55.5 percent. A majority of the chairmen from both parties favor decreasing federal government activity.



crime, law and order, drug problems, environmental problems, health problems, transportation, highways, mass transit, federal government interference, public alienation, too many liberals or conservatives, consumer protection, Vietnam War, need for Christianity, church-state relations; (2) Economic: tax reform, taxes, high cost of government, the economy, high cost of living, unemployment, economic development, labor-management relations; (3) Government-Political Party: party problems, need for two-party system, public apathy, government reorganization, specific personalities or political groups, need for patriotism, and improving the state's image.







23

Table 2-3

Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Party (in percents)

Party
Democratic Republican

Liberal-Conservative
Liberal 43.1 5.3 Middle-of-the-Road 38.0 32.6 Conservative 18.9 62.1
N = 677 723 X2 = 373.87a


Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase 25.5 4.9 Remain the same 19.9 8.7 Decrease 55.5 86.4
N = 570 774 X2 = 186.26a


Most Concerned with:
Local 38.5 33.1 State 36.3 33.2 National 27.9 33.7
N = 570 635 X2 4.75c


Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues 27.1 26.4 Economic 64.4 59.6 State govt./pol. party 8.5 14.0
N = 621 715 X2 = 9.93b



adf for all Chi Squares = 2; significant at .001

significant at .01

cnot significant






24

Differences between the parties are minor over which level of

government, local, state, or national, the chairmen have the most concern. As Table 2-3 shows, the chairmen are divided almost evenly across the three governmental levels, with the Democrats showing slightly greater concern for local government: 39 percent of the Democrats are most concerned with local government, as opposed to 33 percent of the Republicans. More substantial are the differences over the most important problem facing the state. In both of the parties, the chairmen regard economic concerns as the major problem confronting their state, and almost even percentages, 27.1 percent of the Democrats and 26.4 percent of the Republicans, see social issues as paramount. But the Democrats are less likely to view state government problems as the most important of state concerns than are the Republicans; 8.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen say this is their states' most important problem but only 14 percent of the Republicans make this assessment.

While the differences between Southern and non-Southern chairmen are minimal over the demographic characteristics discussed earlier, the differences over political orientations are more pronounced, as reported in Table 2-4. Almost one-half of the Southern chairmen call themselves conservatives, only 16 percent say they are liberal. For non-Southerners, 37 percent report being conservative with over onequarter maintaining they are liberal. Over three-quarters of the Southern chairmen think the activities of the federal government should decrease, as opposed to 69 percent of the non-Southern chairmen. The Southern chairmen are also more concerned about local government than are non-Southerners, 41 to 32 percent, and, while they are more







25

Table 2-4

Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Region (in percents)

Region
non
Southern Southern

Liberal-Conservative
Liberal 27.1 16.4 Middle-of-the-Road 35.9 33.8 Conservative 37.0 49.8
N = 951 445 X2= 27.44a


Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase 16.5 9.9 Remain the Same 14.7 12.3 Decrease 68.7 77.8
N = 985 473 X2 = 14.75


Most Concerned with:
Local 31.5 40.6 State 40.0 23.3 National 28.6 36.1
N = 826 382 X2 = 31.99


Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues 21.8 37.6 Economic 69.3 45.5 State govt./pol. party 8.9 17.0
N = 918 418 X2 = 69.38



adf for all Chi Squares = 2; significance for all Chi Squares, .001






26

concerned about national politics than non-Southern chairmen, 36 to 29 percent, they fall far behind in their concern for state governments--only 23 percent of the Southerners are most concerned with state government, compared to 40 percent of the non-Southern chairmen.

These figures tend to indicate that the chairmen do not share

similar political attitudes. The figures do not, however, gauge the significance of issues for the chairmen. A means of assessing the salient issues for the county chairmen are their responses as to why they first became involved in local party activity. Following the division by Clark and Wilson for organizational participation (1961), responses to the closed-ended questions were grouped into three broad categories: purposive (contact influentials, issue concerns, community obligation), solidarity (strong party loyalty, politics as a way of life, social contact, personal friendships), and material (helpful in business, seek office). Interest here is in examining potential differences between the chairmen of the two parties and between Southern and non-Southern chairmen. Earlier research has pointed to the conclusion that local party activists become involved in politics chiefly for purposive reasons. This is the conclusion reached by Conway and Feigert in their examination of Knox County, Illinois, and Montgomery County Maryland (1968). In Knox County, 18 percent of the Democratic precinct captains and 16 percent of the Republican captains said they became active in politics to influence politics; in Montgomery County, the figures are more decisive: 30 percent of the Democrats and 42 percent of the Republican captains became active to influence policy. Similar findings have been reported for Massachusetts and North Carolina precinct captains, with 92 percent of the Democrats and 89 percent






27

of the Republicans listing concern with public issues as the major reason they became active in party affairs (Bowman et al., 1969).

The figures for the national sample of county chairmen, reported

in Table 2-5, duplicate these findings. While 63 percent of the Republican chairmen list purposive concerns as their most important reason for becoming chairmen, a majority of the Democratic chairmen, almost 55 percent, also cite purposive incentives as the major reason for becoming involved in local party politics. The Democratic chairmen, however, are more likely to have solidarity incentives, 43.7 percent, than are the Republicans, 35.1 percent. By far the least significant factor in initial local party work is the material incentives. Only

2.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen and only 1.4 percent of the Republican chairmen indicate material incentives were the major stimulus to political party activity.

Table 2-5 also presents the figures for the regional breakdown.

Purposive incentives predominate for both non-Southern and for Southern chairmen, both regions about 59 percent, followed by solidarity incentives, both about 39 percent. Material incentives were, once more, the least important factor.

These results coincide with those reported by Wiggins and Turk for state party chairmen: ". . the data indicate that they were motivated primarily by what might be termed idealistic, philosophical, task-oriented, or impersonal motives" (1970, pp. 330-331). Personal motivations or material gain in the Wiggins-Turk study, as in the national sample, received less frequent mention.

There would appear to be, then, substantial differences between the chairmen. They differ as to their attitudes toward the activity







28

Table 2-5

Incentives for Initial Local Party Activity by Party and Region
(in percents)

Incentive

Purposive Solidarity Material N Party
Democratic 54.7 43.7 2.5 775 Republican 63.4 35.1 1.4 831 X =12.72a

Region
Non-Southern 59.3 39.3 1.4 1093 Southern 59.1 39.2 1.8 513 X = .35b



adf = 2; significant at .01

bdf = 2; not significant



of the federal government and they differ in their self-classification as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. Moreover, the county party chairmen are concerned about policy questions, most of them indicating issue concerns as their chief reason for becoming county chairmen. While a substantial degree of consensus exists as to the major problem facing their states, the wide variety of responses as to the government activity and political attitudes is tentative evidence of major attitudinal differences among the chairmen. Differences between Southern and non-Southern are muted; what differences exist over attitudinal variables are small and differences over demographic








29

characteristics are negligible. Consequently, the following analysis concentrates upon the chairmen without regional distinctions.

These results amount to a confirmation as well as an expansion of earlier work on the county chairmen. Reaffirmed are the findings of the chairmen's high social and educational status: they are welleducated and tend to be found in professional and white-collar jobs. They are also likely to be middle-aged, thirty-six to fifty years old. These characteristics are those that enable political participation, providing the necessary time, skill, and resources for participation. In addition, the chairmen differ in their political attitudes. There are appreciable differences between the parties on self-classification as liberal or conservative, the Democratic chairmen being more liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Republican chairmen are also more likely to favor a decrease in the activity of the federal government than are Democrats.

Whether these differences in demographic and attitudinal profiles among county chairmen appear as differences in local party activities is an unexplored question. It is toward this question that attention is turned in the following chapter.

















CHAPTER THREE


THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY


Chapter Two examined the county chairmen from the perspective of demographic and attitudinal variables considered in earlier research, variables indicated in the literature on county chairmen to be of importance for their impact upon local party organization. While it is possible for activity to affect the ideology of the chairmen, most of the literature indicates that the chairmen affect the activity of the local party organization and that demographic and attitudinal characteristics are a key to the chairmen's influence. For example, in his study of party workers in Detroit, Samuel Patterson suggests that the nature and functions of party leadership at the county level can be understood in terms of the characteristics of party leaders (1963). My purpose in this chapter is to test this assumption. I shall first test the proposition that the independent variables of age, education, party, and time in office have an impact upon the activity of the county party. Second, I will examine what impact political orientations of the chairmen such as self-catagorization as liberal or conservative, attitude toward federal government activity, concern for local, state, or national government, and the most important problem facing the state have upon party activity. Initially, the dependent variable, party activity, must be defined more precisely.

30







31

The Dependent Variables

Eldersveld identifies four task areas that appear to dominate the concerns of county chairmen: the promotion of factional harmony, the allocation of patronage, planning campaign strategy, and, finally, the development of organizational policy (1964). He adds that ". . the discussion and the development of strategy for the next campaign was the major task for a large number of the leadership nucleus, directed at immediate vote maximization" (1964, p. 342). Avery Leiserson enumerates major party functions as organization and education of voters, nomination of candidates, the conduct of elections, clarification of alternatives, upward mobility, securing dispensations, privileges, contracts and assistance for potential supporters (1958). Leiserson adds: ". . all of these functions . were developed informally as a by-product of the parties' factional efforts to secure control of government power" (1958, p. 74). Perhaps, then, the "most important" function of political parties in the United States is ". . the recruitment and election of selected public officials" (Madron and Chelf, 1974, p. 150). In Massachusetts and North Carolina, local party officials (58.3 percent) ranked as their most important functions campaign related activities: contacting voters, raising money, voter registration, campaigning, public relations, and finding new voters (Bowman and Boynton, 1966). Eldersveld, who argues that ". . precinct leaders by no means accept the doctrine that the primary task was vote production," nonetheless reports 45 percent of both Democratic and Republican leaders maintain their major activity was that of vote mobilization (1964, pp. 253-254). Thus, while the American political party performs a number of different functions--organization, fund







32

raising, election activities, for example--analysts agree the most outstanding endeavor is election or campaign activity, since from campaign activity and the desire to win elections springs the need for the other activities. Epstein argues party organization always exists for an electoral purpose. "It may have other purposes as well and still be regarded as that of a party, provided the electoral purpose is predominant, if not dominant" (1970, p. 98).

Despite the predominant position given to winning elections, in each of these assessments of party function there is a second common theme, party organization. The achievement of vote maximization is contingent upon organizational activity, organization for the purposes of formulating, coordinating, and implementing campaign strategy. Campaign activity is a portion of the external leadership of the chairmen, leadership which has as its primary focus the electorate. Organizational activity is internally directed, focusing upon other party officials or elected officials (Katz and Eldersveld, 1961). Eldersveld identifies three theoretical roles of the party: first, the party is a task group, competing for political power in elections; second, the party is a communications subsystem, within which take place interactions "between actors, between echelons, between coalitions . ."; third, the party is a decision group, dealing with tactics and the means to exploit as fully as possible opportunities to the party's advantage (1964, p. 333).

While I have no information applicable to the party as a decisionmaking group, the first of Eldersveld's categories, the party as a task group, corresponds to campaign activity, while the second category, the party as a communications subsystem, is related to the communications







33

network in which the county chairmen may take part. In this analysis, then, the dependent variables will be the election activities of the county organization and the communications network of the chairmen. I shall develop both of these variables in turn, beginning with campaign activity.

Measures of party activity are based upon the observations made by the county chairmen. A nationwide study leaves no alternative except reliance upon the perceptions of the chairmen themselves for information on county activity. The cost of hired observers and geographic distances make impossible reliance upon more objective assessments of party activity. Indeed, most studies of the county party organization have had to rely upon the observations of the local party officials.

The chairmen were asked several questions relating to county campaign activity that are germane to my purpose. The questions seek the chairman's assessments of the frequency ("often," "sometimes," or "never") with which the county organization used the following activities at the county level: movie ads, door-to-door canvassing, barbecues, radio ads, rallies, press releases, television, newspaper ads, circulars, literature, telephoning registered voters, billboards, and surveys or polls. These thirteen activities all deal with the electoral activities of county party organizations. The object of this chapter is to explore the possible connection between the performance of these activities and the demographic and attitudinal variables outlined in Chapter Two. My interest is in examining the proposition that differences in campaign activities by local party organizations may be associated with demographic and attitudinal differences among the county







34

chairmen. To examine this connection, and to facilitate presentation of the data, it is useful to employ as dependent variables only those campaign activities carried out by the party organizations that most differentiate between county organizations.

The selection of these variables is achieved by an analysis of the thirteen activity areas. First, each of the possible responses to the activity is assigned a weight; "often" is assigned 3, "sometimes," 2 and "never," 1. For each chairman, these values are summed over the entire set of thirteen activities. Those chairmen with scores in the highest 25 percent and those with scores in the lowest 25 percent were then subjected to a T-Test for each of the thirteen items. The results are presented in Table 3-1. The larger the T-Score, the more efficiently the activity distinguishes between the high and low scoring groups of chairmen.* The activity that best differentiates between the two groups is the use of surveys or polls, while the smallest distinction between the chairmen is over the use of movie advertisements. The top five variables have been selected as measures of county campaign activity; these five are the frequency with which the county organization uses surveys or polls, press releases, circulars, radio ads, and campaign literature.

The second set of dependent variables is based upon the chairmen's responses to questions regarding the frequency of their contacts with various party and government officials. The chairmen were asked to rank as "often," "sometimes," "hardly ever," and "never" their contacts with

*The procedure is described in Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of
Attitude Scale Construction (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1957).







35

Table 3-1

T-Scores Between Most and Least Active Counties by Campaign Activity Variables Means T-Scorea Campaign use of: high low
surveys/polls 2.14 .88 25.97 press releases 2.82 1.57 24.60 circulars 2.88 1.57 21.62 radio ads 2.67 1.30 21.35 literature 2.91 1.58 20.91 billboards 2.56 1.31 20.64 telephone 2.87 1.58 20.54 canvass 2.81 1.60 20.08 rallies 2.73 1.47 18.97 television 2.87 1.58 18.97 barbecues 2.35 1.27 16.71 newspapers 2.84 1.79 15.59 movie ads 1.05 .73 11.37



aall scores significant at .001



the following: the state's governor, state legislators, other state officials, county commission state officials, county commissioners, the county prosecutor, congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party chairmen. From this list, I have eliminated contacts with "other state officials" since the elective or appointive nature of these other officers is unknown and this difference may alter the type of the contact. In addition, both contacts with county commissioners and county prosecutors have been excluded, since these positions may not exist in the chairman's county. The elimination of these three potential contacts leaves six remaining contacts at local, state, and national levels, and includes both public and party offices. First, I will examine the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables upon party activity, deferring until the second half of this chapter







36

an examination of the second set of dependent variables, frequency of contacts.


Characteristics of the Chairmen and Party Activity

Demographic measures. If the demographic and attitudinal differences among the chairmen make a difference in the activities of the different party organizations the chairmen lead, the distinctions should be apparent in a crosstabulation between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of county campaign activity. Table 3-2 presents the chi-square results for the demographic variables of education, age, occupation, and length of time in office, previously defined in Chapter Two.

Despite the large sample size, the chi-squares are all low and few are statistically significant. Moreover, they do not vary greatly across election activities. There are two exceptions to these generalizations. First, the chi-squares between age and the distribution of literature, for both Democratic and Republican chairmen, are noticeably higher than most of the other chi-squares, 16.22 for the Democrats and 21.00 for the Republicans, both results are statistically significant. These relatively large chi-squares, however, exaggerate small percentage differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen. For the Democrats, 6.8 percent between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-five report "never" using literature; but that figure is only 10 percent greater, 16.9 percent, among Democratic chairmen sixty-six to eightyone years old and there is little difference among the other age categories. Similarly, for the Republican chairmen, the difference is even smaller, 9.5 percent of those twenty-two to thirty-five report "never" distributing literature compared to 4.1 percent of the








37

Table 3-2

Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables

Campaign Activitya

Demographic Surveys/ Press
Trait Polls Releases Circulars Radio Literature

Education

Democratic 8.10 13.80 4.83 3.06 2.95 Republican 7.09 10.63 5.80 7.02 2.04

Age

Democratic 8.92 20.61 11.06 6.90 16.22b Republican 2.99 6.54 8.27 5.77 21.00b

Occupation

Democratic 13.41c 21.67b 20.08b 20.14b 18.04b Republican 9.18 17.84b 17.70b 10.50 25.12b

Time in Office

Democratic 11.62 9.06 6.04 6.70 10.48 Republican 4.80 5.44 3.29 3.09 8.39


a
percentages are found in Appendix B

bsignificant at .001

significant at .01


of the Republican chairmen sixty-six to eighty-one years old, with small differences across other categories.

The second notable aspect of the chi-squares is that for both the Democratic and Republican chairmen, the figures for occupational categories are appreciably and consistently larger than those for any other demographic variable. With the exception of the use of surveys or








38

polls by Democrats, statistically significant at .01, the remaining chi-squares are significant at .001; only for surveys or polls and the use of radio are the figures not significant at the .001 level for the Republican chairmen. More specifically, both Democratic and Republican chairmen who are farmers or farm workers are more likely to "never" use surveys or polls than are chairmen in other occupations: 66 percent among Democrats as compared with 43 percent among those employed as managers and 54 percent among the professionals, 59 percent among Republicans compared to about 45 and 42 percent, respectively, for Republican chairmen employed in managerial or professional positions. The percentage of Democratic chairmen employed as farmers or farm workers who report "never" using circulars, 19 percent, is almost three times as large as those in managerial positions, 6 percent. Among Democratic and Republican farmers or farm workers, only about one-half as many report "often" using press releases as Democratic and Republican chairmen in professional occupations. Democratic chairmen who are managers or officials are more likely, in terms of percentages, to indicate that they "often" use radio in election campaigns, 42 percent, compared to 28 percent among the farmers or farm workers. Fewer Democratic and Republican chairmen in farming occupations are likely to "often" use literature, 38 percent for the Democrats and 34 percent for the Republicans, than are Democratic or Republican chairmen who are managers or professional workers, about 56 percent in each instance.

Population and occupation. In short, chairmen of both parties

employed as farmers or farm workers are less likely to report frequent use of any of the five types of campaign activity than are professionals or managers. While there is no reason to assume the occupation of







39

the chairmen determines the activity of the county organization, occupation may be a key to differences between counties. Farmers and farm workers are likely to be found in less populated counties, managers and professionals may tend to be found in more heavily populated counties. The data presented in Table 3-3 support this contention. The counties have been divided according to population, from the lowest to the highest 25 percent. While 18 percent of the professionals, nationwide, are found in counties with populations of 8,000 or less, that figure rises steadily from 22 percent in counties of 8,001 to 23,999 in population, 27 percent in counties with a population of 24,000 to 72,999, and finally, 32 percent in the most populated counties, those above 73,000 population. Farmers and farm workers dwindle in number as the county population increases: 47 percent in the least populous counties falling to only 6 percent in the most populated counties. Managers and officials remain essentially unchanged across all levels of population, an average of 25 percent, with the greatest deviation from that average, only 4 percent, occurring in counties of 8,000 or less population.

The national figures are mirrored in those reported by party. The percentage of professionally employed Democrats rises from 19 percent in counties of 8,000 or less population to 36 percent in the most populated counties, while Democratic farmers and farm workers fall from 47 percent to 4 percent. Among Republicans, professionals grow from 18 percent in counties of 8,000 or less to 28 percent in counties of 73,000 or above. On the other hand, farmers decrease from 47 percent in the least populated counties to 8 percent in the most populated. The implications of population as a factor in local party activity will be discussed further below in conjunction with the frequency of contacting.







40

Table 3-3 Chairmen's Occupational Classification by County Population (in percents) Population Occupation (in thousands)

8 and 73 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 above N Nation

Professional,
technical,
kindred workers 18.4 22.4 27.0 32.2 559
Managers,
officials 21.3 24.3 26.7 27.8 536
Farmers, farm
workers 46.7 31.4 15.7 6.2 210

2 = 107.70a


Democrats

Professional,
technical,
kindred workers 18.9 20.3 25.1 35.7 291
Managers,
officials 18.7 26.8 28.0 26.4 246
Farmers, farm
workers 46.9 35.4 13.5 4.2 96

2 = 67.34a


Republicans

Professional,
technical,
kindred workers 17.9 24.6 29.1 28.4 268
Managers,
officials 23.4 22.1 25.5 29.0 290
Farmers, farm
workers 46.5 28.1 17.5 7.9 114 X2 = 48.29a


adf for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001









41

Attitudinal measures. For this portion of the analysis, the same five dependent variables measuring local campaign activity are crosstabulated with the four attitudinal measures developed in Chapter Two. These attitudinal measures are a liberal-conservative dimension, attitudes toward the activity of the federal government (increase, remainthe-same, decrease), the level of government (local, state or national) with which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assessment of the most important problem facing the state. The chi-square results are presented in Table 3-4.

As with the earlier results comparing demographic variables with local party activity, the chi-squares between attitudinal variables and party activity are low; excepting the differences between liberal and conservative and Democrats, to be discussed in detail below, few of the chi-squares are statistically significant. Differences between reported campaign activities of Democrats and Republicans across all activity areas are small. Indeed, the largest difference among Democratic chairmen is found in the group reporting "often" using radio between those who are most concerned with local government, 45 percent, and those most interested in the national government, 33 percent. For the Republicans, the greatest gap lies in the group "often" using press releases between those most concerned with local government, 59 percent, and those most concerned with national government, 42 percent. The remaining differences are small. Other than the liberal-conservative dimension, the greatest percentage differences are found over the activity of the federal government. Over 55 percent of those Democratic chairmen wishing a decrease in federal government activity report "never" using surveys or polls, opposed to 42 percent of those who would







42

Table 3-4

Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables


Campaign Activitya

Attitudinal Surveys/ Press
Trait Polls Releases Circulars Radio Literature

LiberalConservative
Democratic 23.03b 26.34b 35.27b 8.01 46.78b Republican 4.08 5.52 7.05 3.95 4.50

Activity of Federal Govt.
Democratic 7.53 7.05 21.14b 1.78 24.67b Republican 6.28 2.78 2.47 1.67 1.63

Level of Govt. Most Concerned
With
Democratic 2.61 9.12 7.02 11.89 5.89 Republican 7.59 15.21 9.92 2.38 4.61


Most Important Problem Facing
State
Democratic 11.29 29.39b 3.32 5.51 9.65c Republican 2.78 7.37 3.02 5.00 .86



a
percentages are found in Appendix C

significant at .001
significant at .001 significant at .05


see such activity increase. However, the differences between those in favor of more federal activity who indicate they "often" use surveys or polls, 13.9 percent, is only 4.2 percent greater than those who report







43

"often" using surveys or polls but who desire a decrease in the activity of the federal government. The 14 percent of the Republican chairmen who claim "often" to use surveys but who want a decrease in national government activity exceeds by about 15 percent those Republicans who "often" use surveys or polls and wish for more federal activity. The differences within the category of federal government activity are consistent across all five campaign activities, but are greatest among Democratic chairmen over the use of literature, as reflected in the chisquare of 24.67 as well as in the percentage results that indicate 21 percent more Democrats who favor increased activity than Democrats favoring lessened activity, 66.9 to 45.6 percent, report "often" using literature.

These relatively large percentage differences probably reflect a correspondence between ranking on the liberal-conservative continuum and attitudes toward the activity of the federal government. This expectation is borne out by the data in Table 3-5, which crosstabulates the liberal-conservative dimension with attitudes toward federal government activity. Regardless of rank on the liberal-conservative dimension, large proportions of chairmen favor a decrease in federal activity. However, more than twice as many conservatives as liberals favor such a decrease, 88 percent to 40 percent. On the other hand, the percentage of liberals favoring an increase in the activity of the federal government is more than seven times the number of conservatives favoring an increase.

Impact of the liberal-conservative distinction. Turning specifically to the liberal-conservative category, the chi-squares are consistently high and statistically significant across all activities,







44

Table 3-5

Liberal-Conservative Dimension by Attitude Toward
Activity of the Federal Government (in percents)

Liberal-Conservative
Dimension Federal Government Activity remain
increase the same decrease N Liberal 38.1 21.7 40.2 336 Middle-of-the-Road 9.5 18.5 72.0 465 Conservative 5.3 6.9 87.8 625 X2 = 287.90a


adf = 4; significant at .001



with the exception of the use of radio. Other than the campaign use of the radio, the lowest chi-square among the Democrats in the liberalconservative category is 23.03, for surveys or polls; the highest figure is for the use of literature, 46.78. Substantial percentage differences exist between Democratic chairmen who classify themselves as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. For example, liberal Democrats are three and one-half times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report "often" using surveys or polls than are conservative Democrats, 13.3 percent to 3.8 percent. Democratic liberals are 16.7 percent more likely to report "often" using press releases than are their conservative counterparts, while Democratic conservatives are five times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report "never" using circulars, 20 percent to 4 percent. Eleven percent more conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats claim "never" to use the radio in election campaigns, while 25 percent more liberals than







45

conservatives claim to "often" use literature while campaigning. On the other hand, there are only small differences between Republican chairmen who categorize themselves as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. Even the greatest differences are small. Only

6 percent more Republican liberals than Republican conservatives report "often" using surveys or polls; there is almost no difference between conservative and liberal Republicans who report that they "often" use press releases. Only about 3 percent more conservatives say they "often" use circulars; only 9 percent more conservative Republicans say they "sometimes" use radio advertisements in campaigns. A variation from this pattern exists in the use of literature. There, 16 percent more conservative than liberal Republicans report "sometimes" using literature. However, only 12 percent more liberal Republican chairmen than conservative Republican chairmen report "often" using literature and only 4 percent more liberals say they "never" use literature in campaigning.

That the distinction between Democratic liberals and Democratic

conservatives is the consequence of genuine differences between liberals and conservatives and not solely the result of being a Democrat is shown by the figures presented in Table 3-6. Large and statistically significant differences exist between liberals and conservatives, regardless of party. These differences are larger than those between the parties themselves. Almost 9 percent more conservatives than liberals report "never" using surveys or polls; nearly 14 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use press releases, 59 percent to 45 percent; 10 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use circulars; 8 percent more conservatives than liberals









46
Table 3-6

Campaign Activity by Liberal-Conservative Categorization and by Party
(in percents)


Surveys/Polls

Attitude Often Sometimes Never N

Liberal 14.0 43.6 42.4 328 Middle-of-Road 13.0 41.2 45.9 447 Conservative 12.2 36.5 51.3 556 df = 4 X2 = 7.14

Party

Democratic 11.0 39.2 49.8 653 Republican 14.5 41.0 44.6 725 df = 2 X2 = 5.45

Attitude Press Releases

Liberal 58.8 35.1 6.1 345 Middle-of-Road 48.1 45.1 6.8 470 Conservative 45.1 45.6 9.3 592 df = 4 X2 = 18.67a Party

Democratic 51.1 40.2 8.8 697 Republican 47.7 45.3 7.0 768 df = 4 X2 -= 4.50

Attitude Circulars

Liberal 56.1 39.3 4.6 346 Middle-of-Road 50.6 42.2 7.2 474 Conservative 46.2 44.2 9.2 597 df = 4 X2 = 12.69b Party

Democratic 48.8 42.0 9.2 703 Republican 51.2 42.4 6.3 773 df = 2 X2 =4.48







47

Table 3-6 (continued)

Radio

Attitude Often Sometimes Never N
Liberal 36.3 44.5 19.2 344 Middle-of-Road 38.9 39.5 21.6 463 Conservative 32.4 40.8 26.7 595 df = 4 X2 = 10.44c

Party
Democratic 36.4 42.3 21.4 693 Republican 35.3 40.0 24.6 767 df = 2 X2 = 2.26b

Attitude Literature
Liberal 62.6 32.8 4.6 348 Middle-of-Road 52.2 42.2 5.5 469 Conservative 49.2 43.3 7.6 594 df = 4 X2 = 17.90a

Party

Democratic 53.8 38.2 8.0 701 Republican 53.3 42.3 4.4 771 df = 2 X2 = 9.20b


asignificant at .001
significant at .01
significant at .01 significant at .05


report "never" using the radio while campaigning; but 13.4 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use literature, 62.6 percent to 49.2 percent.

Between the parties themselves differences are small over each of the dependent activity variables. In only two instances, the use of radio and the use of literature in campaigning, does the chi-square







48

obtain statistical significance; even there, however, the greatest percentage difference between the organizations of the Democratic and Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements is only 3.2 percent, 24.6 percent of the Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements as opposed to 21.4 percent of the Democratic chairmen. For the use of literature, the figures are similar: only 4 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they "never" use literature; almost identical percentages, 53.8 percent among Democrats and 53.3 percent among Republicans, say they "often" use it.

Why such wide differences should exist between liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats merits consideration, particularly in light of the muted differences between Republican liberals and Republican conservatives. If political attitude itself were an adequate explanation for the activity differences, it would be anticipated that liberals and conservatives would behave similarly, regardless of party. As this is not the case, explanations must be sought elsewhere.

In examining the percentage differences between liberal and conservative Democrats over each of the five party activity areas, the liberal Democratic chairmen report greater campaign activity than do the conservative Democratic chairmen. This is true if only the "often" category is examined or if the "often" responses are combined with the "sometimes" responses. As for the Republicans, while the differences between the liberal Republican chairmen and the conservative chairmen are very small, the liberal Republicans still exceed the conservative Republican chairmen in the percentage of "often" responses in four of the five activity areas. The one exception is the distribution of







49

circulars, where the conservatives surpass the liberals by less than 3 percent. Liberals of both parties are more active across the categories of party campaign activity.

Population and the liberal-conservative distinction. An explanation as to why the liberals are more active is found in the five activities themselves. Each of them, surveys or polls, press releases, the distribution of circulars and literature, and the use of radio, is most easily and efficiently employed in highly populated counties. Press releases are most worthwhile in reaching large numbers of people and in establishing candidate name recognition, neither of which may be as necessary in a rural or less populated environment. The distribution of circulars and literature is more easily accomplished in areas of greater population density; distance between homes, offices, and, specifically, people, is smaller; less time is spent traveling between potential voters, and more time is spent in contacting voters. The two activity areas that may constitute exceptions to this generalization, the use of surveys or polls and the use of radio, are also the two activities that show the smallest differences between liberals and conservatives, as already reported in Table 3-6. The average difference between liberals and conservatives over "often" using press releases, circulars, or literature is 12.3 percent. For the use of surveys or polls, there is a difference of 1.8 percent and for the use of radio in campaigns the difference is 3.9 percent. These exceptions are probably the result of the high cost of polling and radio advertisements, especially in the case of radio, since costs are determined by the size of the audience--a calculation that may prove particularly costly when a county with a relatively low population borders a county with greater







50

population; thus, for a local contest, the party would pay to reach large numbers of voters ineligible to vote in the county.

In light of the differing utilities involved for populated and

less populated counties in using the five campaign activities considered here, and given the higher activity rates of the liberals vis-a-vis the conservatives of both parties, it is reasonable to expect liberals would be found in more populous counties and conservatives in less populous counties. The data presented in Table 3-7 bear out this expectation. Using the division of counties by population already established, the figures indicate that a far greater percentage of liberals are found in the more populated counties. While 25 percent of the liberals are in counties of under 8,000 population, 33 percent are in counties with a population of 73,000 or more. Those chairmen calling themselves middle-of-the-road are evenly distributed across all categories of population. Both parties mirror the national figures. Among Democrats, 24 percent of the liberals are found in counties of 8,000 or less population, but almost 33 percent are found in counties with populations in excess of 73,000. Conversely, the percentage of Democratic conservatives falls from 27 percent in the least populous counties to only 11 percent in the most populous. Republican liberals show the smallest differences between the two population extremes, only

5 percent, but conservative Republicans decline from 27.1 percent to 19 percent over the population range.

To summarize the argument thus far: both the demographic variable of occupation and the attitudinal variable of liberal-conservative categorization are associated with differences in the activity of local party organizations. However, both of these variables also








51

Table 3-7

Liberal-Conservative Categorization by Population of County by Party and Region (in percents)


Liberal-Conservative Population
Region/Party (in thousands)

8 and 73 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 above N Nation
Liberal 25.2 22.2 19.2 33.3 369 Middle-of-Road 22.3 22.1 28.0 27.6 493 Conservative 27.2 28.6 27.0 17.2 644

2 = 43.65a

Democrats
Liberal 24.1 22.5 20.4 32.8 329 Middle-of-Road 22.2 24.5 28.8 24.5 257 Conservative 27.3 34.5 27.3 10.8 139 X2 = 30.05a

Republican
Liberal 32.5 20.0 10.0 37.5 40 Middle-of-Road 22.5 19.5 27.1 30.9 236 Conservative 27.1 26.9 26.9 19.0 505

2 = 23.40a



adf for all chi-squares = 6; significant at .001



correspond to the population of the county, farmers and farm workers are found in less populous counties while managerial and professional occupations are more heavily represented in more heavily populated counties; conservatives are more apt to be found in counties with less population, but liberals are more likely to be found in counties with







52

greater population. Moreover, while there is no apparent reason that demographic and attitudinal variables should be associated with county party activity, the population of the county can be connected to county activity by considering the utility of the activities for the local party organization; the activities considered here are more useful in more populated counties.

Population and party activity. The final step in this section of the analysis is to examine the relationship between the activity areas and the county population. If, in fact, population makes a difference in the kinds of activity carried out by the county organizations, these differences should be evident across different levels of population.

As Table 3-8 indicates, the frequency of reported activity does differ in counties with differing populations. The lowest chi-square, for the use of press releases, is 57.16, while the highest, for the use of radio in campaigns, is 206.35; all are statistically significant at .001. The percent differences are persuasive. While only 16 percent of the chairmen in counties of 8,000 or fewer population report "often" using surveys or polls, over 46 percent report "often" using them in counties of 73,000 and above population, a difference of 36 percent. Thirty percent of those reporting no use of surveys or polls are in the least populated counties. The frequent use of press releases expands from 22 percent in lightly populated counties to 34 percent in heavily populated counties; figures for the use of circulars parallel those for press releases. In the least populous counties, radio is used frequently by only 10 percent of the chairmen, while in the same counties 51 percent report "never" using radio. The percentage of those "often" using radio increases steadily across the







53

Table 3-8

Campaign Activity by County Population (in percents)

Population
Activity (in thousands)

8 and 73 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 above N Survey/Polls
Often 16.4 14.7 22.0 46.9 177 Sometimes 19.9 19.5 25.7 34.9 533 Never 29.8 29.5 26.9 13.9 648 X2 = 118.92a

Press Releases
Often 21.6 20.5 24.1 33.8 722 Sometimes 24.8 26.4 29.0 19.7 628 Never 36.5 32.2 18.3 13.0 115 X2 = 57.16

Circulars
Often 22.6 18.4 25.3 33.7 739 Sometimes 25.8 28.7 25.5 19.9 623 Never 31.6 29.8 28.1 10.5 114 X2 = 57.49

Radio
Often 10.5 24.5 31.5 33.5 523 Sometimes 20.5 24.5 28.5 26.5 600 Never 51.0 22.3 13.1 -13.6 337 X2 = 206.35

Literature
Often 23.0 18.1 24.1 34.8 788 Sometimes 25.3 30.5 26.8 17.5 594 Never 32.2 33.3 25.6 8.9 90 X2 = 78.34



adf for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001







54

categories of population until, in those counties with the greatest populations, almost 34 percent report "often" using radio in campaigning. On the other hand, the number "never" using radio declines from a high of 51 percent to a low of less than 14 percent in the most heavily populated counties. The percentage of those chairmen who say they "often" use literature moves from 23 percent in the less populated counties to 35 percent in the most populated counties, while the percentage of those chairmen who "never" use literature declines from 32 percent to 9 percent.

Thus, while both self-ranking on a liberal-conservative scale

and occupation are associated with distinctions in the campaign activity of local organizations, a more satisfactory explanation for the differences lies in the population of the county, since population mandates the selection of different kinds of campaign activity--the activities considered here being more or less appropriate in counties of greater or lesser population.


Characteristics of the Chairmen and Frequency of Contacts

Demographic measures. A last set of comparisons must be made

between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of inter-party communication, contacts between the county chairmen and public and party officials. As noted earlier, these contacts represent the communications network that exists within the party organization, distinct from the election activities that are the party's contacts with the electorate. Table 3-9 presents the chi-square results comparing the chairmen's demographic traits with the reported frequency of contacts between the chairmen and the governor, state legislators,







55

Table 3-9

Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables and Frequency of Contact

Contact witha

Demographic State Congress- U.S. Sen- St./Pty. Other
Trait Governor Legis. men ators Chairmen Chairmen

Education

Democratic 9.17 15.27 23.44c 13.36 11.09 11.36 Republican 17.56 5.62 6.13 9.22 8.00 12.46


Age

Democratic 24.98c 10.27 17.11 16.84 14.16 10.86 Republican 22.70c 7.00 17.22 15.05 14.50 14.83

Occupation

Democratic 12.78 6.90 16.08 8.13 6.44 6.00 Republican 12.83 2.18 7.20 5.40 3.15 12.46

Time-in-Office

Democratic 4.86 2.64 7.58 6.57 8.98 12.32 Republican 11.25 5.59 9.73 27.56b 10.71 12.67



percentages are found in Appendix D

significant at .001
significant at .001

significant at .01


congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party chairmen on party business. Few of the chi-squares are statistically significant, and no pattern appears in the figures. The chi-squares obtain statistical significance in only three instances: for chairmen







56

of both parties over contacts with the state's governors when the chairmen are grouped by age; between Democratic chairmen and contacts with congressmen, when broken down by education; and between Republican chairmen and contacts with U.S. senators based on time-in-office of the chairmen.

Regarding contacts with the state's governor, in both parties the frequency of reported contacts increases with the chairman's age. Only 16 percent of the Democrats ages twenty-two to thirty-five report "often" contacting the state's governor on party business, but that figure rises to 25 percent among those Democratic chairmen sixty-six years old or older. Among Republicans, 10 percent of those twenty-two to thirty-five say they "often" contact the governor, but that figure more than doubles, 21.4 percent, among those above sixty-five years old. Similarly, for the chairmen of both parties, the incidence of "never" responses decreases with the chairmen's age.

The frequency of "often" and "sometimes" responses by the chairmen with regard to contacting the governor are generally lower in the two highest age classifications, fifty-one to sixty-five and sixty-six to eighty-six, than they are for any other office, public or private. In all other offices, an average of nearly 78 percent of Democratic and Republican chairmen above age fifty-one report "often" or "sometimes" contacting public or party officers on party business; for governor, the figure is less than 57 percent. Moreover, differences by age are not as apparent in reported contacts for offices other than governor. While, on the average, 71 percent of the chairmen from ages twenty-two to fifty report "often" or "sometimes" contacting across all categories except that of governor (7 percent fewer than those fifty-one years old







57

or older), the average for those chairmen below age fifty-one who "often" or "sometimes" contact the governor is 40 percent, 17 percent less than those above fifty-one years of age. The figures indicate that contacting the governor is more clearly associated with age than is contacting any other official.

High levels of contacts between the county chairmen and state chairmen or the county chairmen and other county chairmen are not remarkable, given the probable mutuality of interests; congressmen and U.S. senators, because of distances both geographic and social, may make special efforts to facilitate communication with the county chairmen as a source of political information and support; the high turnover rate and low public visibility of state legislators would probably encourage large numbers of contacts in an effort to build and solidify support for campaign efforts. On the other hand, inability to succeed themselves in office, limited influence upon state legislative elections, and, in many states, dispersal and consequent dilution of executive power among elected members of a state cabinet perhaps contribute to the smaller incidence of reported contacts made between county chairmen and the governor.

Other differences are also apparent. Between Democratic chairmen and contacts with congressmen when the chairmen are classified by education, almost twice as many Democratic chairmen, in terms of percentages, with less than a high school education report "often" contacting congressmen than do Democratic chairmen with at least a college education, 43 percent to 22 percent. Similarly, relatively larger differences exist between Republicans and contacts with U.S. senators when the chairmen are divided by time-in-office. While just under 54 percent








58

of the Republican chairmen in office two years or less say they "often" or "sometimes" contact senators, almost 69 percent of them in office five years or more make the same claims, a difference of nearly 15 percent.

Attitudinal measures. As Table 3-10 shows, attitudinal variables make few distinctions in the frequency of contact. In the liberalconservative category and in attitudes toward the activity of the federal government, the chi-squares between Democratic chairmen and contacts with state party chairmen and other county chairmen are statistically significant and the percentage differences relatively large. More liberal than conservative Democratic chairmen report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state party chairmen, 86 to 74 percent. Similarly, 10 percent more Democrats who favor an increase in the activity of the federal government than Democrats favoring a decrease report "often" or "sometimes" contacting the state party chairmen. Figures for contacts with other county chairmen reflect those for contacts with state chairmen. Almost 79 percent of Democratic liberals report "often" or "sometimes" contacting other county chairmen on party business, but only 65 percent of the Democratic chairmen who call themselves conservative report contacting with the same levels of frequency. Again, 86 percent of the Democratic chairmen favoring an increase in federal government activity say they "often" or "sometimes" contact other party chairmen, but less than 74 percent of those who wish a decrease in the activity of the national government, 12 percent fewer, report contacting with the same frequency. These figures may represent a greater willingness of liberal Democrats to participate in a party that is skewed in the direction of liberals, as Table 2-3 reported,







59

Table 3-10

Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables and Frequency of Contact Contact witha

State Congress- U.S. Sen- St. Pty. Other Variable Governor Legis. men ators Chairmen Chairmen

LiberalConservative

Democratic 10.06 11.40 6.04 12.20 16.25c 16.38c
Republican 13.03 20.06c 7.45 7.96 5.69 1.90 Activity of
Federal Govt.

Democratic 4.08 10.58 7.51 2.57 16.24c 23.79b Republican 9.92 5.72 5.30 10.12 6.09 5.43 Level of Govt.
Most Concerned

Democratic 6.42 6.72 2.74 18.53 9.35 6.92 Republican 19.55c 35.72b 2.06 5.54 4.34 5.26 Most Important
Problem Facing
State

Democratic 8.45 4.55 5.20 6.83 10.84 8.95 Republican 24.65 9.03 8.52 6.40 7.53 2.66


apercentages are found in Appendix E

significant at .001 significant at .01


while at the same time reflecting a reluctance on the part of conservatives to participate as fully.

Among Republicans, the chi-squares indicate greater divisions within the party over contacts with state government officials, the governor,







60

and state legislators. When divided by the level of government with which they are most concerned, the chi-squares for Republican chairmen and contacting the governor is 19.55, for contacts with state legislators, 35.72; over the liberal-conservative dimension, the figure between Republican chairmen and contacting of state legislators is 20.06. All of these figures are statistically significant; but in the first two cases, contacts with the governor and with state legislators by level of government with which the chairmen feel most concerned, they tend to magnify smaller percentage differences. For instance, while two times as many Republicans with local government as their major concern indicate "often" contacting the governor as Republicans concerned with national government, 14 percent to 7 percent, when the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are combined, the difference shrinks to a less substantial 7 percent. The figures do indicate, however, a greater willingness among Republicans most concerned with state government to contact the governor on party business.

In contacts with state legislators, 77 percent of the Republican chairmen most concerned with local government maintain they "often" or "sometimes" contact these state officials, compared to 73 percent of those Republican chairmen most concerned with national government. Once again, Republicans most concerned with state government, 83 percent, report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state legislators on party business. Larger differences appear among Republicans when divided along the liberal-conservative continuum over contacts with state legislators. Over 62 percent of the liberals report "often" contacting state legislators compared to 41 percent of the conservatives; when combined with the "sometimes" responses, the figures are 92 to







61

77 percent. Middle-of-the-road Republicans fall between the conservatives and the liberals with 86 percent contacting state legislators

"often" or "sometimes."

These figures, in conjunction with the figures comparing the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables, have implications for the understanding of local party activity. They do not tend to substantiate the speculation made in the literature of county party chairmen that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen will have an impact upon the activity of the county organization, at least as the activity of the local organizations has been measured here: in terms of electorally oriented activity. The demographic and attitudinal variables do appear to make a difference in the organization's electoral activities in the case of occupation or liberal-conservative attitudes; however, theoretical explanations as well as the empirical evidence appear to indicate otherwise--in the case of occupation or liberal-conservative beliefs, the appropriateness of the activity in regard to the county's population seems to make a larger difference. The next chapter establishes the framework for a move away from demographic and attitudinal traits, toward an examination of the chairmen's political orientations and the impact of those orientations upon local party activity.
















CHAPTER FOUR


THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMAN


The publication in 1968 of The Amateur Democrat by James Q. Wilson sparked interest in a new development in American politics: amateur political activists who participate in politics not in the expectation of any direct material reward but because they find politics intrinsically interesting. The amateur differs from the professional who is more concerned with the politics of winning elections.

This chapter considers the amateur-professional division among

the county party chairmen. The chairmen will be divided along amateurprofessional lines, then examined by demographic characteristics and political ambitions. This examination becomes the basis for exploring, in Chapter Five, the connection between amateurs, professionals, and party activity.

The evidence is mounting that citizens now participate in politics by holding office and that they manage to retain an amateur point of view despite office-holding (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977). It is possible the amateur now participates in the party organization itself; recent evidence is found in studies of national party convention delegates (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977; Roback, 1975). Whether the amateurprofessional distinction exists among county party chairmen is the aspect of local party organization this chapter examines.


62







63

Previous research takes as a starting point Wilson's definitions of amateur and professional. Amateurs are more concerned with ideals and principles than with power, while the professional is mainly interested in winning elections and less concerned with issues or ideology.

The county chairmen were asked a series of questions that tap the amateur-professional dimension by probing the chairmen's attitudes toward the party hierarchy, their attitudes toward issues and ideology, and their view of the role of issues and ideology in local party politics. Specifically, the questions were whether the chairmen felt an obligation (1) to follow party leaders, (2) to give patronage positions to party supporters, (3) to weigh prior party service in selecting a candidate, (4) to pick a candidate with issue commitments, (5) to keep public officials accountable to the party, and (6) to hold personal beliefs. Possible responses to each question ranged over a five-place continuum from "strong obligation to do," "some obligation to do," "no obligation," "some obligation to avoid," to a "strong obligation to avoid." These responses are assigned a value ranging from zero to four with "strong obligation to do" assigned the upper value, four. Following Richard Hofstetter (1971), I have factor analyzed the six questions. The results of this factor analysis are presented in Table 4-1.

Earlier analysis has indicated that amateur-professionalism may

not fall upon a single dimension. Thomas Roback, for example, in examining delegates to the 1972 Republican Convention finds, after factor analysis, that two dimensions resulted: (1) a procedural-organization dimension and (2) a principles-participation dimension (1975). Richard Hofstetter earlier arrived at similar conclusions by factor analysis of







64

Table 4-1

Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Amateur-Professional Perceptions

Factor
Issue
Question Procedural Participation

Follow decisions of
party leaders .46 .30
Give patronage help
to party workers .64 .18
Weigh prior service in
selecting nominee .74 .10
Select nominee with
issue commitments .14 .76
Keep public officials
accountable to party .68 .10
Hold personal beliefs .18 .75 Percent total variance: 16.80 12.80



questions designed to tap the distinction between amateur and professional: he labeled the factors (1) procedural and (2) issueparticipation. The procedural dimension "taps norms about party procedure--accountability to the organization, nomination of candidates, patronage, and discipline" (1971, p. 41). The second factor, the issue-participation factor, "taps norms about commitment to issues, intensity of personal belief, discussion of issues, participation and the role of the formal party organization in nominations (juxtaposed against the role of individuals or action groups) . ." (p. 41). The figures in Table 4-1 mirror these results. Two of the questions, the degree of obligation to select a nominee with issue commitments and the degree of obligation to hold personal beliefs, load heavily upon the second factor, issue-participation. Of the four remaining questions,







65

only one, the extent of obligation to follow decisions of party leaders, loads on the first factor, procedural, at less than .50. The remaining three questions, the extent of a feeling of obligation to give patronage help to party workers, weigh prior service in selecting a nominee, and keep public officials accountable to the party, all load on the procedural factor at more than .60. Because the question tapping obligation to follow decisions of party leaders is only .04 less than the cutoff point for loading on the first factor, and because it is theoretically justifiable in light of earlier research, I have included the question in the procedural dimension. For clarity in presentation, because of limitations in the county chairmen survey (specifically, the lack of information on inter-party activities of the chairmen), and for conformity with earlier research on amateurism, subsequent analysis in this chapter will deal only with the procedural dimension of the amateur character; this is the approach adopted by Roback (1975). Responses to the four questions that fall in the procedural dimension were summed to produce an additive index for each chairman ranging from zero, indicating all responses were "obligation to avoid," to a score of 16, indicating all responses to the four questions were "strong obligation to do." Thus, the lower the score, the more deeply rooted the amateur convictions, the higher the score, the more professional the chairman's convictions.

The scores were trichotomized into amateur, semi-professional, and professional. This division yields 133 amateurs (8.3 percent), 781 semiprofessionals (48.6 percent) and 598 professionals (37.2 percent). While skewed in the direction of professionals, the results correspond favorably with those of earlier studies (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977;






66

Soule and McGarth, 1975). The remainder of this chapter deals with an analysis of the county chairmen divided along the amateur-professional dimension.

The demographic variables for the first portion of this analysis are those examined in earlier research: level of education, age, time-in-office, and sex. Statistical research has confirmed Wilson's observation that amateurs are, for the most part, ". . young, welleducated professional people, including a large number of women" (1968). Soule and McGarth reach similar conclusions in their examination of delegates to the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Conventions, and Roback reports a like profile of amateurs at the 1972 Republican Convention (Soule and McGarth, 1975; Roback, 1975). The data presented in Table 4-2 reflect these findings for the county chairmen. Amateur chairmen are better educated than semiprofessionals or professionals: 63 percent of the amateurs report having a college degree or having done postgraduate work, compared to 54 percent of the semiprofessionals and 51 percent of the professionals. Among delegates to the 1974 Democratic Midterm Convention, Hitlin and Jackson report 76 percent of the amateurs as college graduates or holding advanced degrees, compared to 54 percent of the professionals (1977). The figures-also indicate amateurs are more likely to be younger than the more professionallyoriented chairmen. More than 25 percent of the amateurs, but twothirds fewer professionals, only 8 percent, are between ages twenty-two and thirty-five. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and professionals; 14 percent are ages twenty-two to thirty-five. While 31 percent of the amateurs are fifty-one years old or older, 46 percent of the professionally-oriented chairmen are above age fifty-one. Among







67

Table 4-2

Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional
by Demographic Traits
(in percents)

Degree of Professionalism
Semi
Amateur Professional Professional Education
None-some high school 5.3 3.5 6.4 High school 9.2 13.1 15.4 Some college 22.9 29.9 27.7 College and post-grad. 62.9 54.2 50.5
N = 131 778 596 df = 6 X2 = 14.26


22 to 35 25.6 14.4 8.2 36 to 50 43.4 50.3 46.1 51 to 65 23.3 30.3 33.0 66 to 86 7.8 5.0 12.6
N = 129 776 594 df = 6 X2 =56.11a
Time in Office
2 years or less 43.4 46.5 35.4 3 or 4 years 27.1 24.4 25.4 5 years or more 29.5 29.0 39.2
N = 29 765 587 df =4 X2 = 21.15a

Sex
Male 89.4 91.8 94.1 Female 10.6 8.2 5.9
N = 132 781 597 df = 2 X2 = 4.69


significant at .001







68

Republican delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention, Roback found "organizational longevity . positively related to professionalism" (1975, p. 450). The data for the county chairmen mirror the results of Soule and Clarke's examination of delegates to the 1968 Democratic Convention. They found 24 percent of the amateurs had been active two years or less and 75 percent of the professionals were active ten years or more (1970). The amateurs have also served in the office of chairmen fewer years than professionals; over 43 percent of the amateurs have been in office two years or less, compared to 35 percent of the professionals. On the other hand, while almost equal percentages of amateurs and semiprofessionals have served five years or more, 25.5 percent of the amateurs and 29 percent of the semiprofessionals, over 39 percent of the professionals have been in office for five or more years.

Finally, the data indicate women are found in slightly greater percentages among the amateurs: about 11 percent of the amateurs are women, compared to 6 percent of the professionals. The semiprofessionals fall in between, with 8 percent women.

Age differences and differences in time served in office open the door to another dimension of the attributes of the amateurism of the chairmen, their political experience and ambitions. The chairmen were asked (1) if they had ever held public office, (2) if they wished higher party office and (3) if they wished to keep their present position. It is expected that given the relative youth of the amateurs and their comparative newness to the position of county chairmen, they would be less likely to have held public office. Wishing higher party office or the desire to keep their present position is more difficult to







69

predict. It may be that the amateur is willing to participate in political activity--even to the extent of becoming a county chairman--only insofar as policy goals, electoral or ideological, are perceived as obtainable. There is some evidence for this argument. In their study of county political activists in Iowa, Johnson and Gibson report that despite activity as campaign workers in a primary election, 21 percent of the activists intended to bolt their party in the general election. This group included five precinct committeemen, three precinct chairmen, and one county party official: ". . more than one-half of the bolters were, or had been, delegates to county conventions" (1974, p. 73). Of course, the amateurs may view political activity as socially or personally beneficial, may have enjoyed their political experience and have higher political aspirations. The results are presented in Table 4-3.

As predicted, the amateurs are less likely to have held public office than either the semiprofessionals or the professionals. Only 29 percent of the amateurs have held public office while 39 percent of the semiprofessionals and 48 percent of the professionals have held office. This pattern of office-holding coincides with that reported by Hitlin and Jackson for delegates to the Democratic Mid-Term Convention. They found 59 percent of the amateurs had held party office while 81 percent of the professionals had held office (1977). The difference between the chairmen and the delegates may be the consequence of delegates to the national convention having first served in the county party.

The amateurs have less desire than professionals for both higher party office or for keeping their own position. Less than 30 percent







70

Table 4-3

Chairmen's Ambitions by Amateur,
Semiprofessional, and Professional

Degree of Professionalism (percent answering "yes") Semi
Ambition Amateur Prof. Prof.

Ever held public
office? 29.2 38.7 47.7 N = 38 300 282 X = 20.05a

Wish higher party office? 29.7 36.7 41.0 N = 38 274 235 X = 6.46a

Wish to keep present
position? 41.5 44.8 53.8 N = 51 335 302 X = 12.72a

adf = 2; significant at .05



of them wish for higher party office, compared to 41 percent of the professionals. Only 41 percent of the amateurs (opposed to 54 percent of the professionals) want to keep their present positions. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and the professionals. The lesser interest of amateurs in pursuing higher party office or in maintaining their current party office may be indicative of a dissatisfaction with party politics as was the case among the Iowa activists. A final variable frequently mentioned in the literature of amateurs and professionals is the liberal-conservative dimension. While Wilson reports that Democratic clubs in California tend overwhelmingly to be liberal, he also maintains that ". . it is not his liberalism .







71

that sets the new politician apart and makes him worth studying" (1968, p. 2). Yet, the studies of amateurs have consistently linked the amateur with liberal: "amateurs were much more likely to place themselves in the 'liberal' category than were the professionals," write Hitlin and Jackson (1977, p. 792). Far from indicating a liberal bent, data from the county chairmen place the amateur within the conservative category. The chairmen were asked to rank themselves on a liberal-conservative continuum ranging from very liberal to very conservative. As in Chapter Two, these categories are collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative. The results are displayed in Table 4-4. Of the amateurs, 48 percent classify themselves as conservative. Forty-three percent of the professionals place themselves in the conservative category. Only 22 percent of the amateurs regard themselves as liberal, while 26 percent of the professionals so classify themselves. While these data do not correspond to the results of work done on convention delegates, they are more in line with Wilson's observation that the amateur is not solely a product of a liberal political outlook. Amateurism is a question of political "style," and not a question of liberalness. As Wildavsky has pointed out in regard to the conservative "purist" delegates to the 1964 Republican National convention:

The ideal party of the purists is not merely a conservative
party; it is also a distinct and separate community of cobelievers who differ with the opposition party all down the line.
To this extent, their style merges with that of the liberal party
reformers, described by James Wilson . who wish to see the parties represent clear and opposed alternatives and gain votes only through appeals on policy differences rather than on such "irrational" criteria as personality, party identification, or
ethnic status. (1971, pp. 255-256)








72
Table 4-4

Amateur, Semiprofessional, and Professional by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)

Degree of Professionalism

LiberalConservative Amateur Prof. Prof.
Liberal 22.3 23.6 26.3 Middle-of-the-Road 29.2 34.7 31.2 Conservative 48.5 41.8 42.5
N = 130 764 586 X = 4.24a

adf = 4; not significant


In their study of presidential elections, Polsby and Wildavsky reach the same conclusion: ". . in the presence of these activists is a phenomenon which is not best seen as a matter of right vs. left, or orgnaization vs. anti-organization, but rather in terms of political purists . vs. professional politicians" (1971, p. 36). In short, it is "style" that distinguishes the amateur from the professional, not liberalism. This distinction in style is seen in the attitude of amateurs and professionals toward the representative function of the legislator. The amateur, Wilson says, would control elected officials not from "external threats" typified by the mobilization of electoral majorities, but rather by "internalized convictions" that have as their object the realization of ". . certain social policies rather than of enhancing the party's prospects for retaining power in the next election" (1968, pp. 18-19). It is anticipated, therefore, that the amateur activist would see the duty of the representative as to act in the best interest of the contituency and not, necessarily,







73

respond to the wishes of the constituency. The professional, concerned with winning elections, is likely to be more sensitive to the constituency's wishes.

The chairmen were asked: "In making most kinds of policy decisions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own best judgment even if this means doing something unpopular, or that politicians ought to do what a majority of their constituents want?" The responses are reported in Table 4-5. The majority of the activists, 52 percent, believe politicans should rely upon their own judgment in making policy decisions; 30 percent feel politicians should use a combination of their own judgment and that of their constituents, while 18 percent believe majority opinion should provide the guide to political action. At the other extreme, while 38 percent of the professionals think politicians should rely upon their own judgment exclusively, only 5 percent fewer, 33 percent, believe policy decisions should be made upon the preferences of the majority. The figures bear out the expectation that professionals are more sensitive to the demands of the constituency and, by implication, that most amateurs expect the politician to pursue a "correct" policy solution, not necessarily relying upon the attitudes of constituents for guidance.

Especially intriguing in these figures are the disparities among the amateurs. While the semiprofessionals and professionals array themselves evenly across the three categories, the amateurs cluster heavily--more than one-half--upon reliance upon a politician's own judgment. Yet almost 18 percent of the amateurs would rely exclusively upon the majority opinion for making policy decisions--a surprising response for the amateur activists, preoccupied with "correct" policy








74

Table 4-5

Attitude on Representation by Amateurism (in percents)

Legislator should Semirely on Amateur prof. Prof.
Own judgment 52.3 41.6 38.2 Both equally 30.0 31.4 29.0 Majority opinion 17.7 24.4 32.9
N = 130 772 587
X2 = 21.72a

adf = 4; significant at .001



choice. This 18 percent bears more extended analysis. The existence of the schism within the amateur ranks is indicative of a "fundamental problem" confronted by the amateurs: to abandon democracy for elitism or to surrender policy decisions to popular input (Wilson, 1968, pp. 344-346). The majority of the amateurs would appear to have come down on the elite side of the issue--over 50 percent maintaining politicians should rely solely on their own judgment in making policy decisions. Eighteen percent of the amateurs, however, argue the majority opinion should govern political decisions--a "majoritarian" approach. It appears, then, that amateurism is more complex than a liberalconservative division would indicate. An analysis of the majoritarian amateurs vis-a-vis the remaining amateurs and the professionals may clarify this phenomenon.

Table 4-6 presents comparisons by demographic traits among (1) amateurs minus the majoritarians, (2) semiprofessionals, and (3) the majoritarians. Since the number of majoritarians is small (N = 22), the categories of education, age, and time-in-office have been collapsed.







75

Table 4-6

Amateur, Professional, Majoritarian
by Demographic Traits (in percents)

Degree of Professionalism Amateur Professional Majoritarian Education

None-high school 11.3 21.8 31.8 Some college 20.8 27.7 31.8 College and post-grad. 67.9 50.5 36.4

N= 106 596 22 df = 4 X2 = 14.36a Age

22 to 50 69.2 54.4 68.2 51 to 86 30.8 45.6 31.8

N= 104 594 22 df = 2 X2 = 9.13a Time in Office

2 to 4 years 74.3 60.8 47.6 5 years or more 25.7 39.2 52.4

N = 105 587 21 df =2 = 8.90a Sex

Male 89.7 94.1 86.4 Female 10.3 5.9 13.6

N =' 107 597 22 df = 2 X2 = 4.52


asignificant at .01







76

Despite the loss of some variability, differences between the groups are still apparent. For example, the majoritarians are three times as likely, in terms of percentages, to have only a high school education or less than are the remaining amateurs, 32 percent to 11 percent. The amateurs are 17 percent more likely to have a college education or postgraduate work, 68 percent, than professionals, 51 percent, but far more likely than the majoritarians, who report only 36 percent with a college education or greater. Distinctions between amateurs and majoritarians over age are negligible, 69.2 percent of the amateurs are below age fifty-one with 68.2 percent of the majoritarians in the same category. Both of these groups, however, differ from the professionals, where only 54 percent are under age fifty-one and nearly 46 percent are above age fifty.

Larger differences are noticeable when the chairmen are compared over the time they have served in office. While 75 percent of the amateurs and 61 percent of the professionals have served two to four years, only 48 percent of the majoritarians have served five years or less. Conversely, more than one-half the majoritarians, 52 percent, have served five years or more, in contrast to 25 percent of the amateurs. There is little distinction between amateurs and majoritarians regarding sex; only 3.6 percent more majoritarians are women.

To complete the comparisons among amateurs, professionals, and

majoritarians, Table 4-7 presents the distribution of amateurs by the liberal-conservative dimension. While not statistically significant, the figures indicate the greatest portion of the majoritarians classify themselves as conservatives, over 69 percent, compared to 44 percent among the remaining amateurs and 43 percent among professionals. In








77
Table 4-7

Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)

Degree of professionalism


Liberal- Maj oriConservative Amateur Prof. tarian

Liberal 26.2 26.3 4.3 Middle-of-the-Road 29.9 31.2 26.1 Conservative 43.9 42.5 69.6
N = 107 586 23
X = 8.14a

adf = 4; not significant


fact, only 4 percent of the majoritarians call themselves liberal, opposed to about 26 percent of both amateurs and professionals.

A number of conclusions may be drawn from the preceding analysis. Amateurs are not unidimensional: among the amateurs there are distinctions in attitudes over the function of the representative. Some believe the politicians should use their best judgment in representing their constituency, others that the politician should follow the dictates of the constituency. This second group, the majoritarians, differ from other amateurs in demographic as well as attitudinal characteristics, as well as differing from professionals. This finding implies that amateurs must be treated as a more complex phenomenon than they have been in the past. In addition, the results indicate the amateur oriented chairmen somewhat better educated, younger, and newer to the job of chairman than their semiprofessional or professional counterparts. The amateurs are also less likely to have held public office than semiprofessionals or professionals, and less likely to want higher





78

public office. Contrary to the results reported by other studies of amateurism, the amateur-oriented chairmen are not more likely than professionals to classify themselves as liberals.

The differences in demographic and attitudinal traits, and, in

particular, the liberal-conservative classification and the existence

of a majoritarian subset among the amateurs, emphasize the differences in style between amateurs and professionals. That difference is examined in Chapter Five.
















CHAPTER FIVE


LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE
AMATEUR-PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION


Chapter Four examined the amateur and professional chairmen by looking at their demographic and attitudinal differences or similarities. This chapter continues the examination of the amateurprofessional phenomenon among the county chairmen by focusing upon the connection between the amateur, semiprofessional, or professional status of chairmen and their local party campaign activity and, second, the frequency of contacts between chairmen and various government and party officials.

The different orientations of amateurs and professionals may produce different levels of campaign activity. Amateurs are concerned primarily with issues and only secondarily with winning elections. "The belief in compromise and bargaining; the sense that public policy is made in small steps rather than in big leaps; the concern with conciliating the opposition and broadening public appeal; and the willingness to bend a little to capture public support are all characteristic of the traditional politics in the U.S." (Wildavsky, 1971, p. 254). The amateur diverges from traditional politics: concerns for compromise, cementing electoral coalitions, and placating the opposition, give way to an emphasis upon issues to the exclusion of traditional political values. Obtaining political power is not the 79







80

chief goal of the amateur. Eldersveld reports that 78 percent of the precinct leaders who were involved in party activity for personal reasons--such as securing a job--were power-oriented; 70 percent of the precinct leaders who were involved for personal social rewards were power-oriented; but, only 44 percent of the precinct leaders with ideological concerns were motivated chiefly by hope of obtaining political power (1964). It is expected, then, that the amateurs would be less energetic than the professionals in the use of campaign activity.

Table 5-1 presents a comparison of amateurs, semiprofessionals,

and professionals across the reported frequency of using the five campaign activities developed in Chapter Three. All of the results are statistically significant. Across all five activities, the percent of professionals reporting "often" using any particular activity exceeds the percent of amateurs, while the percent of semiprofessionals falls between amateurs and professionals. Among professionals, 16 percent say they "often" use surveys or polls in campaigning, but only 8 percent of the amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls. While 42 percent of the amateurs say they "often" use press releases, more than half the professionals, 56 percent, report the same use; over half the professionals, 57 percent, maintain they "often" use circulars, opposed to 41 percent of the amateurs; 43 percent of the professionals say they "often" use radio in campaigning, but only 29 percent of the amateurs make the same estimate; finally, while 40 percent of the amateurs claim to "often" use literature, over 60 percent of the professionals say they "often" distribute literature in campaigns. Indeed, the reported frequency of campaign activity among the professional chairmen continues to exceed that of the amateurs when "often" responses are










Table 5-1

Amateur, Semi-Professional by Campaign Activity (in percents) Surveys/Polls
AmateurProfessional Often Sometimes Never N Amateur 7.7 35.9 56.4 117 Semi-Professional 11.2 40.4 48.4 698 Professional 16.3 40.7 43.0 528 df = 4 X2 = 13.67b Press Releases

Amateur 42.3 46.3 11.4 123 Semi-Professional 45.6 46.7 7.7 741 Professional 55.5 37.2 7.4 557 df = 4 X2 = 16.83b Circulars

Amateur 41.0 45.9 13.1 122 Semi-Professional 46.4 44.3 9.3 742 Professional 56.8 38.8 4.4 570 df = 4 X2 = 27.35a Radio

Amateur 28.5 37.4 34.1 123 Semi-Professional 31.3 43.4 25.3 738 Professional 43.0 39.0 18.0 556 df = 4 X2 = 30.32a Literature

Amateur 39.7 47.1 13.2 121 Semi-Professional 50.1 43.5 6.3 744 Professional 60.8 34.9 4.3 558 df = 4 X2 = 31.72a


significant at .001
significant at .01
significant at .01







82

combined with the "sometimes" responses. The smallest difference after combining categories is 4.1 percent in favor of the professionals. For each activity, the amateurs are more likely to report "never" using the activity in campaigning. These figures tend to bear out the expectation that those chairmen at the amateur end of the spectrum would be less active than those more professionally oriented. The professionals, the figures seem to indicate, are ". . preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of winning or losing" (Wilson, 1968, p. 4).

The majoritarian subset of the amateurs compared to the remaining amateurs and to professionals is displayed in Table 5-2. The majoritarians are less likely than the remaining amateurs or the professionals to report "often" using any of the five campaign activities. The smallest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is over the use of circulars, with 2.4 percent more amateurs than majoritarians saying they "often" use circulars in election campaigns. The differences over other activities are small: almost 3 percent fewer majoritarians than amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls, nearly 7 percent fewer claim they "often" use press releases, about 8 percent fewer "often" use radio, and 12 percent fewer report "often" using literature while campaigning. The gap between majoritarians and professionals is greater; 16 percent of the professionals "often" use polls, but only

6 percent of the majoritarians; 56 percent of the professionals say they "often" use press releases, but only 37 percent of the majoritarians, figures which are nearly the same for the use of circulars, 57 percent to 39 percent; 8 percent more professionals than majoritarians report "often" campaigning by using radio, and over 30 percent more professionals than majoritarians report "often" using literature,








83

Table 5-2

Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by Campaign Activity (in percents)

Surveys/Polls

Often Sometimes Never N
Amateur 8.1 36.4 55.6 99 Professional 16.3 40.7 43.0 528 Majoritarian 5.6 33.3 61.1 18 df = 4 X2= 9.36b Press Releases

Amateur 43.3 45.2 11.5 104 Professional 55.5 37.2 7.4 557 Majoritarian 36.8 52.6 10.5 19 df = 4 X2 = 7.88 Circulars

Amateur 41.3 46.2 12.5 104 Professional 56.8 38.8 4.4 570 Majoritarian 38.9 44.4 16.7 18 df = 4 X2 = 19.35a Radio

Amateur 27.2 35.9 36.9 103 Professional 43.0 39.0 18.0 556 Majoritarian 35.0 45.0 20.0 20 df = 4 X2 = 20.81a Literature

Amateur 41.6 45.5 12.9 101 Professional 60.8 34.9 4.3 558 Majoritarian 30.0 55.0 15.0 20 df = 4 X2 = 26.08



significant at .001 significant at .05






84

60.8 percent to 30 percent. The data indicate majoritarians less frequently report "often" engaging in any of the five types of campaign activity considered. Since each of these activities is designed to persuade the electorate, the majoritarians may view them as superfluous, believing the electorate is less appropriately "persuaded" than "represented." On the other hand, maximizing the chances of electoral victory, the professional's concern, may produce an enthusiasm for campaign activity.

The comparative figures for the amateurs, semiprofessionals and professionals, as well as those for the amateurs, professionals, and majoritarians seem to suggest that counties headed by amateur-oriented chairmen are less active in the campaign techniques described here. This finding coincides with the description of the amateur as less interested in winning elections than the professional. The next section of this chapter examines internal party activity, specifically, the frequency of contacts made by amateurs, semiprofessionals, and majoritarians with other party and elected officials. Contacts on matters of party business with party and elected officials demonstrate a concern with the party as an organization. Such contacts may encourage the party harmony necessary to mounting an effective campaign, coordinating party activity with other party leaders, and exhorting party members and party activists to greater levels of party activity (Patterson, 1963). In short, maintaining and participating in the communications network of the party are activities that would be more expected of professionals than of amateurs. "The purist worries about issues, while the professional worries about organization" (Sullivan et al., 1976, p. 121).







85


The data presented in Table 5-3 point toward these expectations. The table presents the reported frequency of contact by amateur, semiprofessional, and professional chairmen with various party and public officials, officials defined in Chapter Three. All of the chi-squares are statistically significant at .001. In each case, the professional chairmen are far more likely than the amateurs and somewhat more likely than the semiprofessionals to report frequent contacts with any of the elected or party officials considered here. While 53 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact the state's governor on party business, only 28 percent of the professionals and 39 percent of the semiprofessionals say they "never" contact the governor. Fewer than 3 percent of the amateurs say they contact state legislators "often," but six times that figure, 20.8 percent, of the professionals say they "often" contact state legislators. In terms of percentages, twice as many professionals as amateurs report "often" contacting congressmen on party business, 31.7 to 15.7 percent. By a margin of 15.5 percent, more professional than amateur chairmen report "often" contacting U.S. senators; almost 39 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact U.S. senators, compared to only 15 percent of the professionals. Looking at party officers, professionals are also more likely to contact state chairmen or other county party chairmen than are the amateurs. More than one-half the professionals, 54.4 percent, report "often" contacting state chairmen, opposed to 43 percent among the amateurs. In each case covered in Table 5-3, semiprofessionals are found between the amateurs and the professionals in regard to "often" contacting.

Table 5-4 presents the figures for rates of contact for amateurs, professionals, and majoritarians. All chi-squares are statistically







86

Table 5-3

Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)

Contact: Hardly
Often Sometimes Ever Never N Governor
Amateur 7.8 21.7 17.4 53.0 115 Semi-Professional 13.3 31.2 16.3 39.2 693 Professional 21.2 34.0 16.4 28.3 523 X2 = 41.50a
State Legislators
Amateur 2.8 31.1 17.2 19.7 122 Semi-Professional 21.1 39.9 11.8 7.7 730 Professional 20.8 36.4 6.1 4.7 555 X2 = 64.54

Congressmen
Amateur 15.7 28.7 16.5 39.1 115 Semi-Professional 22.7 41.2 18.4 17.7 695 Professional 31.7 41.1 15.7 11.4 542 X2 = 63.14

U.S. Senators
Amateur 9.7 31.0 9.1 38.9 113 Semi-Professional 17.0 42.4 20.2 20.5 694 Professional 25.2 43.3 17.0 14.5 524 X2 = 50.23
State Chairmen
Amateur 42.9 31.7 11.1 14.3 126 Semi-Professional 45.3 39.3 10.9 4.6 746 Professional 54.4 34.7 8.5 2.5 568 X2 = 42.77
Other Chairmen
Amateur 25.0 35.8 20.0 19.2 120 Semi-Professional 29.5 44.2 18.1 8.2 719 Professional 37.4 43.4 13.4 5.8 553 X2 = 37.77


adf for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001







87

Table 5-4

Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)

Contact: Hardly
Often Sometimes Ever Never N Governor
Amateur 6.4 22.3 16.0 55.3 94 Professional 21.2 34.0 16.4 28.3 523 Majoritarian 16.7 11.1 27.8 44.4 18 X2 = 35.16a
State Legislators
Amateur 32.4 31.4 17.6 18.6 102 Professional 52.8 36.4 6.1 4.7 551 Majoritarian 30.0 30.0 15.0 25.0 20 X2 = 56.27
Congressmen
Amateur 14.4 30.9 15.5 35.5 97 Professional 31.7 41.1 15.7 11.4 542 Majoritarian 22.2 16.7 22.2 38.9 18 X2 = 58.52
U.S. Senators
Amateur 9.4 32.3 20.8 37.5 96 Professional 25.2 43.3 17.0 14.5 524 Majoritarian 11.8 23.5 17.6 47.1 17 X2 = 44.49
State Chairmen
Amateur 44.2 30.8 10.6 14.4 104 Professional 54.4 34.7 8.5 2.5 568 Majoritarian 36.4 36.4 13.6 13.6 22 X2 = 35.55
Other Chairmen
Amateur 26.3 38.4 19.2 16.2 99 Professional 37.4 43.4 13.4 5.8 553 Majority 19.0 23.8 23.8 33.3 21 X2 = 37.87



adf for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001







88

significant at .001, and the percentage differences between groups are large. In three instances, contacts with the governor, with congressmen, and with U.S. senators, the majoritarians exceed the remaining amateurs. The governor is contacted "often" by 17 percent of the majoritarians, and by only 6 percent of the other amateur oriented chairmen; 21 percent of the professionals report "often" contacting the governor on party business. Twenty-two percent of the majoritarians, but only 14 percent of the amateurs, report "often" contacting congressmen on party business and 2.4 percent more majoritarians than amateurs report "often" contacting U.S. senators. In all other contacts, the majoritarians are surpassed by both amateurs and professionals. Contacting state legislators is done "often" by 32 percent of the amateurs and 53 percent of the professionals, but by only 30 percent of the majoritarians. While 44 percent of the amateurs and 54 percent of the professionals say they "often" contact state chairmen, 36 percent of the majoritarians report the same frequency of contact and, in contacting other chairmen, only 19 percent of the majoritarians report high levels of contact, as opposed to 37 percent of the professionals and 26 percent of the amateurs.

These figures indicate that in contacts with the-offices of governors, congressmen, and U.S. senators, majoritarians surpass the remaining amateurs. When the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are collapsed, the balance of contacting shifts toward the amateurs for each of these three offices, but only by a small edge: the greatest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is in contacting U.S. congressmen, where the amateurs exceed the majoritarians by 6 percent, 45.3 percent for the amateurs and 38.9 percent for the majoritarians;







89

for contacts with U.S. senators the difference is 6.4 percent; for contacts with the governor, the difference drops to .9 percent.

The lower contact rate among amateurs may be less the consequence of amateurism than of relative newness to the position of county chairman. The lack of contact may reflect not a disinterest or disdain for contacting party or political officials within the party on party business, but rather a lack of capacity to make such contacts due to inexperience in the position. If this reasoning is valid, it is to be anticipated that the frequency of contacting would increase as the amateur chairmen become more comfortable in their role; a greater feeling of comfort may be expected to occur with longer time in office. To test this assumption, the chairmen were trichotimized by length of time in office--less than one year to two years, three and four years, and five years or more. This ranking is crosstabulated with the same set of variables dealing with contacts of public and party officials on party business. If time in office has an impact, it would be expected that greater time in office would be associated with increased contacts. The results are presented in Table 5-5.

The figures indicate that there is very little difference in frequency of contacts by amateurs as time in office increases. In fact, in all but one of the six potential contacts the percentage of amateurs who report "often" contacting and who have less than two years experience in the position of county chairman is greater than those with five or more years in the office. Only for contacts with congressmen do those with five or more years in office exceed those with the least tenure, and then by only 1.6 percent: 15.6 percent of the amateurs in office longest report "often" contacting congressmen as opposed to







90

Table 5-5

Amateur Contacting by Length of Time in Office (in percents)

Contact: Hardly Often Sometimes Ever Never N Governor

2 years or less 11.8 17.6 19.6 51.0 51 3 or 4 years 6.1 27.3 15.2 51.5 33 5 years or more 3.3 23.3 13.3 60.0 30 X2 = 3.61a

State Legislators
2 years or less 37.0 25.9 14.8 22.2 54 3 or 4 years 23.5 38.2 20.6 17.6 34 5 years or more 33.3 33.3 18.2 15.2 33 X = 3.26

Congressmen
2 years or less 14.0 28.0 16.0 42.0 50 3 or 4 years 16.1 25.8 19.4 38.7 31 5 years or more 15.6 34.4 15.6 34.4 32 X2 = .97

U.S. Senators
2 years or less 10.2 24.5 20.4 44.9 49 3 or 4 years 9.4 28.1 21.9 40.6 32 5 years or more 10.0 43.3 16.7 30.0 30 X2 = 3.54

State Chairman
2 years or less 53.7 24.1 9.3 13.0 54 3 or 4 years 44.1 32.4 8.8 14.7 34 5 years or more 25.0 44.4 16.7 13.9 36 X2 = 8.31

Other Chairmen
2 years or less 25.5 41.8 20.0 12.7 55 3 or 4 years 26.7 36.7 23.3 13.3 30 5 years or more 24.2 24.2 18.2 33.3 33 X2 = 7.36

adf for all chi-squares = 6




Full Text
59
Table 3-10
Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables
and Frequency of Contact
Contact
with3
Variable
Governor
State
Legis.
Congress
men
- U.S. Sen
ators
St. Pty.
Chairmen
Other
Chairmen
Liberal-
Conservative
Democratic
Republican
10.06
13.03
11.40
20.06
6.04
7.45
12.20
7.96
16.25
5.69
16.38
1.90
Activity of
Federal Govt.
Democratic
Republican
4.08
9.92
10.58
5.72
7.51
5.30
2.57
10.12
16.24
6.09
23.79b
5.43
Level of Govt.
Most Concerned
Democratic
6.42
6.72
2.74
18.53
9.35
6.92
Republican
19.55c
35.72b
2.06
5.54
4.34
5.26
Most Important
Problem Facing
State
Democratic
8.45
4.55
5.20
6.83
10.84
8.95
Republican
24.65
9.03
8.52
6.40
7.53
2.66
p
percentages are found in Appendix E
^significant at .001
c
significant at .01
while at the same time reflecting a reluctance on the part of conserva
tives to participate as fully.
Among Republicans, the chi-squares indicate greater divisions within
the party over contacts with state government officials, the governor


36
an examination of the second set of dependent variables, frequency of
contacts.
Characteristics of the Chairmen and Party Activity
Demographic measures. If the demographic and attitudinal differ
ences among the chairmen make a difference in the activities of the
different party organizations the chairmen lead, the distinctions
should be apparent in a crosstabulation between the demographic and
attitudinal variables and the measures of county campaign activity.
Table 3-2 presents the chi-square results for the demographic variables
of education, age, occupation, and length of time in office, previously
defined in Chapter Two.
Despite the large sample size, the chi-squares are all low and few
are statistically significant. Moreover, they do not vary greatly
across election activities. There are two exceptions to these general
izations. First, the chi-squares between age and the distribution of
literature, for both Democratic and Republican chairmen, are noticeably
higher than most of the other chi-squares, 16.22 for the Democrats and
21.00 for the Republicans, both results are statistically significant.
These relatively large chi-squares, however, exaggerate small percentage
differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen. For the
Democrats, 6.8 percent between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-five
report "never" using literature; but that figure is only 10 percent
greater, 16.9 percent, among Democratic chairmen sixty-six to eighty-
one years old and there is little difference among the other age
categories. Similarly, for the Republican chairmen, the difference
is even smaller, 9.5 percent of those twenty-two to thirty-five report
"never" distributing literature compared to 4.1 percent of the


84
60.8 percent to 30 percent. The data indicate majoritarians less fre
quently report "often" engaging in any of the five types of campaign
activity considered. Since each of these activities is designed to
persuade the electorate, the majoritarians may view them as superfluous,
believing the electorate is less appropriately "persuaded" than "repre
sented." On the other hand, maximizing the chances of electoral vic
tory, the professional's concern, may produce an enthusiasm for
campaign activity.
The comparative figures for the amateurs, semiprofessionals and
professionals, as well as those for the amateurs, professionals, and
majoritarians seem to suggest that counties headed by amateur-oriented
chairmen are less active in the campaign techniques described here.
This finding coincides with the description of the amateur as less
interested in winning elections than the professional. The next sec
tion of this chapter examines internal party activity, specifically,
the frequency of contacts made by amateurs, semiprofessionals, and
majoritarians with other party and elected officials. Contacts on
matters of party business with party and elected officials demonstrate
a concern with the party as an organization. Such contacts may encour
age the party harmony necessary to mounting an effective campaign,
coordinating party activity with other party leaders, and exhorting
party members and party activists to greater levels of party activity
(Patterson, 1963). In short, maintaining and participating in the
communications network of the party are activities that would be more
expected of professionals than of amateurs. "The purist worries about
issues, while the professional worries about organization" (Sullivan
et al., 1976, p. 121).


24
Differences between the parties are minor over which level of
government, local, state, or national, the chairmen have the most con
cern. As Table 2-3 shows, the chairmen are divided almost evenly
across the three governmental levels, with the Democrats showing
slightly greater concern for local government: 39 percent of the
Democrats are most concerned with local government, as opposed to 33
percent of the Republicans. More substantial are the differences over
the most important problem facing the state. In both of the parties,
the chairmen regard economic concerns as the major problem confronting
their state, and almost even percentages, 27.1 percent of the Demo
crats and 26.4 percent of the Republicans, see social issues as para
mount. But the Democrats are less likely to view state government
problems as the most important of state concerns than are the Republi
cans; 8.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen say this is their states'
most important problem but only 14 percent of the Republicans make this
assessment.
While the differences between Southern and non-Southern chairmen
are minimal over the demographic characteristics discussed earlier,
the differences over political orientations are more pronounced, as
reported in Table 2-4. Almost one-half of the Southern chairmen call
themselves conservatives, only 16 percent say they are liberal. For
non-Southerners, 37 percent report being conservative with over one-
quarter maintaining they are liberal. Over three-quarters of the
Southern chairmen think the activities of the federal government should
decrease, as opposed to 69 percent of the non-Southern chairmen. The
Southern chairmen are also more concerned about local government than
are non-Southerners, 41 to 32 percent, and, while they are more


82
combined with the "sometimes" responses. The smallest difference after
combining categories is 4.1 percent in favor of the professionals. For
each activity, the amateurs are more likely to report "never" using the
activity in campaigning. These figures tend to bear out the expecta
tion that those chairmen at the amateur end of the spectrum would be
less active than those more professionally oriented. The professionals,
the figures seem to indicate, are "... preoccupied with the outcome
of politics in terms of winning or losing" (Wilson, 1968, p. 4).
The majoritarian subset of the amateurs compared to the remaining
amateurs and to professionals is displayed in Table 5-2. The majori-
tarians are less likely than the remaining amateurs or the profession
als to report "often" using any of the five campaign activities. The
smallest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is over the use
of circulars, with 2.4 percent more amateurs than majoritarians saying
they "often" use circulars in election campaigns. The differences
over other activities are small: almost 3 percent fewer majoritarians
than amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls, nearly 7 percent
fewer claim they "often" use press releases, about 8 percent fewer
"often" use radio, and 12 percent fewer report "often" using literature
while campaigning. The gap between majoritarians and professionals
is greater; 16 percent of the professionals "often" use polls, but only
6 percent of the majoritarians; 56 percent of the professionals say
they "often" use press releases, but only 37 percent of the majoritar
ians, figures which are nearly the same for the use of circulars, 57
percent to 39 percent; 8 percent more professionals than majoritarians
report "often" campaigning by using radio, and over 30 percent more
professionals than majoritarians report "often" using literature,


41
Attitudinal measures. For this portion of the analysis, the same
five dependent variables measuring local campaign activity are cross-
tabulated with the four attitudinal measures developed in Chapter Two.
These attitudinal measures are a liberal-conservative dimension, atti
tudes toward the activity of the federal government (increase, remain-
the-same, decrease), the level of government (local, state or national)
with which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assess
ment of the most important problem facing the state. The chi-square
results are presented in Table 3-4.
As with the earlier results comparing demographic variables with
local party activity, the chi-squares between attitudinal variables
and party activity are low; excepting the differences between liberal
and conservative and Democrats, to be discussed in detail below, few
of the chi-squares are statistically significant. Differences between
reported campaign activities of Democrats and Republicans across all
activity areas are small. Indeed, the largest difference among Demo
cratic chairmen is found .in the group reporting "often" using radio
between those who are most concerned with local government, 45 percent,
and those most interested in the national government, 33 percent. For
the Republicans, the greatest gap lies in the group "often" using press
releases between those most concerned with local government, 59 percent,
and those most concerned with national government, 42 percent. The
remaining differences are small. Other than the liberal-conservative
dimension, the greatest percentage differences are found over the activ
ity of the federal government. Over 55 percent of those Democratic
chairmen wishing a decrease in federal government activity report
"never" using surveys or polls, opposed to 42 percent of those who would


101
directed activity of political parties, actions designed to involve
those persons outside the party organization itself, and, second,
internally directed activity, interactions chiefly with other party
organization members.
When the relationship between the demographic and attitudinal
characteristics of the chairmen is tested against the measures of party
activity, little connection is apparent. The demographic and atti
tudinal traits measured here seem unrelated to differences in type of
party electoral activity pursued by the county party or the frequency
of interparty communications made by the chairmen.
The second model of party activity examined links the political
orientations of the chairmen to local party activity. Orientations
are defined here following John Q. Wilson's division of party activists
into amateurs and professionals. Chapter Four divides amateurs from
professionals on the basis of the chairman's perceived obligations to
the party in terms of following party leaders, offering patronage
positions to party supporters, considering party service before choos
ing party candidates, and keeping public officials accountable to the
party. The data presented in Chapter Four indicate, first, that the
county chairmen may be divided along amateur-professional lines, and,
second, that the amateurs and the professionals differ from each other
in regard to demographic characteristics. Over 8 percent of the chair
men are classified as amateurs, while over 30 percent are profession
als; the remaining 49 percent fall in between as semiprofessionals.
These groups differ in demographic makeup. The amateurs are better
educated, younger, and newer to the office of county chairman than
their more professional counterparts. In addition, the amateurs are


105
chairmen, in particular, are now ideologically motivated, ideological
and issues concerns may detract from the concerns of party organization
Ideologically motivated party members may weaken the party organization
Epstein has pointed out that, in addition to purposeful, solidarity,
and material incentives for organizational activity, there may exist
a fourth incentive for participation in political party activity: a
hybrid of the purposeful and solidarity incentives: "The incentive
is simply to win as for ones team in a game" (1970, p. 102). As
Sorauf says, the party develops loyalties of its own: "... party
itself may even become a goal" (1975, p. 37). This goal apparently
is not shared by the amateur politician.
As the data from Chapter Five indicate, amateur-oriented chairmen
(defined, in part, as chairmen who feel an obligation to pick candi
dates with issue commitments and who feel the need to hold personal
beliefs) are less likely than professionally-oriented chairmen to con
tact elected officials in public or party offices on matters of party
business, less likely to report organized precincts in their counties,
and less likely to have county organizations that actively campaign
for elective offices. The amateurs appear indifferent to party organi
zation. As Ladd and Hadley say, the "purist" of both left and right
is . more sensitive to the integrity of program than to mainten
ance of the party organization" (1975, p. 305). The political conse
quences of emphasizing program above party have been seen in Iowa,
where some of the county party leadership bolted the party after the
failure of their candidate to win, and in California, where activist
emphasis upon party platform and the issue integrity of the candidates
disrupted the party organization (Johnson and Gibson, 1974; Cavala,


CHAPTER SIX
THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES
The preceding chapters have tested two models of local party
activity as it may be influenced by the county party leadership. The
first model tested emphasizes the connection between the demographic
characteristics of the county chairmen and local party activity. This
model is suggested in much of the literature on the local party. It
maintains that the demographic characteristics of the chairmen have an
impact upon the chairmen who, in turn, influence the activity of the
local party organization. Thus, differences in party activity may be
traced to demographic differences among the party leadership. The
second model of local party activity stresses the leaderships politi
cal orientations, specifically, the county chairman's amateur or profes
sional attitude toward politics. This model postulates that different
party activity will be associated with the chairmen's differing political
orientations. These models were suggested by earlier research on local
party organization but they had not been subjected to analysis that
attempted to link them directly to the county party chairmen. I will
first discuss the results of this analysis as they relate to both
models of party activity. Then, I will consider the wider implica
tions of the results for American political parties.
99


APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
State Legislators on Party Business
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
LiberalConservative
Liberal
50.0
36.0
9.4
4.5
308
62.2
29.7
8.1
0.0
37
Middle-of-Road
46.9
37.3
8.3
7.5
241
45.5
40.6
10.3
3.6
224
Conservative
36.1
42.0
10.1
11.8
119
40.6
36.7
11.4
11.4
466
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
50.3
37.3
8.1
4.3
161
32.4
44.1
8.8
14.7
34
Remain the same
39.2
38.5
15.4
6.9
130
46.0
31.7
15.9
6.3
63
Decrease
45.6
37.9
8.0
8.6
338
43.9
37.5
10.4
8.2
624
Most Concerned With:
Local
51.6
31.7
9.7
7.0
186
45.8
31.3
16.1
6.8
192
State
39.5
42.5
11.0
7.0
200
49.0
38.7
6.4
5.9
204
Nation
45.3
39.2
10.1
5.4
148
27.9
44.8
12.9
14.4
201
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
42.7
42.7
9.3
5.3
150
37.6
39.4
11.8
11.2
170
Economic
49.2
34.0
11.0
5.9
374
45.7
38.1
9.8
6.4
409
State govt./pol. party
54.0
34.0
8.0
4.0
50
34.7
43.2
10.5
11.6
95


9
recent studies of American electoral behavior have indicated the emer
gence of this new figure (DeVries and Tarrance, 1972; Nie et al.,
1976), the harbingers of the change among political activists were
first described by James Q. Wilson in The Amateur Democrat Studying
the political clubs of New York and California, Wilson drew a distinc
tion between political amateurs and political professionals. The
amateur finds politics "intrinsically interesting" because it expresses
a conception of the public interest. "The amateur politician sees the
political world more in terms of ideas and principles than in terms of
persons" (1968, p. 3). The professional politician, on the other
hand, is ". . preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of
winning or losing; the professional's goal is to keep everybody happy
and thus to minimize the chance of electoral defeat" (p. 4).
A number of additional studies have confirmed the existence of
this activist group in American politics. In an urban setting,
Hirshfield, Swanson, and Blank have drawn attention to the "New Look"
among activists in Manhattan. "The contemporary politician," they
write, "considers his party organization an instrument for effectuating
policy rather than a haven of personal security. He tends to be more
interested in social reform than in catering to individual constitu
ents" (1962, p. 505). Salisbury finds the amateur activists in urban
areas concerned with policy issues, frowning on unquestioning party
loyalty, while the professional emphasizes organization, discipline,
rewards, and loyalty (1965). On the periphery of party officials, the
amateur syndrome has been observed among campaign workers by Johnson
and Gibson. Those workers who "bolted" the party following an unsuc
cessful primary campaign "... were more likely to be political


5
translate into patterns of organizational activity. What is missing
is the causal mechanism. For example, the characteristics producing
higher levels of political participation can be linked to participation
because they equip the individual with skills valuable in political
life: higher levels of income and education produce greater resources
to finance political activity as well as greater articulateness. There
is no mechanism linking an individual's demographic traits and local
party activity, no reason to assume a "spill-over" that would asso
ciate high levels of personal participation with different types of
organizational activity. Age, education, and income may be highly
correlated with political involvement on the part of county chairmen,
but there is no theoretical reason to maintain these variables will be
associated with different local party activities.
There has been no effort to relate, in a systematic and rigorous
manner, either the demographic or the attitudinal characteristics of
the county chairmen to the activity of the county organizations.
While studies of the county chairmen imply that demographic differ
ences among the chairmen may make a difference in the behavior of the
county organization, this proposition has never been tested and the
answer remains a deficiency in our knowledge of the county organization.
An examination of the connection between the demographic and
attitudinal variables and their influence upon local party activity is
one objective of this research. I shall test the proposition that the
demographic and attitudinal structures of the county party chairmen
can be associated with the activities of the local party organization
by correlating measures of county party activity with measures of the
demographic and attitudinal attributes of the county chairmen.


49
circulars, where the conservatives surpass the liberals by less than
3 percent. Liberals of both parties are more active across the cate
gories of party campaign activity.
Population and the liberal-conservative distinction. An explana
tion as to why the liberals are more active is found in the five
activities themselves. Each of them, surveys or polls, press releases,
the distribution of circulars and literature, and the use of radio, is
most easily and efficiently employed in highly populated counties.
Press releases are most worthwhile in reaching large numbers of people
and in establishing candidate name recognition, neither of which may
be as necessary in a rural or less populated environment. The distribu
tion of circulars and literature is more easily accomplished in areas of
greater population density; distance between homes, offices, and, speci
fically, people, is smaller; less time is spent traveling between
potential voters, and more time is spent in contacting voters. The two
activity areas that may constitute exceptions to this generalization,
the use of surveys or polls and the use of radio, are also the two
activities that show the smallest differences between liberals and con
servatives, as already' reported in Table 3-6. The average difference
between liberals and conservatives over "often" using press releases,
circulars, or literature is 12.3 percent. For the use of surveys or
polls, there is a difference of 1.8 percent and for the use of radio
in campaigns the difference is 3.9 percent. These exceptions are prob
ably the result of the high cost of polling and radio advertisements,
especially in the case of radio, since costs are determined by the size
of the audiencea calculation that may prove particularly costly when
a county with a relatively low population borders a county with greater


Contact:
Congressmen on Party Business
APPENDIX D (continued)
Republicans
Democrats
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
43.2
32.4
8.1
16.2
37
29.2
41.7
20.8
8.3
24
High school
25.5
47.3
9.1
18.2
110
28.6
44.2
16.7
10.4
77
Some college
33.5
40.1
6.2
10.2
197
24.0
40.1
18.2
17.7
192
College and post-grad.
22.7
39.7
19.1
18.5
335
24.1
38.3
17.8
19.8
439
Age
22 to 35
22.6
36.9
15.5
25.0
84
15.8
37.6
21.8
24.8
101
36 to 50
24.2
42.5
19.8
13.5
318
23.8
39.7
16.5
20.0
370
51 to 65
31.6
40.5
12.1
15.8
215
27.2
41.3
19.4
12.1
206
66 to 86
36.7
36.7
11.7
15.0
60
35.8
35.8
17.0
11.3
53
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
20.2
42.7
19.5
17.6
262
26.0
40.8
14.8
18.4
250
Managers, officials
34.3
40.3
12.5
13.0
216
25.9
39.2
19.2
15.7
255
Farmers, farm workers
29.1
44.2
10.5
16.3
86
17.2
39.4
19.2
24.2
99
Time in Office
2 years or less
28.1
38.7
19.1
14.1
256
21.1
41.4
18.7
18.7
331
3 or 4 years
26.9
41.9
17.2
14.0
186
22.4
38.2
20.6
18.8
165
5 years or more ,
26.7
41.4
12.1
19.8
232
31.7
38.0
15.8
14.5
221


CHAPTER ONE
THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND
THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY
The county is the major unit of political party organization in
the United States. Many congressional and judicial districts are
drawn in accordance with county lines, and state statutes frequently
give legal sanction to the position of the county party apparatus.
For American parties many believe "... that in most states the
major locus of organization vitality, and thus of organizational
authority, is the county committee" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 8). This
research concentrates on the task performance of county party chair
men, focusing specifically upon the organization and activities of
the local party organization. The chairmen will be examined from the
perspective of two models of party organization activity. The first
model suggests the behavior of the party organization is associated
with the demographic and attitudinal structure of county chairmen;
the second model relies upon the orientations of the chairmen toward
politics. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic
characteristics of the chairmen; this research also includes their
political attitudes, motivations, and orientations. Such an approach
helps to fill a deficiency in the literature of local party
organizations.
1


68
Republican delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention, Roback
found "organizational longevity . positively related to profession
alism" (1975, p. 450). The data for the county chairmen mirror the
results of Soule and Clarke's examination of delegates to the 1968
Democratic Convention. They found 24 percent of the amateurs had been
active two years or less and 75 percent of the professionals were active
ten years or more (1970). The amateurs have also served in the office
of chairmen fewer years than professionals; over 43 percent of the
amateurs have been in office two years or less, compared to 35 percent
of the professionals. On the other hand, while almost equal percentages
of amateurs and semiprofessionals have served five years or more, 25.5
percent of the amateurs and 29 percent of the semiprofessionals, over
39 percent of the professionals have been in office for five or more
years.
Finally, the data indicate women are found in slightly greater per
centages among the amateurs: about 11 percent of the amateurs are women,
compared to 6 percent of the professionals. The semiprofessionals fall
in between, with 8 percent women.
Age differences and differences in time served in office open the
door to another dimension of the attributes of the amateurism of the
chairmen, their political experience and ambitions. The chairmen were
asked (1) if they had ever held public office, (2) if they wished higher
party office and (3) if they wished to keep their present position. It
is expected that given the relative youth of the amateurs and their
comparative newness to the position of county chairmen, they would be
less likely to have held public office. Wishing higher party office
or the desire to keep their present position is more difficult to


Contact;
State Party Chairmen on
Party Business
Of ten
Education
Nonesome high school 43.9
High school 38.7
Some college 54.2
College and post-grad. 43.4
Age
22 to 35 51.7
36 to 50 47.6
59 to 65 40.5
66 to 86 46.8
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers 42.0
Managers, officials 45.9
Farmers, farm workers 42.4
Time in Office
2 years or less 49.1
3 or 4 years 50.3
5 years or more 39.1
APPENDIX D (continued)
Democrats
Republicans
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
41.5
7.3
7.3
42.0
11.8
7.6
34.0
8.4
3.4
38.9
10.9
6.7
39.1
5.7
3.4
34.0
10.8
7.5
44.7
9.3
5.5
33.9
16.1
3.2
Some-
N
Often
times
41
52.0
36.0
119
51.7
37.1
203
53.7
31.5
357
50.1
35.8
87
54.7
34.9
332
50.1
34.0
237
47.3
37.8
62
67.8
28.8
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
12.0
0.0
25
4.5
6.7
89
11.6
3.2
216
10.6
3.5
453
5.7
4.7
106
11.8
4.1
396
11.7
3.2
222
1.7
1.7
59
38.8
11.4
7.8
40.3
10.0
3.9
43.5
5.9
8.2
37.1
8.7
5.1
34.6
10.5
4.7
41.1
11.7
8.1
281
51.2
34.1
231
50.0
36.1
85
46.1
41.2
275
56.0
31.0
191
47.5
38.1
248
47.7
37.8
11.6
3.1
258
9.3
4.6
280
8.8
3.9
102
8.3
4.6
348
12.7
1.7
181
11.2
3.3
241
128



PAGE 1

THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY By DWIGHT LAMBERT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1980

PAGE 2

Copyright 1980 by Dwight Lambert

PAGE 3

For My Parents

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Before finishing this study, I regarded acknowledgments as necessary but usually gratuitous exercises, prompted more by politeness than by genuine appreciation. Five years and three states later, I have changed my opinion. No one is more conscious of the errors in this work than am I; no one is more aware than I of the errors it has been spared by the advice and help of friends. First, my thanks to friends in Texas, Charles Hansen and Mary Fontenot, both of Lamar University, for their long suffering patience in helping me overcome problems presented by the computer. I want also to thank friends at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg: Dr. Evan Krauter of the Department of Psychology for his willingness to listen to me talk about the whole project and for his excellent suggestions; Dr. Michael Dressman of the Department of English for such superb editing it almost succeeds in transforming my social science prose into standard English; Choong Lee of the Political Science Department for his invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript on the computer: a great expenditure of his time and a great saving of mine; and Gretchen Worth, who put it all into final form; her corrections were always better than my own. From Florida, where it both began and ended, I must thank Dr. Clubok for his fortitude in refusing to accept what was unacceptable work, probably saving me future embarrassment, if causing me momentary iv

PAGE 5

distress. And, thanks to Dr. Conradt for his sense of humor, which helped me keep mine at a time when I most needed it. I owe a debt also to G.S.B., without the memory of whom the research would never have been completed. Last, I would like to thank all those who, from pure loving kindness, never asked me how it was going.

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABSTRACT CHAPTER ONE THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY TWO THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHAIRMEN THREE THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY The Dependent Variables Characteristics of the Chairmen and Party Activity Demographic measures Population and occupation Attitudinal measures ... Impact of the liberal-conservative distinction Population and the liberal-conservative distinction Population and party activity . Characteristics of the Chairmen and Frequency of Contacts Demographic measures Attitudinal measures FOUR THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMEN FIVE LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE AMATEUR PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION SIX THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES Page iv vi 13 30 31 36 36 38 41 43 49 52 54 54 58 62 79 99 vi

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page REFERENCES 108 APPENDICES A County Chairmen Questionnaire 112 B Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables 118 C Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables 121 D Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact 124 E Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact 130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCE 136 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY By Dwight Lambert March 1980 Chairman: Dr. David P. Conrad t Major Department: Political Science Despite the position of the county as the major political subdivision of party organization in the United States, little work has been done on the impact of county party leadership upon the activities of the local party organization. This study is based upon a questionnaire administered to Democratic and Republican county chairmen from across the country. Using these data, two models of local party activity are examined. The first model is developed from earlier research on county party chairmen. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic traits of the county leadership. These traits have been assumed to be significant in explaining the activity of the local party organization. This study examines this hypothesis by looking viii

PAGE 9

at two sets of characteristics of the chairmen: first, the demographic characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time served in office; and, second, the attitudinal characteristics of liberalconservative self-placement, attitudes toward the activity of the federal government, the level of government about which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assessment of the most important problem facing the state. Party activity is measured first as election activity, those tasks designed to influence voters, and, second, as the degree of interparty communication between the chairmen and various public and party officials. Little connection is found between the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen and the activities of the local party organization. The second model examined links the political orientations of the chairmen with local party activity. Orientations are defined according to Wilson's division of party activists into amateur and professional politicians. This division is made on the basis of the degree of the chairman's party loyalty and the degree of commitment to issues. An additional distinction is made between those amateurs who believe politicians should make decisions based upon their own best judgment and those who feel the politician should follow the wishes of the constituency. The results indicate the amateurs are less likely than professionals to engage in campaign activity and less likely to participate in communications on party business with other party and public officials. On the other hand, those amateurs — "majoritarians" — who feel the politician should rely upon the wishes of the constituency in making policy decisions are less likely than both the remaining amateurs and the professionals to engage in campaign activity, but more IX

PAGE 10

likely than the other amateurs to contact the governor, congressmen, and U.S. Senators on party business.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER ONE THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY The county is the major unit of political party organization in the United States. Many congressional and judicial districts are drawn in accordance with county lines, and state statutes frequently give legal sanction to the position of the county party apparatus. For American parties many believe "... that in most states the major locus of organization vitality, and thus of organizational authority, is the county committee" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 8). This research concentrates on the task performance of county party chairmen, focusing specifically upon the organization and activities of the local party organization. The chairmen will be examined from the perspective of two models of party organization activity. The first model suggests the behavior of the party organization is associated with the demographic and attitudinal structure of county chairmen; the second model relies upon the orientations of the chairmen toward politics. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic characteristics of the chairmen; this research also includes their political attitudes, motivations, and orientations. Such an approach helps to fill a deficiency in the literature of local party organizations

PAGE 12

2 Writing on the connection between public opinion and the maintenance of a Democratic political regime, V. 0. Key noted that "repeatedly, as we have sought to explain particular distributions, movements, and qualities of mass opinion, we have had to make assumptions and estimates about the role and behavior of that stratum of persons referred to variously as the political elite, the political activists, the leadership echelons or the inf luentials" (1961, p. 536). Key laments the lack of "systemic knowledge" of the composition, social structure, and behavioral patterns of this "thin stratum." Sorauf attributes the lack of knowledge about this level of party leadership to limited data and limited interest (1975); these seem unusual circumstances given the important position of the county in American politics. The lack of information about the local party organization and Key's suggestions, in particular, have spawned a number of examinations of local party leadership. A large part of the work dealing with the county party has involved examinations of the county chairmen, emphasizing comparisons of their demographic characteristics. Attitudinal and policy differences among the chairmen have been left almost wholly unexplored, rarely involving more than categorization as liberal or conservative. While these studies have sought to determine if the local county party leadership constitutes a layer of the thin stratum of political activists who might differ from the remainder of the population, the studies are predicated on the assumption that the chairmen have an impact upon the activities of their county organization.

PAGE 13

A. review of the research on the county party chairmen makes one fact apparent: there is little consensus among the case studies. Consequently, no ready summary of the previous work is possible. While the variables examined have been consistent — age, education, income, occupation, liberal or conservative — few of the findings coincide. Flinn and Wirt, studying state party chairmen in Ohio, conclude that there is very little difference with regard to age, education, occupation, and income (1965). Patterson's study of Oklahoma chairmen, on the other hand, finds Democratic chairmen older than Republican chairmen, but the Republicans more educated, with higher occupational status and higher incomes (1963). Pomper's study of chairmen in New Jersey reports few differences between Democratic and Republican chairmen in terms of age and income; in terms of occupation, however, Republicans rank above Democrats in status (1965). These differences in demographic characteristics imply the potential for differences in the actions and in the attitudes of the county chairmen. The premise underlying the study of demographic and attitudinal traits is that those characteristics influence the local party leadership which, in turn, influences the local party organization. This model may be specified as follows: leadership demographic traits party activity political attitudes — The model implies that demographic characteristics of individuals in a party organization are an indicator of different types of party activity. If this is true, one would anticipate differing party activities from organizations directed by individuals who differ in

PAGE 14

4 regard to demographic and attitudinal characteristics. The reasoning underpinning this assumption is readily understood. "The function of leadership," Meyer says, is ". .to mediate between environmental uncertainties and organizational structures" (1972, p. 516). The perception of what constitutes an "uncertainity" and an appropriate response for that uncertainty will be conditioned by the nature of the leadership that confronts alterations in the environment. The model implies that knowing the characteristics of the chairmen makes possible a prediction of the activities of the organization. As Key says: The traits and characteristics of political activists assume importance in the light of a theory about why the leadership and governing levels in any society behave as they do. That theory amounts to the proposition that these political actors constitute in effect a subculture with its own peculiar set of norms of behavior, motives, and approved standards. (1961, p. 537) Patterson echoes this assessment, arguing that knox^ledge regarding demographic composition, political experience, and the self-perceptions of the chairmen is ". suggestive of the nature and function of party leadership at the county level" (1963, p. 334). Crotty maintains that background characteristics of political leadership "... shape an individual's perceptions and consequently his interpretation of his role while in office" (1967, p. 670). The implicit connection that has been made in some of the literature on local party personnel between the demographic variables of individuals and the activity of party leadership seems to be an effort to duplicate the connection that has been found between demographic variables and individual political participation (Verba and Nie, 1972). However, there is no reason to assume the traits that correlate with higher levels of participation among individuals — education, age, income, for example — will necessarily

PAGE 15

5 translate into patterns of organizational activity. What is missing is the causal mechanism. For example, the characteristics producing higher levels of political participation can be linked to participation because they equip the individual with skills valuable in political life: higher levels of income and education produce greater resources to finance political activity as well as greater articulateness. There is no mechanism linking an individual's demographic traits and local party activity, no reason to assume a "spill-over" that would associate high levels of personal participation with different types of organizational activity. Age, education, and income may be highly correlated with political involvement on the part of county chairmen, but there is no theoretical reason to maintain these variables will be associated with different local party activities. There has been no effort to relate, in a systematic and rigorous manner, either the demographic or the attitudinal characteristics of the county chairmen to the activity of the county organizations. While studies of the county chairmen imply that demographic differences among the chairmen may make a difference in the behavior of the county organization, this proposition has never been tested and the answer remains a deficiency in our knowledge of the county organization. An examination of the connection between the demographic and attitudinal variables and their influence upon local party activity is one objective of this research. I shall test the proposition that the demographic and attitudinal structures of the county party chairmen can be associated with the activities of the local party organization by correlating measures of county party activity with measures of the demographic and attitudinal attributes of the county chairmen.

PAGE 16

6 Obviously, then, it is necessary to examine the demographic and attitudinal traits of the chairmen. This analysis may help to clarify the disjointed findings of earlier case studies as well as lay the groundwork for a systematic examination of the chairmen's demographic and attitudinal characteristics and the impact of those characteristics on party activity. Examining the connection between the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the county leadership and local party activity is only one side of the problem. It leaves unexplored the potential impact upon the activity of the party organization of the chairmen's orientations toward politics. Earlier studies stop short of any detailed analysis of the political perceptions of the chairmen. This failure is significant, for there is substantial evidence that the county chairmen may also play an important role in shaping the local party's activity through their political values and beliefs. The county chairmen comprise a group for whom politics has a high degree of salience. The chairmen fulfill a role in what Easton calls the "political community": ". .a group of persons bound together by a political division of labor," participating in ". .a common structure and set of processes. ." (1965, p. 177). There is reason to believe both that the role of the county organization in American politics has changed and that the performance of the county party leadership has changed with it. As part of the political milieu, the chairmen are subject to the same forces that influence American politics. Beginning in the 1950s and with increasing momentum in the 1960s, American society, and, as a consequence, American political parties appear to have undergone a profound change. The dimensions

PAGE 17

7 of this transformation are only now apparent. Distinctions between party alignments based upon social and economic class have blurred, modified by new alignments based upon issues and attitudes (Ladd and Hadley, 1975; Sunquist, 1973). This emphasis upon issues and attitudes has produced a change in political leadership, a change amounting in some instances to a schism between "old" and "new" style political activists. This development points directly to the county party chairmen. In control of the county party organization, the chairmen would be expected to have an impact upon the operation of that organization. The county chairmen may be unwilling to adopt strategies, espouse political philosophies, or advocate governmental solutions to political questions that they feel are in conflict with their own political outlook. As Walter Dean Burnham has observed, "no established political elite is prepared to incorporate demands the effective realization of which is incompatible with its fundamental interests or with the existing rules of the game" (1976, p. 148). Different orientations toward politics may result in different local party activity. From these observations a second model of party activity emerges: Political orientations *party activity This model implies that county leadership holding different orientations toward political activity may emphasize different aspects of party activity in the interest of maximizing its own interests. "Leadership incentives and orientation, as well as their stability and change over time, are likely to have considerable impact on the style of politics which prevails at the grassroots level of the party organization" (Gluck, 1972, p. 760). Several examples serve to illustrate

PAGE 18

8 this point. In his study of party workers in Detroit, Eldersveld concludes party activists differed both in the type and the salience of their motivations for party activity (1964, p. 225). The consequence, he says, may manifest itself as a change in the orientations of the local party: ". .a consciousness of power as the goal of the party is intimately related to the individual's own ambitions, interests, and drives in political organizational life" (p. 243). Again, increased time in office may alter the motivational incentives of those occupying the office, and, subsequently, influence the party organization. Huckshorne's study of state party chairmen substantiates this view. He finds that with length of time in office "... changes in performance often take place. Thus, at any given time, the role conception may differ when the actors remain the same" (1976, p. 70). Concomitant with this finding is that "... the short tenure of party chairmen may be the most serious detriment to building an effective party organization" (Huckshorne, 1976, p. 70). As a result, tenure in office may have an impact upon local party organization and its activities because of the altered orientation even when the activists have held local party office and worked for candidates in their own party. This notable phenomenon is reported by Johnson and Gibson in their study of party activists in Iowa (1974, pp. 72-73). As these examples indicate, the orientations of the chairmen to politics may have an impact upon the behavior of the individual and, ultimately, the political organization. This phenomenon may be seen most clearly in the increased participation in American politics of persons oriented not toward the traditional rewards of political parties such as patronage, but rather toward issues and policy. While

PAGE 19

9 recent studies of American electoral behavior have indicated the emergence of this new figure (DeVries and Tarrance, 1972; Nie et al. 1976), the harbingers of the change among political activists were first described by James Q. Wilson in The Amateur Democrat Studying the political clubs of New York and California, Wilson drew a distinction between political amateurs and political professionals. The amateur finds politics "intrinsically interesting" because it expresses a conception of the public interest. "The amateur politician sees the political world more in terms of ideas and principles than in terms of persons" (1968, p. 3). The professional politician, on the other hand, is ". preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of winning or losing; the professional's goal is to keep everybody happy and thus to minimize the chance of electoral defeat" (p. 4). A number of additional studies have confirmed the existence of this activist group in American politics. In an urban setting, Hirshfield, Swanson, and Blank have drawn attention to the "New Look" among activists in Manhattan. "The contemporary politician," they write, "considers his party organization an instrument for effectuating policy rather than a haven of personal security. He tends to be more interested in social reform than in catering to individual constituents" (1962, p. 505). Salisbury finds the amateur activists in urban areas concerned with policy issues, frowning on unquestioning party loyalty, while the professional emphasizes organization, discipline, rewards, and loyalty (1965). On the periphery of party officials, the amateur syndrome has been observed among campaign workers by Johnson and Gibson. Those workers who "bolted" the party following an unsuccessful primary campaign "... were more likely to be political

PAGE 20

10 amateurs; 80 percent had less than five years of political experience, 75 percent were not strong party identifiers, and nearly all had no previous campaign experience" (1974, p. 76). The division between amateur and professional has also been observed within party leadership. Wildavsky explains the nomination of Barry Goldwater by the Republican party in 1964 as the product of the efforts of political "purists" (1971, pp. 248-265). A study of the Democratic counterpart of the Goldwater nomination, McGovern's presidential nomination in 1972, finds among the Democrats a similar division between amateurs and professionals in outlook (Sullivan _et_ al. 1976), a conclusion confirmed by Soule and Clarke in their study of delegates to the Democratic conventions of 1968 and 1972 (1975). The appearance of the amateur-professional syndrome in local party activity has serious implications for the local party. The amateurprofessional model of party organization postulates a portion of the party's activists for whom party electoral success and the rewards of that success are no longer adequate to sustain party activity. Increased emphasis among the amateurs upon policy goals results in decreased emphasis upon the success of the party organization, thus further weakening the organization. This fundamental difference between amateurs and professionals over the party's goals may finally result in disruption of the party organization and hostility between the amateur and professionally oriented politicians. This was apparently the case in the selection of delegates from California to the 1972 Democratic National Convention (Cavala, 1974). Thus, there is evidence to suggest that political orientations and the view of politics brought by the individual to the post of

PAGE 21

11 county chairman, may have an impact upon the county party organization. In addition, as discussed earlier, much previous research on county chairmen implicitly postulates a connection between the demographic traits of the chairmen and party activity. These are the propositions examined in this study. The research in the following pages is based upon a national sample of county party chairmen done by the Institute of Public Administration, Indiana University. The data themselves come from a mail questionnaire sent in 1970 to 2,786 county chairmen across the United States; 1,606 of the chairmen, or 57.6 percent, responded. The return rate among Democrats was 55.6 percent and among Republicans 59.7 percent. The questions asked may be grouped into five broad categories: (1) campaign activities of the county and precinct party organizations, (2) organization of the county party, (3) the chairmen's opinions on a variety of policy and government oriented issue areas at both the state and national level, (4) the chairmen's perceptions of the job of county chairman, and (5) demographic information on the chairmen, k copy of the questionnaire may be found in Appendix A. This study makes possible an exploration of the stratum of county party chairmen at the national level and the county organizations they lead. In addition, it allows for the analysis of the attitudes and political outlook of the chairmen, missing from earlier studies. The balance of this research will examine local party organization in the United States in light of the models described earlier: (1) that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen are associated with party activity; and (2) that the personnel orientations of the chairmen toward political activity are related to differences in

PAGE 22

12 their party activity. In short, I will look at the leadership of the local party organization to assess its impact upon the activities and organization of the local party. In the remainder of this analysis, Chapter Two defines the demographic and attitudinal independent variables to be used In Chapter Three. Chapter Three first formulates the dependent variables of party activity to be used throughout the analysis, and, second, compares the demographic and attitudinal variables with the measures of party activity. Chapter Four begins the discussion of the political orientations of the chairmen by defining in operational terms the amateur-professional dimension; then the amateurs and professionals among the chairmen are compared in demographic and attitudinal makeup. Chapter Five builds upon Four by examining the relationship between the amateurs and professionals and the measures of party activity.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER TWO THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHAIRMEN Despite the emphasis analysts give to the importance of the county organization in American politics, little empirical work has been done on county party chairmen. The work that has been done is confined to studies of one or two states and the studies themselves limited to the analysis of socio-economic differences, only occasionally and only peripherally touching upon differences in the attitudes or the activities of the chairmen. This analysis is based upon a sample comprising all fifty states; the sample includes information on the social characteristics of the chairmen as well as their attitudes on a variety of policy positions. With these data it is possible to arrive, first, at a national profile of county chairmen, and, second, to explore their political attitudes and values. This chapter is divided into two sections: first, an examination of the demographic characteristics of the chairmen, and second, a comparison of the chairmen in terms of their political attitudes. I will compare the chairmen in terms of the demographic variables of education, age, and occupation; in addition, length of time in the office of county chairman is considered. These variables have been selected to be consistent with earlier studies of county party chairmen. These characteristics are important in the context of political 1*3

PAGE 24

14 life. As Bowman and Boynton say, "... background characteristics produce the competence to operate easily in the world of politics as well as a set of attitudes which dispose the individual to take an active part in the political world" (1966, p. 670). Only those with adequate resources, information, understanding, and sufficient political skills are able to fully participate in political life (Sorauf, 1976). Verba and Nie, for example, have demonstrated that political activity for the general population gradually increases throughout the life cycle, with only a "relatively minor decline" for those over age 65 after socio-economic status (education and income) and length of residence in the community have been statistically controlled (1972, p. 148). Key has argued that education contributes to a sense of political obligation and develops a "lively awareness" of the relevance of political activity (1961, p. 325). Additionally, Campbell has noted a high degree of association between education, political participation, and a sense of political efficacy, on one hand, and awareness of issues, on the other (Campbell et al. 1964). The data presented in Table 2-1 indicate the demographic status of the chairmen. Regarding education, 48 percent of the Democratic and 58 percent of the Republican chairmen have a college education or better. The figures indicate Republican chairmen are slightly better educated than their Democratic counterparts — 9 percent more Republicans have at least a college degree. These findings are inconsistent with the findings of other studies of county chairmen done at the state level. For North Carolina, Crotty reports that Democratic educational attainments are greater than those of Republicans, particularly at the post-graduate level, where 40 percent of the Democratic

PAGE 25

15 Table 2-1 Demographic Variables by Party (in percents) Party Education D emocrat Republican none — some high school 6.3 3.9 high school 17.1 11.2 some college 28.2 27.2 college and post-grad. 48.4 57.7 x 2 = 20.93 N = 766 823 df = 3 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 N = 11.8 45.8 32.8 9.7 756 13.7 50.5 27.9 8.0 804 X = 7.34 df = 3 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers Managers, officials Farmers, farm workers N = 46.0 38.9 15.2 633 39.9 43.2 17.0 672 X = 4.94 df = 2 Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more N = 37.8 26.6 35.6 756 45.5 23.2 31.3 805 X 2 = 9.35 b df = 2 3. significant at .001 significant at .01

PAGE 26

16 chairmen have post-graduate experience but only 13 percent of the Republican chairmen have had the same experience (1967). Similar findings are reported by Patterson for Oklahoma chairmen: more Democrats than Republicans have college degrees or better; Conway and Feigert reach similar conclusions for precinct committeemen in Illinois and Maryland (Patterson, 1963; Conway and Feigert, 1968). Nevertheless, the figures point toward high educational levels for the chairmen of both parties. Age is significant in calculations of political participation. As Campbell has pointed out, the various changes in life style and activity brought by changes in age mean that certain age groups will have more interest and time to devote toward political activity; in addition increased age appears associated not only with increased party identification, but also with increased political awareness (Campbell et al. 1964). This conclusion is reached by Verba and Nie who find that participation, after controlling for social status and length of residence in the community, increases throughout the life cycle, with only a small downward trend among those sixty-five years of age or older. They conclude, "the longer one is exposed to politics, the more likely one is to participate" (1972, p. 148). In their study of state party chairmen, Wiggins and Turk find 99.4 percent of the Republican state chairmen and 77.7 percent of the Democratic state chairmen over the age of forty with the highest percentage of chairmen between ages forty and forty-nine (1970). An analysis of Indiana chairmen in 1972 found 18 percent of the Democratic chairmen and 36 percent of the Republican chairmen below the age of

PAGE 27

17 thirty-five; 19 percent of the Democrats and 29 percent of the Republicans were between ages fifty-six and sixty-five (Yeric, 1973). As Table 2-1 indicates, for the national sample of chairmen, Republicans tend to be slightly younger than Democrats, an average age of forty-eight and forty-nine years old, respectively. For both parties, most chairmen are between ages thirty-six and fifty: 46 percent of the Democrats and 51 percent of the Republicans. An additional 33 percent of the Democrats and 28 percent of the Republicans are found between ages fifty-one and sixty-five. Participation in the role of county chairman declines rapidly after age sixty-five. Between ages sixty-five and eighty-six are found only 10 percent of the Democrats and 8 percent of the Republicans. Differences between the parties in respect to age are minimal; the chairmen of both parties tend to be middle and slightly above middle age. Because of the wide range of occupations held by the county chairmen, only those occupational classifications that comprise 10 percent or more of the whole sample (i.e., 160 chairmen or more) were included. These classifications are those of (1) professional, technical, and kindred workers, (2) managers, officials, and proprietors, and (3) farmers and farm managers. These categories comprise 81 percent of the whole sample (1,305 cases). The differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen are not statistically significant. The largest differences are found between Democratic and Republican chairman in professional occupations; 6 percent more Democrats than Republicans are found in that classification. Overall, the differences between the chairmen are small.

PAGE 28

18 Finally, the tenure of the chairmen in office seems brief. Almost 46 percent of the Democratic chairmen report they have been in office two years or less. At the other extreme, nearly 36 percent of the Democratic chairmen and slightly more than 31 percent of the Republican chairmen have been in office five years or more. While, in both parties, there is a tendency for the numbers of chairmen to cluster at the extremes (two years or less, five years or more), the figures indicate that Democrats are slightly more likely to have served in office longer than Republicans. Southern chairmen* show few differences when compared with chairmen from other areas of the country, as shown in Table 2-2. Six and one-tenth percent more Southern Chairmen than non-Southern chairmen have a college education or better; educational differences at other levels are even smaller. For age, differences are not statistically significant. Occupational differences are also small. Among non-Southern chairmen, 42 percent are found in professional occupations, compared to 45 percent among the Southern chairmen. Four percent more Southern chairmen are in managerial positions than are non-Southern chairmen. The largest percentage difference between non-Southern and Southern chairmen is found in the classification of farmers and farm workers, 18 percent among the non-Southerners and 11 percent among the Southern chairmen. Occupational differences between regions are not substantial. *The Southern states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

PAGE 29

Table 2-2 Demographic Variables by Region 'in percents) Region 19 nonEducation Southern Southern none — some high school 5.1 4.8 high school 14.7 12.6 some college 28.9 25.2 college and post-grad. 51.3 57.4 X 2 = 5.34 N = 1073 516 df = 3 Age 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 N 12.7 12.3 47.9 46.8 31.3 31.4 8.2 9.6 X 2 = 1.93 1076 505 df = 3 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers Managers, officials Farmers, farm workers N = 41.9 44.9 39.8 43.7 18.3 11.4 884 421 X = 10.16 df = 2 Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more N = 44.5 24.3 31.2 1066 36.1 26.0 37.9 495 X df 7.935 L 2 significant at .001 significant at .01

PAGE 30

20 Larger differences appear, however, in regard to length of time in office. Southern chairmen serve in office longer than their nonSouthern counterparts. While 45 percent of the non-Southern chairmen have been in office less than two years, only 36 percent of the Southern chairmen fall into that category. Conversely, nearly 38 percent of the Southerners, but only 31 percent of the non-Southerners, have been in office five years or more. With regard, then, to the demographic variables of age, education, occupation, and time in office, it may be said Democratic and Republican chairmen do not differ greatly one from another. Differences are minor between Southern and non-Southern chairmen, also, with the exception of tenure in office. The second step in this analysis is to examine the opinion structure of the county chairmen. Differences in policy preferences among party leaders have been noted in several studies; McClosky' s is probably the best known (McClosky et al. 1960). He examined delegates to the Democratic and Republican national party conventions, comparing their issue preferences with the preferences of a national sample of adults. The issues fell under five broad headings: Public Ownership, Government Regulation of the Economy, Equalitarianism and Human Welfare, Tax Policy, and Foreign Policy. McClosky found differences between Republicans and Democratic leaders "... conform with the popular image in which the Democratic party is seen as the more 'progressive' or 'radical,' the Republican as the more 'moderate' or 'conservative' of the two" (p. 410). A similar division has been reported by Nie, Verba, and Petrocik. They find that Democrats, especially the party activists, tend to cluster heavily in the liberal end of an issue scale while the Republicans are likely to be found at the conservative end of the

PAGE 31

21 scale (1976). Among previous studies of county chairmen, there is little consistency in the attitudes that have been examined. Flinn and Wirt employed a "salience of issues" approach while Bowman reports only the generalized categories "concern with issues" and "community obligation," as the prime incentives for participation in politics among precinct chairmen in North Carolina and Massachusetts (Flinn and Wirt, 1965; Bowman et al., 1969). As these examples indicate, examination of attitudinal preferences among the chairmen has been erratic and ancillary to a concern with demographic traits. The question examined in the next pages is whether or not the chairmen hold differing attitudinal preferences and, if so, over what issues. The chairmen's attitudes will be gauged from their responses to several questions. They were asked to rank themselves on a five-place continuum from very liberal to very conservative; to facilitate presentation, this continuum is collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative by combining the very liberal with the liberal responses and the very conservative with the conservative responses. In addition, the chairmen were asked their views on whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease; with what level of government, local, state, or national, they are most concerned; and, last, an open-ended question regarding what they see as the most important problem facing their state. Responses to this question were grouped under three major categories: social issues, econo mic problems, and state government and political party responses. *Answers to the open-ended question regarding the major problem facing the state were categorized as follows: (1) Social: racial problems, corruption in government, welfare, education, urban problems,

PAGE 32

22 These attitudes, crosstabulated by party, are reported in Table 2-3. The greatest differences between Democratic and Republican chairmen are over the self-categorization as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. The Democratic chairmen are far more likely to call themselves liberal than are their Republican counterparts, 43 percent to only 5 percent. While almost equal percentages of the chairmen from each party classify themselves as middle-of-the-road, 38 percent of the Democrats and 33 percent of the Republicans, only 19 percent of the Democratic chairmen, but 62 percent of the Republican chairmen, call themselves conservatives. Substantial differences are also apparent over the question of whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease. One-quarter of the Democrats, but only 5 percent of the Republicans, would like to see an increase in the activity of the federal government; 20 percent of the Democrats would see federal government activity remain the same, as opposed to 9 percent of the Republicans. On the other hand, the figures show almost 31 percent more Republican chairmen than Democratic chairmen favor a decrease in the activity of the federal government, 86.4 percent to 55.5 percent. A majority of the chairmen from both parties favor decreasing federal government activity. crime, law and order, drug problems, environmental problems, health problems, transportation, highways, mass transit, federal government interference, public alienation, too many liberals or conservatives, consumer protection, Vietnam War, need for Christianity, church-state relations; (2) Economic: tax reform, taxes, high cost of government, the economy, high cost of living, unemployment, economic development, labor-management relations; (3) Government-Political Party: party problems, need for two-party system, public apathy, government reorganization, specific personalities or political groups, need for patriotism, and improving the state's image.

PAGE 33

23 Table 2-3 Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Party (in percents) Liberal-Conservative Liberal Middle-of-th e-Ro ad Conservative N = Party Democratic Republican 43.1 5.3 38.0 32.6 18.9 62.1 677 723 X 2 = 373. 87 a Activity of Federal Govt, Increase Remain the same Decrease N = 25.5 4.9 19.9 8.7 55.5 86.4 570 774 X 2 = 186. 26 a Most Concerned with : Local State National N = 38.5 33.1 36.3 33.2 27.9 33.7 570 635 x 2 = = 4.75 Most Important Problem Facing State Social issues Economic State govt./pol. party N = 27.1 26.4 64.4 59.6 8.5 14.0 621 715 X 9.93 L df for all Chi Squares = 2; significant at .001 significant at .01 "not significant

PAGE 34

24 Differences between the parties are minor over which level of government, local, state, or national, the chairmen have the most concern. As Table 2-3 shows, the chairmen are divided almost evenly across the three governmental levels, with the Democrats showing slightly greater concern for local government: 39 percent of the Democrats are most concerned with local government, as opposed to 33 percent of the Republicans. More substantial are the differences over the most important problem facing the state. In both of the parties, the chairmen regard economic concerns as the major problem confronting their state, and almost even percentages, 27.1 percent of the Democrats and 26.4 percent of the Republicans, see social issues as paramount. But the Democrats are less likely to view state government problems as the most important of state concerns than are the Republicans; 8.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen say this is their states' most important problem but only 14 percent of the Republicans make this assessment. While the differences between Southern and non-Southern chairmen are minimal over the demographic characteristics discussed earlier, the differences over political orientations are more pronounced, as reported in Table 2-4. Almost one-half of the Southern chairmen call themselves conservatives, only 16 percent say they are liberal. For non-Southerners, 37 percent report being conservative with over onequarter maintaining they are liberal. Over three-quarters of the Southern chairmen think the activities of the federal government should decrease, as opposed to 69 percent of the non-Southern chairmen. The Southern chairmen are also more concerned about local government than are non-Southerners, 41 to 32 percent, and, while they are more

PAGE 35

Table 2-4 Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Region (in percents) 25 Region Liberal-Conservative Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative N = nonSouthern 27.1 35.9 37.0 951 Southern 16.4 33.8 49.8 445 X 2 = 27.44 a Activity of Federal Govt. Increase Remain the Same Decrease N = 16.5 9.9 14.7 12.3 68.7 77.8 985 473 X = 14.75 Most Concerned with : Local State National N = 31.5 40.6 40.0 23.3 28.6 36.1 826 382 X = 31.99 Most Important Problem Facing State Social issues Economic State govt./pol. party N = 21.8 37.6 69.3 45.5 8.9 17.0 918 418 x z = 69.38 df for all Chi Squares = 2; significance for all Chi Squares, .001

PAGE 36

25 concerned about national politics than non-Southern chairmen, 36 to 29 percent, they fall far behind in their concern for state governments — only 23 percent of the Southerners are most concerned with state government, compared to 40 percent of the non-Southern chairmen. These figures tend to indicate that the chairmen do not share similar political attitudes. The figures do not, however, gauge the significance of issues for the chairmen. A. means of assessing the salient issues for the county chairmen are their responses as to why they first became involved in local party activity. Following the division by Clark and Wilson for organizational participation (1961), responses to the closed-ended questions were grouped into three broad categories: purposive (contact inf luentials, issue concerns, community obligation), solidarity (strong party loyalty, politics as a way of life, social contact, personal friendships), and material (helpful in business, seek office). Interest here is in examining potential differences between the chairmen of the two parties and between Southern and non-Southern chairmen. Earlier research has pointed to the conclusion that local party activists become involved in politics chiefly for purposive reasons. This is the conclusion reached by Conway and Feigert in their examination of Knox County, Illinois, and Montgomery County Maryland (1968). In Knox County, 18 percent of the Democratic precinct captains and 16 percent of the Republican captains said they became active in politics to influence politics; in Montgomery County, the figures are more decisive: 30 percent of the Democrats and 42 percent of the Republican captains became active to influence policy. Similar findings have been reported for Massachusetts and North Carolina precinct captains, with 92 percent of the Democrats and 89 percent

PAGE 37

27 of the Republicans listing concern with public issues as the raajor reason they became active in party affairs (Bowman et_ al 1969) The figures for the national sample of county chairmen, reported in Table 2-5, duplicate these findings. While 63 percent of the Republican chairmen list purposive concerns as their most important reason for becoming chairmen, a majority of the Democratic chairmen, almost 5 5 percent, also cite purposive incentives as the raajor reason for becoming involved in local party politics. The Democratic chairmen, however, are more likely to have solidarity incentives, 43.7 percent, than are the Republicans, 35.1 percent. By far the least significant factor in initial local party work is the material incentives. Only 2.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen and only 1.4 percent of the Republican chairmen indicate material incentives were the major stimulus to political party activity. Table 2-5 also presents the figures for the regional breakdown. Purposive incentives predominate for both non-Southern and for Southern chairmen, both regions about 59 percent, followed by solidarity incentives, both about 39 percent. Material incentives were, once more, the least important factor. These results coincide with those reported by Wiggins and Turk for state party chairmen: "... the data indicate that they were motivated primarily by what might be termed idealistic, philosophical, task-oriented, or impersonal motives" (1970, pp. 330-331). Personal motivations or material gain in the Wiggins-Turk study, as in the national sample, received less frequent mention. There would appear to be, then, substantial differences between the chairmen. They differ as to their attitudes toward the activity

PAGE 38

28 Table 2-5 Incentives for Initial Local Party Activity by Party and Region (in percents) Party Democratic Republican Region Non-Southern Southern Purposive 54.7 63.4 59.3 59.1 Incentive Solidarity 43.7 35.1 39.3 39.2 Material N 2.5 775 1.4 831 X = 12.72 1.4 1.8 1093 513 X = ,35 l df = 2; significant at .01 df = 2; not significant of the federal government and they differ in their self-classification as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. Moreover, the county party chairmen are concerned about policy questions, most of them indicating issue concerns as their chief reason for becoming county chairmen. While a substantial degree of consensus exists as to the major problem facing their states, the wide variety of responses as to the government activity and political attitudes is tentative evidence of major attitudinal differences among the chairmen. Differences between Southern and non-Southern are muted; what differences exist over attitudinal variables are small and differences over demographic

PAGE 39

29 characteristics are negligible. Consequently, the following analysis concentrates upon the chairmen without regional distinctions. These results amount to a confirmation as well as an expansion of earlier work on the county chairmen. Reaffirmed are the findings of the chairmen's high social and educational status: they are welleducated and tend to be found in professional and white-collar jobs. They are also likely to be middle-aged, thirty-six to fifty years old. These characteristics are those that enable political participation, providing the necessary time, skill, and resources for participation. In addition, the chairmen differ in their political attitudes. There are appreciable differences between the parties on self-classification as liberal or conservative, the Democratic chairmen being more liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Republican chairmen are also more likely to favor a decrease in the activity of the federal government than are Democrats. whether these differences in demographic and attitudinal profiles among county chairmen appear as differences in local party activities is an unexplored question. It is toward this question that attention is turned in the following chapter.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER THREE THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY Chapter Two examined the county chairmen from the perspective of demographic and attitudinal variables considered in earlier research, variables indicated in the literature on county chairmen to be of importance for their impact upon local party organization. While it is possible for activity to affect the ideology of the chairmen, most of the literature indicates that the chairmen affect the activity of the local party organization and that demographic and attitudinal characteristics are a key to the chairmen's influence. For example, in his study of party workers in Detroit, Samuel Patterson suggests that the nature and functions of party leadership at the county level can be understood in terms of the characteristics of party leaders (1963). My purpose in this chapter is to test this assumption. I shall first test the proposition that the independent variables of age, education, party, and time in office have an impact upon the activity of the county party. Second, 1 will examine what impact political orientations of the chairmen such as self-catagorization as liberal or conservative, attitude toward federal government activity, concern for local, state, or national government, and the most important problem facing the state have upon party activity. Initially, the dependent variable, party activity, must be defined more precisely. 30

PAGE 41

31 The Dependent Variables Eldersveld identifies four task areas that appear to dominate the concerns of county chairmen: the promotion of factional harmony, the allocation of patronage, planning campaign strategy, and, finally, the development of organizational policy (1964). He adds that ". the discussion and the development of strategy for the next campaign was the major task for a large number of the leadership nucleus, directed at immediate vote maximization" (1964, p. 342). Avery Leiserson enumerates major party functions as organization and education of voters, nomination of candidates, the conduct of elections, clarification of alternatives, upward mobility, securing dispensations, privileges, contracts and assistance for potential supporters (1958). Leiserson adds: ". all of these functions were developed informally as a by-product of the parties' factional efforts to secure control of government power" (1958, p. 74). Perhaps, then, the "most important" function of political parties in the United States is ". the recruitment and election of selected public officials" (Madron and Chelf, 1974, p. 150). In Massachusetts and North Carolina, local party officials (58.3 percent) ranked as their most important functions campaign related activities: contacting voters, raising money, voter registration, campaigning, public relations, and finding new voters (Bowman and Boynton, 1966). Eldersveld, who argues that ". precinct leaders by no means accept the doctrine that the primary task was vote production," nonetheless reports 45 percent of both Democratic and Republican leaders maintain their major activity was that of vote mobilization (1964, pp. 253-254). Thus, while the American political party performs a number of different functions — organization, fund

PAGE 42

32 raising, election activities, for example — analysts agree the most outstanding endeavor is election or campaign activity, since from campaign activity and the desire to win elections springs the need for the other activities. Epstein argues party organization always exists for an electoral purpose. "It may have other purposes as well and still be regarded as that of a party, provided the electoral purpose is predominant, if not dominant" (1970, p. 98). Despite the predominant position given to winning elections, in each of these assessments of party function there is a second common theme, party organization. The achievement of vote maximization is contingent upon organizational activity, organization for the purposes of formulating, coordinating, and implementing campaign strategy. Campaign activity is a portion of the external leadership of the chairmen, leadership which has as its primary focus the electorate. Organizational activity is internally directed, focusing upon other party officials or elected officials (Katz and Eldersveld, 1961). Eldersveld identifies three theoretical roles of the party: first, the party is a task group, competing for political power in elections; second, the party is a communications subsystem, within which take place interactions "between actors, between echelons, between coalitions ."; third, the party is a decision group, dealing with tactics and the means to exploit as fully as possible opportunities to the party's advantage (1964, p. 333). While I have no information applicable to the party as a decisionmaking group, the first of Eldersveld 's categories, the party as a task group, corresponds to campaign activity, while the second category, the party as a communications subsystem, is related to the communications

PAGE 43

33 network in which the county chairmen may take part. In this analysis, then, the dependent variables will be the election activities of the county organization and the communications network of the chairmen. I shall develop both of these variables in turn, beginning with campaign activity. Measures of party activity are based upon the observations made by the county chairmen. A nationwide study leaves no alternative except reliance upon the perceptions of the chairmen themselves for information on county activity. The cost of hired observers and geographic distances make impossible reliance upon more objective assessments of party activity. Indeed, most studies of the county party organization have had to rely upon the observations of the local party officials. The chairmen were asked several questions relating to county campaign activity that are germane to my purpose. The questions seek the chairman's assessments of the frequency ("often," "sometimes," or "never") with which the county organization used the following activities at the county level: movie ads, door-to-door canvassing, barbecues, radio ads, rallies, press releases, television, newspaper ads, circulars, literature, telephoning registered voters, billboards, and surveys or polls. These thirteen activities all deal with the electoral activities of county party organizations. The object of this chapter is to explore the possible connection between the performance of these activities and the demographic and attitudinal variables outlined in Chapter Two. My interest is in examining the proposition that differences in campaign activities by local party organizations may be associated with demographic and attitudinal differences among the county

PAGE 44

34 chairmen. To examine this connection, and to facilitate presentation of the data, it is useful to employ as dependent variables only those campaign activities carried out by the party organizations that most differentiate between county organizations. The selection of these variables Is achieved by an analysis of the thirteen activity areas. First, each of the possible responses to the activity is assigned a weight; "often" is assigned 3, "sometimes," 2 and "never," 1. For each chairman, these values are summed over the entire set of thirteen activities. Those chairmen with scores in the highest 25 percent and those with scores in the lowest 25 percent were then subjected to a T-Test for each of the thirteen items. The results are presented in Table 3-1. The larger the T-Score, the more efficiently the activity distinguishes between the high and low scoring groups of chairmen.* The activity that best differentiates between the two groups is the use of surveys or polls, while the smallest distinction between the chairmen is over the use of movie advertisements. The top five variables have been selected as measures of county campaign activity; these five are the frequency with which the county organization uses surveys or polls, press releases, circulars, radio ads, and campaign literature. The second set of dependent variables is based upon the chairmen's responses to questions regarding the frequency of their contacts with various party and government officials. The chairmen were asked to rank as "often," "sometimes," "hardly ever," and "never" their contacts with *The procedure is described in Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1957).

PAGE 45

35 Table 3-1 T-Scores Between Most and Least Active Counties by Campaign Activity Variables Means T-Score Campaign use of: bigh low surveys/polls 2.14 .88 25.97 press releases 2.82 1.57 24.60 circulars 2.88 1.57 21.62 radio ads 2.67 1.30 21.35 literature 2.91 1.58 20.91 billboards 2.56 1.31 20.64 telephone 2.87 1.58 20.54 canvass 2.81 1.60 20.08 rallies 2.73 1.47 18.97 television 2.87 1.58 18.97 barbecues 2.35 1.27 16.71 newspapers 2.84 1.79 15.59 movie ads 1.05 .73 11.37 all scores significant at .001 the following: the state's governor, state legislators, other state officials, county commission state officials, county commissioners, the county prosecutor, congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party chairmen. From this list, I have eliminated contacts with "other state officials" since the elective or appointive nature of these other officers is unknown and this difference may alter the type of the contact. In addition, both contacts with county commissioners and county prosecutors have been excluded, since these positions may not exist in the chairman's county. The elimination of these three potential contacts leaves six remaining contacts at local, state, and national levels, and includes both public and party offices. First, I will examine the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables upon party activity, deferring until the second half of this chapter

PAGE 46

36 an examination of the second set of dependent variables, frequency of contacts. Characteristics of the Chairmen and Party Activity Demographic measures If the demographic and attitudinal differences among the chairmen make a difference in the activities of the different party organizations the chairmen lead, the distinctions should be apparent in a crosstabulation between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of county campaign activity. Table 3-2 presents the chi-square results for the demographic variables of education, age, occupation, and length of time in office, previously defined in Chapter Two. Despite the large sample size, the chi-squares are all low and few are statistically significant. Moreover, they do not vary greatly across election activities. There are two exceptions to these generalizations. First, the chi-squares between age and the distribution of literature, for both Democratic and Republican chairmen, are noticeably higher than most of the other chi-squares, 16.22 for the Democrats and 21.00 for the Republicans, both results are statistically significant. These relatively large chi-squares, however, exaggerate small percentage differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen. For the Democrats, 6.8 percent between the ages of twentytwo and thirty-five report "never" using literature; but that figure is only 10 percent greater, 16.9 percent, among Democratic chairmen sixty-six to eightyone years old and there is little difference among the other age categories. Similarly, for the Republican chairmen, the difference is even smaller, 9.5 percent of those twentytwo to thirty-five report "never" distributing literature compared to 4.1 percent of the

PAGE 47

37 Table 3-2 Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables and Campaign Activity Variables Demographic Trait Campaign Activity Surveys/ Press Polls Releases Circulars Radio Literature Education Democratic 8.10 13.80 4.83 3.06 2.95 Republican 7.09 10.63 5.80 7.02 2.04 Age Democratic 8.92 20.61 11.06 6.90 16.22 b Republican 2.99 6.54 8.27 5.77 21.00 b Occupation Democratic 13.41 C 21.67 b 20.08 b 20.14 b 18.04 b Republican 9.18 17.84 b 17.70 b 10.50 25.12 b Time in Office Democratic 11.62 9.06 6.04 6.70 10.48 Republican 4.80 5.44 3.29 3.09 8.39 percentages are found in Appendix B significant at .001 'significant at .01 of the Republican chairmen sixty-six to eighty-one years old, with small differences across other categories. The second notable aspect of the chi-squares is that for both the Democratic and Republican chairmen, the figures for occupational categories are appreciably and consistently larger than those for any other demographic variable. With the exception of the use of surveys or

PAGE 48

38 polls by Democrats, statistically significant at .01, the remaining chi-squares are significant at .001; only for surveys or polls and the use of radio are the figures not significant at the .001 level for the Republican chairmen. More specifically, both Democratic and Republican chairmen who are farmers or farm workers are more likely to "never" use surveys or polls than are chairmen in other occupations: 66 percent among Democrats as compared with 43 percent among those employed as managers and 54 percent among the professionals, 59 percent among Republicans compared to about 45 and 42 percent, respectively, for Republican chairmen employed in managerial or professional positions. The percentage of Democratic chairmen employed as farmers or farm workers who report "never" using circulars, 19 percent, is almost three times as large as those in managerial positions, 6 percent. Among Democratic and Republican farmers or farm workers, only about one-half as many report "often" using press releases as Democratic and Republican chairmen in. professional occupations. Democratic chairmen who are managers or officials are more likely, in terms of percentages, to indicate that they "often" use radio in election campaigns, 42 percent, compared to 28 percent among the farmers or farm workers. Fewer Democratic and Republican chairmen in farming occupations are likely to "often" use literature, 38 percent for the Democrats and 34 percent for the Republicans, than are Democratic or Republican chairmen who are managers or professional workers, about 56 percent in each instance. Population and occupation In short, chairmen of both parties employed as farmers or farm workers are less likely to report frequent use of any of the five types of campaign activity than are professionals or managers. While there is no reason to assume the occupation of

PAGE 49

39 the chairmen determines the activity of the county organization, occupation may be a key to differences between counties. Farmers and farm workers are likely to be found in less populated counties, managers and professionals may tend to be found in more heavily populated counties. The data presented in Table 3-3 support this contention. The counties have been divided according to population, from the lowest to the highest 25 percent. While 18 percent of the professionals, nationwide, are found in counties with populations of 8,000 or less, that figure rises steadily from 22 percent in counties of 8,001 to 23,999 in population, 27 percent in counties with a population of 24,000 to 72,999, and finally, 32 percent in the most populated counties, those above 73,000 population. Farmers and farm workers dwindle in number as the county population increases: 47 percent in the least populous counties falling to only 6 percent in the most populated counties. Managers and officials remain essentially unchanged across all levels of population, an average of 25 percent, with the greatest deviation from that average, only 4 percent, occurring in counties of 8,000 or less population. The national figures are mirrored in those reported by party. The percentage of professionally employed Democrats rises from 19 percent in counties of 8,000 or less population to 36 percent in the most populated counties, while Democratic farmers and farm workers fall from 47 percent to 4 percent. Among Republicans, professionals grow from 18 percent in counties of 8,000 or less to 28 percent in counties of 73,000 or above. On the other hand, farmers decrease from 47 percent in the least populated counties to 8 percent in the most populated. The implications of population as a factor in local party activity will be discussed further below in conjunction with the frequency of contacting.

PAGE 50

40 Table 3-3 Chairmen's Occupational Classification by County Population (in percents) Population Occupation (in thousands) 8 and 73 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 above N Nation Professional, technical, kindred workers 18.4 22.4 27.0 32.2 559 Managers officials 21.3 24.3 26.7 27.8 536 Farmers farm workers 46.7 31.4 15.7 6.2 210 X Z = 107. 70 a Democrats Professional, technical, kindred workers 18.9 20.3 25.1 35.7 291 Managers officials 18.7 26.8 28.0 26.4 246 Farmers farm workers 46.9 35.4 X 2 13.5 = 67.34 a 4.2 96 Republicans Professional, technical, kindred workers 17.9 24.6 29.1 28.4 268 Managers, officials 23.4 22.1 25.5 29.0 290 Farmers, farm workers 46.5 28.1 X 2 = 17.5 = 48.29 a 7.9 114 df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001

PAGE 51

41 Attitudinal measures For this portion of the analysis, the same five dependent variables measuring local campaign activity are crosstabulated with the four attltudinal measures developed in Chapter Two. These attitudinal measures are a liberal-conservative dimension, attitudes toward the activity of the federal government (increase, remainthe-same, decrease), the level of government (local, state or national) with which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assessment of the most important problem facing the state. The chi-square results are presented in Table 3-4. As with the earlier results comparing demographic variables with local party activity, the chi-squares between attitudinal variables and party activity are low; excepting the differences between liberal and conservative and Democrats, to be discussed in detail below, few of the chi-squares are statistically significant. Differences between reported campaign activities of Democrats and Republicans across all activity areas are small. Indeed, the largest difference among Democratic chairmen is found in the group reporting "often" using radio between those who are most concerned with local government, 45 percent, and those most interested in the national government, 33 percent. For the Republicans, the greatest gap lies in the group "often" using press releases between those most concerned with local government, 59 percent, and those most concerned with national government, 42 percent. The remaining differences are small. Other than the liberal-conservative dimension, the greatest percentage differences are found over the activity of the federal government. Over 55 percent of those Democratic chairmen wishing a decrease in federal government activity report "never" using surveys or polls, opposed to 42 percent of those who would

PAGE 52

42 Table 3-4 Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables and Campaign Activity Variables Campaign Activity' Attitudinal Surveys/ Press Trait Polls Releases Circulars Radio Literature LiberalConservative Democratic 23.03 b 26.34 b 35.27 b 8.01 46.78 b Republican 4.08 5.52 7.05 3.95 4.50 Activity of Federal Govt. Democratic Republican 7.53 6.28 7.05 2.78 21.14 2.47 1.78 1.67 24.67 c 1.63 Level of Govt. Most Concerned With Democratic 2.61 9.12 Republican 7.59 15.21 Most Important Problem Facing State 11.29 Democratic 29.39 Republican 2.78 7.37 7.02 9.92 3.32 3.02 11.89 2.38 5.51 5.00 5.89 4.61 9.65 1 .86 percentages are found in Appendix C significant at .001 significant at .05 see such activity increase. However, the differences between those in favor of more federal activity who indicate they "often" use surveys or polls, 13.9 percent, is only 4.2 percent greater than those who report

PAGE 53

43 "often" using surveys or polls but who desire a decrease in the activity of the federal government. The 14 percent of the Republican chairmen who claim "often" to use surveys but who want a decrease in national government activity exceeds by about 15 percent those Republicans who "often" use surveys or polls and wish for more federal activity. The differences within the category of federal government activity are consistent across all five campaign activities, but are greatest among Democratic chairmen over the use of literature, as reflected in the chisquare of 24.67 as well as in the percentage results that indicate 21 percent more Democrats who favor increased activity than Democrats favoring lessened activity, 66.9 to 45.6 percent, report "often" using literature. These relatively large percentage differences probably reflect a correspondence between ranking on the liberal-conservative continuum and attitudes toward the activity of the federal government. This expectation is borne out by the data in Table 3-5, which crosstabulates the liberal-conservative dimension with attitudes toward federal government activity. Regardless of rank on the liberal-conservative dimension, large proportions of chairmen favor a decrease in federal activity. However, more than twice as many conservatives as liberals favor such a decrease, 88 percent to 40 percent. On the other hand, the percentage of liberals favoring an increase in the activity of the federal government is more than seven times the number of conservatives favoring an increase. Impact of the liberal-conservative distinction Turning specifically to the liberal-conservative category, the chi-squares are consistently high and statistically significant across all activities,

PAGE 54

44 Table 3-5 Liberal-Conservative Dimension by Attitude Toward Activity of the Federal Government (in percents) Liberal-Conservative Dimension Federal Government Activity Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative remain increase the same decrease N 38.1 21.7 40.2 336 9.5 18.5 72.0 465 5.3 6.9 87.8 625 X 2 = 287 ,90 a df = 4; significant at .001 with the exception of the use of radio. Other than the campaign use of the radio, the lowest chi-square among the Democrats in the liberalconservative category is 23.03, for surveys or polls; the highest figure is for the use of literature, 46.78. Substantial percentage differences exist between Democratic chairmen who classify themselves as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. For example, liberal Democrats are three and one-half times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report "often" using surveys or poll's than are conservative Democrats, 13.3 percent to 3.8 percent. Democratic liberals are 16.7 percent more likely to report "often" using press releases than are their conservative counterparts, while Democratic conservatives are five times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report "never" using circulars, 20 percent to 4 percent. Eleven percent more conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats claim "never" to use the radio in election campaigns, while 25 percent more liberals than

PAGE 55

45 conservatives claim to "often" use literature while campaigning. On the other hand, there are only small differences between Republican chairmen who categorize themselves as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. Even the greatest differences are small. Only 6 percent more Republican liberals than Republican conservatives report "often" using surveys or polls; there is almost no difference between conservative and liberal Republicans who report that they "often" use press releases. Only about 3 percent more conservatives say they "often" use circulars; only 9 percent more conservative Republicans say they "sometimes" use radio advertisements in campaigns. A variation from this pattern exists in the use of literature. There, 16 percent more conservative than liberal Republicans report "sometimes" using literature. However, only 12 percent more liberal Republican chairmen than conservative Republican chairmen report "often" using literature and only 4 percent more liberals say they "never" use literature in campaigning. That the distinction between Democratic liberals and Democratic conservatives is the consequence of genuine differences between liberals and conservatives and not solely the result of being a Democrat is shown by the figures presented in Table 3-6. Large and statistically significant differences exist between liberals and conservatives, regardless of party. These differences are larger than those between the parties themselves. Almost 9 percent more conservatives than liberals report "never" using surveys or polls; nearly 14 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use press releases, 59 percent to 45 percent; 10 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use circulars; 8 percent more conservatives than liberals

PAGE 56

Table 3-6 Campaign Activity by Liberal-Conservative Categorization and by Party (in percents) 46 Attitude Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative Surveys /Pc lis Often Sometimes Never N 14.0 43.6 42.4 328 13.0 41.2 45.9 447 12.2 36.5 51.3 556 Party df = 4 X = 7.14 Democratic Republican Attitude Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative 11.0 39.2 49.8 653 14.5 41.0 44.6 725 df = 2 X 2 = 5.45 Press Rel eases 58.8 35.1 6.1 345 48.1 45.1 6.8 470 45.1 45.6 9.3 592 df = 4 X 2 = 18.67 3 Party Democratic Republican 51.1 47.7 40.2 45.3 df = 4 7.0 697 768 X -= 4.50 Attitude Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative Circul ars 56.1 39.3 4.6 346 50.6 42.2 7.2 474 46.2 44.2 9.2 597 df = 4 X 2 = 12.69 b Party Democratic Republican 48.8 51.2 42.0 42.4 9.2 6.3 703 773 df = 2 X = 4.48

PAGE 57

47 Attitude Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative Party Democratic Republican Attitude Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative PartyDemocratic Republican Table 3-6 (continued) Rad io Often Sometimes Never N 36.3 44.5 19.2 344 38.9 39.5 21.6 463 32.4 40.8 26.7 595 if 4 X 2 = 10.44 c significant at .001 significant at .01 'significant at .05 36.4 42.3 21.4 693 35.3 40.0 24.6 767 df = = 2 X 2 = 2.26 b Literature 62.6 32.8 4.6 348 52.2 42.2 5.5 469 49.2 43.3 7.6 594 df = 4 17.90 c 53.8 38.2 8.0 701 53.3 42.3 4.4 771 df 2 X 2 = 9.20 b report "never" using the radio while campaigning; but 13.4 percent more liberals than conservatives say they "often" use literature, 62.6 percent to 49.2 percent. Between' the parties themselves differences are small over each of the dependent activity variables. In only two instances, the use of radio and the use of literature in campaigning, does the chi-square

PAGE 58

48 obtain statistical significance; even there, however, the greatest percentage difference between the organizations of the Democratic and Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements is only 3.2 percent, 24.6 percent of the Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements as opposed to 21.4 percent of the Democratic chairmen. For the use of literature, the figures are similar: only 4 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they "never" use literature; almost identical percentages, 53.8 percent among Democrats and 53.3 percent among Republicans, say they "often" use it. Why such wide differences should exist between liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats merits consideration, particularly in light of the muted differences between Republican liberals and Republican conservatives. If political attitude itself were an adequate explanation for the activity differences, it would be anticipated that liberals and conservatives would behave similarly, regardless of party. As this is not the case, explanations must be sought elsewhere. In examining the percentage differences between liberal and conservative Democrats over each of the five party activity areas, the liberal Democratic chairmen report greater campaign activity than do the conservative Democratic chairmen. This is true if only the "often" category is examined or if the "often" responses are combined with the "sometimes" responses. As for the Republicans, while the differences between the liberal Republican chairmen and the conservative chairmen are very small, the liberal Republicans still exceed the conservative Republican chairmen in the percentage of "often" responses in four of the five activity areas. The one exception is the distribution of

PAGE 59

49 circulars, where the conservatives surpass the liberals by less than 3 percent. Liberals of both parties are more active across the categories of party campaign activity. Population and the liberal-conservative distinction An explanation as to why the liberals are more active is found in the five activities themselves. Each of them, surveys or polls, press releases, the distribution of circulars and literature, and the use of radio, is most easily and efficiently employed in highly populated counties. Press releases are most worthwhile in reaching large numbers of people and in establishing candidate name recognition, neither of which may be as necessary in a rural or less populated environment. The distribution of circulars and literature is more easily accomplished in areas of greater population density; distance between homes, offices, and, specifically, people, is smaller; less time is spent traveling between potential voters, and more time is spent in contacting voters. The two activity areas that may constitute exceptions to this generalization, the use of surveys or polls and the use of radio, are also the two activities that show the smallest differences between liberals and conservatives, as already reported in Table 3-6. The average difference between liberals and conservatives over "often" using press releases, circulars, or literature is 12.3 percent. For the use of surveys or polls, there is a difference of 1.8 percent and for the use of radio in campaigns the difference is 3.9 percent. These exceptions are probably the result of the high cost of polling and radio advertisements, especially in the case of radio, since costs are determined by the size of the audience — a calculation that may prove particularly costly when a county with a relatively low population borders a county with greater

PAGE 60

50 population; thus, for a local contest, the party would pay to reach large numbers of voters ineligible to vote in the county. In light of the differing utilities involved for populated and less populated counties in using the five campaign activities considered here, and given the higher activity rates of the liberals vis-a-vis the conservatives of both parties, it is reasonable to expect liberals would be found in more populous counties and conservatives in less populous counties. The data presented in Table 3-7 bear out this expectation. Using the division of counties by population already established, the figures indicate that a far greater percentage of liberals are found in the more populated counties. While 25 percent of the liberals are in counties of under 8,000 population, 33 percent are in counties with a population of 73,000 or more. Those chairmen calling themselves middle-of-the-road are evenly distributed across all categories of population. Both parties mirror the national figures. Among Democrats, 24 percent of the liberals are found in counties of 8,000 or less population, but almost 33 percent are found in counties with populations in excess of 73,000. Conversely, the percentage of Democratic conservatives falls from 27 percent in the least populous counties to only 11 percent in the most populous. Republican liberals show the smallest differences between the two population extremes, only 5 percent, but conservative Republicans decline from 27.1 percent to 19 percent over the population range. To summarize the argument thus far: both the demographic variable of occupation and the attitudinal variable of liberal-conservative categorization are associated with differences in the activity of local party organizations. However, both of these variables also

PAGE 61

51 Table 3-7 Liberal-Conservative Categorization by Population of County by Party and Region (in percents) Liberal-Conservative Population Region/Party (in thousands) 8 and 73 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 above N Nation Liberal 25.2 22.2 19.2 33.3 369 Middle-of-Road 22.3 22.1 28.0 27.6 493 Conservative 27.2 28.6 r 2 27.0 / 1 ^a 17.2 644 Democrats Liberal Middle-of-Road Conservative X" = 43.65' 24.1 22.5 20.4 32.8 329 22.2 24.5 28.8 24.5 257 27.3 34.5 x 2 = 27.3 -30.05 3 10.8 139 Republican Liberal 32.5 20.0 10.0 37.5 40 Middle-of-Road 22.5 19.5 27.1 30.9 236 Conservative 27.1 26.9 X 2 26.9 23.40 a 19.0 505 •a df for all chi-squares = 6; significant at .001 correspond to the population of the county, farmers and farm workers are found in less populous counties while managerial and professional occupations are more heavily represented in more heavily populated counties; conservatives are more apt to be found in counties with less population, but liberals are more likely to be found in counties with

PAGE 62

52 greater population. Moreover, while there is no apparent reason that demographic and attitudinal variables should be associated with countyparty activity, the population of the county can be connected to county activity by considering the utility of the activities for the local party organization; the activities considered here are more useful in more populated counties. Population and party activity The final step in this section of the analysis is to examine the relationship between the activity areas and the county population. If, in fact, population makes a difference in the kinds of activity carried out by the county organizations, these differences should be evident across different levels of population. As Table 3-8 indicates, the frequency of reported activity does differ in counties with differing populations. The lowest chi-square, for the use of press releases, is 57.16, while the highest, for the use of radio in campaigns, is 206.35; all are statistically significant at .001. The percent differences are persuasive. While only 16 percent of the chairmen in counties of 8,000 or fewer population report "often" using surveys or polls, over 46 percent report "often" using them in counties of 73,000 and above population, a difference of 36 percent. Thirty percent of those reporting no use of surveys or polls are in the least populated counties. The frequent use of press releases expands from 22 percent in lightly populated counties to 34 percent in heavily populated counties; figures for the use of circulars parallel those for press releases. In the least populous counties, radio is used frequently by only 10 percent of the chairmen, while in the same counties 51 percent report "never" using radio. The percentage of those "often" using radio increases steadily across the

PAGE 63

Table 3-8 Campaign Activity by County Population (in percents) 53 Activity Population (in thousands) Literature 8 and under 9 to 23 24 to 72 73 and above Survey/Polls Often Sometimes Never 16.4 19.9 29.8 14.7 19.5 29.5 22.0 25.7 26.9 46.9 34.9 13.9 177 533 648 X 118. 92 c Press Releases Often Sometimes Never 21.6 20.5 24.1 33.8 722 24.8 26.4 29.0 19.7 628 36.5 32.2 18.3 13.0 115 57.16 Circulars Often Sometimes Never 22.6 18.4 25.3 33.7 739 25.8 28.7 25.5 19.9 623 31.6 29.8 28.1 10.5 114 X' 57.49 Radio Often Sometimes Never 10.5 24.5 31.5 33.5 523 20.5 24.5 28.5 26.5 600 51.0 22.3 13.1 13.6 X 2 = 206.35 337 Often Sometimes Never 23.0 18.1 24.1 34.8 788 25.3 30.5 26.8 17.5 594 32.2 33.3 25.6 8.9 90 78.34 df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001

PAGE 64

54 categories of population until, in those counties with the greatest populations, almost 34 percent report "often" using radio in campaigning. On the other hand, the number "never" using radio declines from a high of 51 percent to a low of less than 14 percent in the most heavilypopulated counties. The percentage of those chairmen who say they "often" use literature moves from 23 percent in the less populated counties to 35 percent in the most populated counties, while the percentage of those chairmen who "never" use literature declines from 32 percent to 9 percent. Thus, while both self-ranking on a liberal-conservative scale and occupation are associated with distinctions in the campaign activity of local organizations, a more satisfactory explanation for the differences lies in the population of the county, since population mandates the selection of different kinds of campaign activity — the activities considered here being more or less appropriate in counties of greater or lesser population. Characteristics of the Chairmen and Frequency of Contacts Demographic measures A last set of comparisons must be made between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of inter-party communication, contacts between the county chairmen and public and party officials. As noted earlier, these contacts represent the communications network that exists within the party organization, distinct from the election activities that are the party's contacts with the electorate. Table 3-9 presents the chi-square results comparing the chairmen's demographic traits with the reported frequency of contacts between the chairmen and the governor, state legislators,

PAGE 65

55 Table 3-9 Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables and Frequency of Contact Demographic Trait Education Contact with State CongressU.S. SenSt./Pty. Other Governor Legis. men ators Chairme n Chairmen Democratic 9.17 Republican 17.56 15.27 23.44 1 5.62 6.13 Age Democratic 24. 98 c 10.27 17.11 Republican 22.70 Occupation Democratic 12.78 Republican 12.83 Time-in-Of fice Democratic 4.86 Republican 11.25 7.00 17.22 6.90 16.08 2.18 7.20 2.64 7.58 5.59 9.73 percentages are found in Appendix D significant at .001 13.36 11.09 11.36 9.22 8.00 12.46 16.84 14.16 10.86 15.05 14.50 14.83 8.13 6.44 6.00 5.40 3.15 12.46 6.57 27.56 L 8.98 12.32 10.71 12.67 significant at .01 congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party chairmen on party business. Few of the chi-squares are statistically significant, and no pattern appears in the figures. The chi-squares obtain statistical significance in only three instances: for chairmen

PAGE 66

56 of both parties over contacts with the state's governors when the chairmen are grouped by age; between Democratic chairmen and contacts with congressmen, when broken down by education; and between Republican chairmen and contacts with U.S. senators based on time-in-of f ice of the chairmen. Regarding contacts with the state's governor, in both parties the frequency of reported contacts increases with the chairman's age. Only 16 percent of the Democrats ages twentytwo to thirty-five report "often" contacting the state's governor on party business, but that figure rises to 25 percent among those Democratic chairmen sixty-six years old or older. Among Republicans, 10 percent of those twentytwo to thirty-five say they "often" contact the governor, but that figure more than doubles, 21.4 percent, among those above sixty-five years old. Similarly, for the chairmen of both parties, the incidence of "never" responses decreases with the chairmen's age. The frequency of "often" and "sometimes" responses by the chairmen with regard to contacting the governor are generally lower in the two highest age classifications, fifty-one to sixty-five and sixty-six to eighty-six, than they are for any other office, public or private. In all other offices, an average of nearly 78 percent of Democratic and Republican chairmen above age fifty-one report "often" or "sometimes" contacting public or party officers on party business; for governor, the figure is less than 57 percent. Moreover, differences by age are not as apparent in reported contacts for offices other than governor. While, on the average, 71 percent of the chairmen from ages twentytwo to fifty report "often" or "sometimes" contacting across all categories except that of governor (7 percent fewer than those fifty-one years old

PAGE 67

57 or older) the average for those chairmen below age fifty-one who "often" or "sometimes" contact the governor is 40 percent, 17 percent less than those above fifty-one years of age. The figures indicate that contacting the governor is more clearly associated with age than is contacting any other official. High levels of contacts between the county chairmen and state chairmen or the county chairmen and other county chairmen are not remarkable, given the probable mutuality of interests; congressmen and U.S. senators, because of distances both geographic and social, may make special efforts to facilitate communication with the county chairmen as a source of political information and support; the high turnover rate and low public visibility of state legislators would probably encourage large numbers of contacts in an effort to build and solidify support for campaign efforts. On the other hand, inability to succeed themselves in office, limited influence upon state legislative elections, and, in many states, dispersal and consequent dilution of executive power among elected members of a state cabinet perhaps contribute to the smaller incidence of reported contacts made between county chairmen and the governor. Other differences are also apparent. Between Democratic chairmen and contacts with congressmen when the chairmen are classified by education, almost twice as many Democratic chairmen, in terms of percentages, with less than a high school education report "often" contacting congressmen than do Democratic chairmen with at least a college education, 43 percent to 22 percent. Similarly, relatively larger differences exist between Republicans and contacts with U.S. senators when the chairmen are divided by time-in-of f ice. While just under 54 percent

PAGE 68

58 of the Republican chairmen in office two years or less say they "often" or "sometimes" contact senators, almost 69 percent of them in office five years or more make the same claims, a difference of nearly 15 percent. Attitudinal measures As Table 3-10 shows, attitudinal variables make few distinctions in the frequency of contact. In the liberalconservative category and in attitudes toward the activity of the federal government, the chi-squares between Democratic chairmen and contacts with state party chairmen and other county chairmen are statistically significant and the percentage differences relatively large. More liberal than conservative Democratic chairmen report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state party chairmen, 86 to 74 percent. Similarly, 10 percent more Democrats who favor an increase in the activity of the federal government than Democrats favoring a decrease report "often" or "sometimes" contacting the state party chairmen. Figures for contacts with other county chairmen reflect those for contacts with state chairmen. Almost 79 percent of Democratic liberals report "often" or "sometimes" contacting other county chairmen on party business, but only 65 percent of the Democratic chairmen who call themselves conservative report contacting with the same levels of frequency. Again, 86 percent of the Democratic chairmen favoring an increase in federal government activity say they "often" or "sometimes" contact other party chairmen, but less than 74 percent of those who wish a decrease in the activity of the national government, 12 percent fewer, report contacting with the same frequency. These figures may represent a greater willingness of liberal Democrats to participate in a party that is skewed in the direction of liberals, as Table 2-3 reported,

PAGE 69

59 Table 3-10 Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables and Frequency of Contact Contact with State CongressU.S. SenSt. Pty. Other Variable LiberalGovernor Legis. men ators Chairmen Chairmen Conservative Democratic Republican 10.06 13.03 11.40 20.06 C 6.04 7.45 12.20 7.96 16.25 5.69 16.38 1.90 Activity of Federal Govt. Democratic Republican 4.08 9.92 10.58 5.72 7.51 5.30 2.57 10.12 16.24 6.09 23.79 b 5.43 Level of Govt. Most Concerned Democratic 6.42 6.72 2.74 18.53 9.35 6.92 Republican 19.55 c 35.72 b 2.06 5.54 4.34 5.26 Most Important Problem Facing State 8.45 4.55 5.20 6.83 10.84 Democratic 8.95 Republican 24.65 9.03 8.52 6.40 7.53 2.66 percentages are found in Appendix E significant at .001 significant at .01 while at the same time reflecting a reluctance on the part of conservatives to participate as fully. Among Republicans, the chi-squares indicate greater divisions within the party over contacts with state government officials, the governor,

PAGE 70

60 and state legislators. When divided by the level of government with which they are most concerned, the chi-squares for Republican chairmen and contacting the governor is 19.55, for contacts with state legislators, 35.72; over the liberal-conservative dimension, the figure between Republican chairmen and contacting of state legislators is 20.06. All of these figures are statistically significant; but in the first two cases, contacts with the governor and with state legislators by level of government with which the chairmen feel most concerned, they tend to magnify smaller percentage differences. For instance, while two times as many Republicans with local government as their major concern indicate "often" contacting the governor as Republicans concerned with national government, 14 percent to 7 percent, when the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are combined, the difference shrinks to a less substantial 7 percent. The figures do indicate, however, a greater willingness among Republicans most concerned with state government to contact the governor on party business. In contacts with state legislators, 77 percent of the Republican chairmen most concerned with local government maintain they "often" or "sometimes" contact these state officials, compared to 73 percent of those Republican chairmen most concerned with national government. Once again, Republicans most concerned with state government, 83 percent, report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state legislators on party business. Larger differences appear among Republicans when divided along the liberal-conservative continuum over contacts with state legislators. Over 62 percent of the liberals report "often" contacting state legislators compared to 41 percent of the conservatives; when combined with the "sometimes" responses, the figures are 92 to

PAGE 71

61 77 percent. Middle-of-the-road Republicans fall between the conservatives and the liberals with 86 percent contacting state legislators "often" or "sometimes." These figures, in conjunction with the figures comparing the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables, have implications for the understanding of local party activity. They do not tend to substantiate the speculation made in the literature of county party chairmen that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen will have an impact upon the activity of the county organization, at least as the activity of the local organizations has been measured here: in terms of electorally oriented activity. The demographic and attitudinal variables do appear to make a difference in the organization's electoral activities in the case of occupation or liberal-conservative attitudes; however, theoretical explanations as well as the empirical evidence appear to indicate otherwise — in the case of occupation or liberal-conservative beliefs, the appropriateness of the activity in regard to the county's population seems to make a larger difference. The next chapter establishes the framework for a move away from demographic and attitudinal traits, toward an examination of the chairmen's political orientations and the impact of those orientations upon local party activity.

PAGE 72

CHAPTER FOUR THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMAN The publication in 1968 of The Amateur Democrat by James Q. Wilson sparked interest in a new development in American politics: amateur political activists who participate in politics not in the expectation of any direct material reward but because they find politics intrinsically interesting. The amateur differs from the professional who is more concerned with the politics of winning elections. This chapter considers the amateur-professional division among the county party chairmen. The chairmen will be divided along amateurprofessional lines, then examined by demographic characteristics and political ambitions. This examination becomes the basis for exploring, in Chapter Five, the connection between amateurs, professionals, and party activity. The evidence is mounting that citizens now participate in politics by holding office and that they manage to retain an amateur point of view despite office-holding (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977). It is possible the amateur now participates in the party organization itself; recent evidence is found in studies of national party convention delegates (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977; Roback, 1975). Whether the amateurprofessional distinction exists among county party chairmen is the aspect of local party organization this chapter examines. 62

PAGE 73

63 Previous research takes as a starting point Wilson's definitions of amateur and professional. Amateurs are more concerned with ideals and principles than with power, while the professional is mainly interested in winning elections and less concerned with issues or ideology. The county chairmen were asked a series of questions that tap the amateur-professional dimension by probing the chairmen's attitudes toward the party hierarchy, their attitudes toward issues and ideology, and their view of the role of issues and ideology in local party politics. Specifically, the questions were whether the chairmen felt an obligation (1) to follow party leaders, (2) to give patronage positions to party supporters, (3) to weigh prior party service in selecting a candidate, (4) to pick a candidate with issue commitments, (5) to keep public officials accountable to the party, and (6) to hold personal beliefs. Possible responses to each question ranged over a five-place continuum from "strong obligation to do," "some obligation to do," "no obligation," "some obligation to avoid," to a "strong obligation to avoid." These responses are assigned a value ranging from zero to four with "strong obligation to do" assigned the upper value, four. Following Richard Hofstetter (1971), I have factor analyzed the six questions. The results of this factor analysis are presented in Table 4-1. Earlier analysis has indicated that amateur— professionalism may not fall upon a single dimension. Thomas Roback, for example, in examining delegates to the 1972 Republican Convention finds, after factor analysis, that two dimensions resulted: (1) a procedural-organization dimension and (2) a principles-participation dimension (1975). Richard Hofstetter earlier arrived at similar conclusions by factor analysis of

PAGE 74

64 Table 4-1 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Amateur-Professional Perceptions Factor Issue Question Procedural Participation Follow decisions of party leaders .46 .30 Give patronage help to party workers .64 .18 Weigh prior service in selecting nominee .74 .10 Select nominee with issue commitments .14 .76 Keep public officials accountable to party .68 .10 Hold personal beliefs .18 .75 Percent total variance: 16.80 12.80 questions designed to tap the distinction between amateur and professional: he labeled the factors (1) procedural and (2) issueparticipation. The procedural dimension "taps norms about party procedure — accountability to the organization, nomination of candidates, patronage, and discipline" (1971, p. 41). The second factor, the issue-participation factor, "taps norms about commitment to issues, intensity of personal belief, discussion of issues, participation and the role of the formal party organization in nominations (juxtaposed against the role of individuals or action groups) ." (p. 41). The figures in Table 4-1 mirror these results. Two of the questions, the degree of obligation to select a nominee with issue commitments and the degree of obligation to hold personal beliefs, load heavily upon the second factor, issue-participation. Of the four remaining questions,

PAGE 75

65 only one, the extent of obligation to follow decisions of party leaders, loads on the first factor, procedural, at less than .50. The remaining three questions, the extent of a feeling of obligation to give patronage help to party workers, weigh prior service in selecting a nominee, and keep public officials accountable to the party, all load on the procedural factor at more than .60. Because the question tapping obligation to follow decisions of party leaders is only .04 less than the cutoff point for loading on the first factor, and because it is theoretically justifiable in light of earlier research, I have included the question in the procedural dimension. For clarity in presentation, because of limitations in the county chairmen survey (specifically, the lack of information on inter-party activities of the chairmen) and for conformity with earlier research on amateurism, subsequent analysis in this chapter will deal only with the procedural dimension of the amateur character; this is the approach adopted by Roback (1975). Responses to the four questions that fall in the procedural dimension were summed to produce an additive index for each chairman ranging from zero, indicating all responses were "obligation to avoid," to a score of 16, indicating all responses to the four questions were "strong obligation to do." Thus, the lower the score, the more deeply rooted the amateur convictions, the higher the score, the more professional the chairman's convictions. The scores were trichotomized into amateur, semi-professional, and professional. This division yields 133 amateurs (8.3 percent), 781 semiprofessionals (48.6 percent) and 598 professionals (37.2 percent). While skewed in the direction of professionals, the results correspond favorably with those of earlier studies (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977;

PAGE 76

66 Soule and McGarth, 1975). The remainder of this chapter deals with an analysis of the county chairmen divided along the amateur-professional dimension. The demographic variables for the first portion of this analysis are those examined in earlier research: level of education, age, time-in-off ice, and sex. Statistical research has confirmed Wilson's observation that amateurs are, for the most part, ". young, welleducated professional people, including a large number of women" (1968). Soule and McGarth reach similar conclusions in their examination of delegates to the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Conventions, and Roback reports a like profile of amateurs at the 1972 Republican Convention (Soule and McGarth, 1975; Roback, 1975). The data presented in Table 4-2 reflect these findings for the county chairmen. Amateur chairmen are better educated than semiprofessionals or professionals: 63 percent of the amateurs report having a college degree or having done postgraduate work, compared to 54 percent of the semiprofessionals and 51 percent of the professionals. Among delegates to the 1974 Democratic Midterm Convention, Hitlin and Jackson report 76 percent of the amateurs as college graduates or holding advanced degrees, compared to 54 percent of the professionals (1977). The figures also indicate amateurs are more likely to be younger than the more professionallyoriented chairmen. More than 25 percent of the amateurs, but twothirds fewer professionals, only 8 percent, are between ages twenty-two and thirty-five. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and professionals; 14 percent are ages twenty-two to thirty-five. While 31 percent of the amateurs are fifty-one years old or older, 46 percent of the professionally-oriented chairmen are above age fifty-one. Among

PAGE 77

67 Table 4-2 Amateur, Semi-Prof essional, and Professional by Demographic Traits (in percents) Degree of Professionalism Education None-some high school High school Some college College and post-grad, N Age 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 N = Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more N = Sex Male Female N = SemiAmateur Professior al Professional 5.3 3.5 6.4 9.2 13.1 15.4 22.9 29.9 27.7 62.9 54.2 50.5 131 778 596 df = 6 x 2 = = 14.26 25.6 14.4 8.2 43.4 50.3 46.1 23.3 30.3 33.0 7.8 5.0 12.6 129 776 594 df = 6 v2 A. = 56.11 a 43.4 46.5 35.4 27.1 24.4 25.4 29.5 29.0 39.2 29 765 587 df = 4 x 2 = 21.15 3 89.4 91.8 94.1 10.6 8.2 5.9 132 781 597 df 2 x 2 = = 4.69 significant at .001

PAGE 78

68 Republican delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention, Roback found "organizational longevity positively related to professionalism" (1975, p. 450). The data for the county chairmen mirror the results of Soule and Clarke's examination of delegates to the 1968 Democratic Convention. They found 24 percent of the amateurs had been active two years or less and 75 percent of the professionals were active ten years or more (1970). The amateurs have also served in the office of chairmen fewer years than professionals; over 43 percent of the amateurs have been in office two years or less, compared to 35 percent of the professionals. On the other hand, while almost equal percentages of amateurs and semiprof essionals have served five years or more, 25.5 percent of the amateurs and 29 percent of the semiprof essionals, over 39 percent of the professionals have been in office for five or more years. Finally, the data indicate women are found in slightly greater percentages among the amateurs: about 11 percent of the amateurs are women, compared to 6 percent of the professionals. The semiprof essionals fall in between, with 8 percent women. Age differences and differences in time served in office open the door to another dimension of the attributes of the amateurism of the chairmen, their political experience and ambitions. The chairmen were asked (1) if they had ever held public office, (2) if they wished higher party office and (3) if they wished to keep their present position. It is expected that given the relative youth of the amateurs and their comparative newness to the position of county chairmen, they would be less likely to have held public office. Wishing higher party office or the desire to keep their present position is more difficult to

PAGE 79

69 predict. It may be that the amateur is willing to participate in political activity — even to the extent of becoming a county chairman — only insofar as policy goals, electoral or ideological, are perceived as obtainable. There is some evidence for this argument. In their study of county political activists in Iowa, Johnson and Gibson report that despite activity as campaign workers in a primary election, 21 percent of the activists intended to bolt their party in the general election. This group included five precinct committeemen, three precinct chairmen, and one county party official: "... more than one-half of the bolters were, or had been, delegates to county conventions" (1974, p. 73). Of course, the amateurs may view political activity as socially or personally beneficial, may have enjoyed their political experience and have higher political aspirations. The results are presented in Table 4-3. As predicted, the amateurs are less likely to have held public office than either the semiprofessionals or the professionals. Only 29 percent of the amateurs have held public office while 39 percent of the semiprofessionals and 48 percent of the professionals have held office. This pattern of office-holding coincides with that reported by Hitlin and Jackson for delegates to the Democratic Mid-Term Convention. They found 59 percent of the amateurs had held party office while 81 percent of the professionals had held office (1977). The difference between the chairmen and the delegates may be the consequence of delegates to the national convention having first served in the county party. The amateurs have less desire than professionals for both higher party office or for keeping their own position. Less than 30 percent

PAGE 80

70 Table 4-3 Chairmen's Ambitions by Amateur, Semiprofessional, and Professional Degree of Professionalism (percent answering "yes") SemiAmbition Amateur Prof Prof. Ever held public office? 29.2 38.7 47.7 N = 38 300 282 X = 20.05 Wish higher party office? 29.7 36.7 41.0 N = 38 274 235 X = 6.46 a Wish to keep present position? 41.5 44.8 53.8 N = 51 335 302 X = 12.72 c df = 2; significant at .05 of them wish for higher party office, compared to 41 percent of the professionals. Only 41 percent of the amateurs (opposed to 54 percent of the professionals) want to keep their present positions. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and the professionals. The lesser interest of amateurs in pursuing higher party office or in maintaining their current party office may be indicative of a dissatisfaction with party politics as was the case among the Iowa activists. A final variable frequently mentioned in the literature of amateurs and professionals is the liberal-conservative dimension. While Wilson reports that Democratic clubs in California tend overwhelmingly to be liberal, he also maintains that ". it is not his liberalism

PAGE 81

71 that sets the new politician apart and makes him worth studying" (1968, p. 2). Yet, the studies of amateurs have consistently linked the amateur with liberal: "amateurs were much more likely to place themselves in the 'liberal' category than were the professionals," write Hitliu and Jackson (1977, p. 792). Far from indicating a liberal bent, data from the county chairmen place the amateur within the conservative category. The chairmen were asked to rank themselves on a liberal-conservative continuum ranging from very liberal to very conservative. Lb in Chapter Two, these categories are collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative. The results are displayed in Table 4-4. Of the amateurs, 48 percent classify themselves as conservative. Forty-three percent of the professionals place themselves in the conservative category. Only 22 percent of the amateurs regard themselves as liberal, while 26 percent of the professionals so classify themselves. While these data do not correspond to the results of work done on convention delegates, they are more in line with Wilson's observation that the amateur is not solely a product of a liberal political outlook. Amateurism is a question of political "style," and not a question of liberalness. As Wildavsky has pointed out in regard to the conservative "purist" delegates to the 1964 Republican National convention: The ideal party of the purists is not merely a conservative party; it is also a distinct and separate community of cobelievers who differ with the opposition party all down the line. To this extent, their style merges with that of the liberal party reformers, described by James Wilson who wish to see the parties represent clear and opposed alternatives and gain votes only through appeals on policy differences rather than on such "irrational" criteria as personality, party identification, or ethnic status. (1971, pp. 255-256)

PAGE 82

Table 4-4 Amateur, Semiprof essional, and Professional by Liberal-Conservative Dimension (in percents) Degree of Professionalism 72 LiberalConservative Amateur Prof. Prof. Liberal 22.3 23.6 26.3 Midd le-of -the-Road 29.2 34.7 31.2 Conservative 43.5 41.8 42.5 N = 130 764 586 X = 4 24 a df = 4; not significant In their study of presidential elections, Polsby and Wildavsky reach the same conclusion: ". .in the presence of these activists is a phenomenon which is not best seen as a matter of right vs. left, or orgnaization vs. anti-organization, but rather in terms of political purists vs. professional politicians" (1971, p. 36). In short, it is "style" that distinguishes the amateur from the professional, not liberalism. This distinction in style is seen in the attitude of amateurs and professionals toward the representative function of the legislator. The amateur, Wilson says, would control elected officials not from "external threats" typified by the mobilization of electoral majorities, but rather by "internalized convictions" that have as their object the realization of ". certain social policies rather than of enhancing the party's prospects for retaining power in the next election" (1968, pp. 18-19). It is anticipated, therefore, that the amateur activist would see the duty of the representative as to act in the best interest of the contituency and not, necessarily,

PAGE 83

73 respond to the wishes of the constituency. The professional, concerned with winning elections, is likely to be more sensitive to the constituency's wishes. The chairmen were asked: "In making most kinds of policy decisions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own best judgment even if this means doing something unpopular, or that politicians ought to do what a majority of their constituents want?" The responses are reported in Table 4-5. The majority of the activists, 52 percent, believe politicans should rely upon their own judgment in making policy decisions; 30 percent feel politicians should use a combination of their own judgment and that of their constituents, while 18 percent believe majority opinion should provide the guide to political action. At the other extreme, while 38 percent of the professionals think politicians should rely upon their own judgment exclusively, only 5 percent fewer, 33 percent, believe policy decisions should be made upon the preferences of the majority. The figures bear out the expectation that professionals are more sensitive to the demands of the constituency and, by implication, that most amateurs expect the politician to pursue a "correct" policy solution, not necessarily relying upon the attitudes of constituents for guidance. Especially intriguing in these figures are the disparities among the amateurs. While the semiprof essionals and professionals array themselves evenly across the three categories, the amateurs cluster heavily — more than one-half — upon reliance upon a politician's own judgment. Yet almost 18 percent of the amateurs would rely exclusively upon the majority opinion for making policy decisions — a surprising response for the amateur activists, preoccupied with "correct" policy

PAGE 84

74 Table 4-5 Attitude on Representation by Amateurism (in percents) Legislator should rely on Own judgment Both equally Majority opinion N = SemiAmateur prof Prof. 52.3 41.6 33.2 30.0 31.4 29.0 17.7 24.4 32.9 130 772 587 X 2 = 21.72 a a df = 4; significant at .001 choice. This 18 percent bears more extended analysis. The existence of the schism within the amateur ranks is indicative of a "fundamental problem" confronted by the amateurs: to abandon democracy for elitism or to surrender policy decisions to popular input (Wilson, 1968, pp. 344-346). The majority of the amateurs would appear to ha.-ve come down on the elite side of the issue—over 50 percent maintaining politicians should rely solely on their own judgment in making policy decisions. Eighteen percent of the amateurs, however, argue the majority opinion should govern political decisions— a "majoritarian" approach. It appears, then, that amateurism is more complex than a liberalconservative division would indicate. An analysis of the majoritarian amateurs vis -a-vis the remaining amateurs and the professionals may clarify this phenomenon. Table 4-6 presents comparisons by demographic traits among (1) amateurs minus the majoritarians, (2) semiprof essionals, and (3) the majoritarians. Since the number of majoritarians is small (N = 22), the categories of education, age, and tirae-in-of f ice have been collapsed.

PAGE 85

75 Table 4-6 Amateur, Professional, Majorltarian by Demographic Traits (in percents) Degree of Professionalism Professional 21.8 27.7 50.5 596 Amateur Education None-high school 11.3 Some college 20.8 College and postgrad. 67.9 N = 106 AS£ 22 to 50 69.2 51 to 86 30.8 N = Time in Office 2 to 4 years 5 years or more N = Sex Male Female N =' df = 4 104 54.4 45.6 594 df = 2 74.3 25.7 105 60.8 39.2 587 df 89.7 10.3 107 94.1 5.9 597 df = 2 Majorltarian 31.8 31.8 36.4 22 X z = 14.36 c 68.2 31.8 22 r= 9.i3 c 47.6 52.4 25 X = 8.90' 86.4 13.6 22 X* = 4.52 significant at .01

PAGE 86

76 Despite the loss of some variability, differences between the groups are still apparent. For example, the majoritarians are three times as likely, in terms of percentages, to have only a high school education or less than are the remaining amateurs, 32 percent to 11 percent. The amateurs are 17 percent more likely to have a college education or postgraduate work, 68 percent, than professionals, 51 percent, but far more likely than the majoritarians, who report only 36 percent with a college education or greater. Distinctions between amateurs and majoritarians over age are negligible, 69.2 percent of the amateurs are below age fifty-one with 68.2 percent of the majoritarians in the same category. Both of these groups, however, differ from the professionals, where only 54 percent are under age fifty-one and nearly 46 percent are above age fifty. Larger differences are noticeable when the chairmen are compared over the time they have served in office. While 75 percent of the amateurs and 61 percent of the professionals have served two to four years, only 48 percent of the majoritarians have served five years or less. Conversely, more than one-half the majoritarians, 52 percent, have served five years or more, in contrast to 25 percent of the amateurs. There is little distinction between amateurs and majoritarians regarding sex; only 3.6 percent more majoritarians are women. To complete the comparisons among amateurs, professionals, and majoritarians, Table 4-7 presents the distribution of amateurs by the liberal-conservative dimension. While not statistically significant, the figures indicate the greatest portion of the majoritarians classify themselves as conservatives, over 69 percent, compared to 44 percent among the remaining amateurs and 43 percent among professionals. In

PAGE 87

77 Table 4-7 Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by Liberal-Conservative Dimension (in percents) Degree of professionalism LiberalConservative Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative N = MajoriAmateur Prof. tarian 26.2 26.3 4.3 29.9 31.2 26.1 43.9 42.5 69.6 107 586 23 X = 8.14 a a df = 4; not significant fact, only 4 percent of the majoritarians call themselves liberal, opposed to about 26 percent of both amateurs and professionals. A. number of conclusions may be drawn from the preceding analysis. Amateurs are not unidimensional: among the amateurs there are distinctions in attitudes over the function of the representative. Some believe the politicians should use their best judgment in representing their constituency, others that the politician should follow the dictates of the constituency. This second group, the majoritarians, differ from other amateurs in demographic as well as attitudinal characteristics, as well as differing from professionals. This finding implies that amateurs must be treated as a more complex phenomenon than they have been in the past. In addition, the results indicate the amateur oriented chairmen somewhat better educated, younger, and newer to the job of chairman than their semiprof essional or professional counterparts. The amateurs are also less likely to have held public office than semiprofessionals or professionals, and less likely to want higher

PAGE 88

78 public office. Contrary to the results reported by other studies of amateurism, the amateur-oriented chairmen are not more likely than professionals to classify themselves as liberals. The differences in demographic and attitudinal traits, and, in particular, the liberal-conservative classification and the existence of a majoritarian subset among the amateurs, emphasize the differences in style between amateurs and professionals. That difference is examined in Chapter Five.

PAGE 89

CHAPTER FIVE LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE AMATEUR-PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION Chapter Four examined the amateur and professional chairmen bylooking at their demographic and attitudinal differences or similarities. This chapter continues the examination of the amateurprofessional phenomenon among the county chairmen by focusing upon the connection between the amateur, semiprof essional, or professional status of chairmen and their local party campaign activity and, second, the frequency of contacts between chairmen and various government and party officials. The different orientations of amateurs and professionals may produce different levels of campaign activity. Amateurs are concerned primarily with issues and only secondarily with winning elections. "The belief in compromise and bargaining; the sense that public policy is made in small steps rather than in big leaps; the concern with conciliating the opposition and broadening public appeal; and the willingness to bend a little to capture public support are all characteristic of the traditional politics in the U.S." (Wildavsky, 1971, p. 254). The amateur diverges from traditional politics: concerns for compromise, cementing electoral coalitions, and placating the opposition, give way to an emphasis upon issues to the exclusion of traditional political values. Obtaining political power is not the 79

PAGE 90

80 chief goal of the amateur. Eldersveld reports that 78 percent of the precinct leaders who were involved in party activity for personal reasons — such as securing a job — were power-oriented; 70 percent of the precinct leaders who were involved for personal social rewards were power-oriented; but, only 44 percent of the precinct leaders with ideological concerns were motivated chiefly by hope of obtaining political power (1964). It is expected, then, that the amateurs would be less energetic than the professionals in the use of campaign activity. Table 5-1 presents a comparison of amateurs, semiprof essionals, and professionals across the reported frequency of using the five campaign activities developed in Chapter Three. All of the results are statistically significant. Across all five activities, the percent of professionals reporting "often" using any particular activity exceeds the percent of amateurs, while the percent of semiprof essionals falls between amateurs and professionals. Among professionals, 16 percent say they "often" use surveys or polls in campaigning, but only 8 percent of the amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls. While 42 percent of the amateurs say they "often" use press releases, more than half the professionals, 56 percent, report the same use; over half the professionals, 57 percent, maintain they "often" use circulars, opposed to 41 percent of the amateurs; 43 percent of the professionals say they "often" use radio in campaigning, but only 29 percent of the amateurs make the same estimate; finally, while 40 percent of the amateurs claim to "often" use literature, over 60 percent of the professionals say they "often" distribute literature in campaigns. Indeed, the reported frequency of campaign activity among the professional chairmen continues to exceed that of the amateurs when "often" responses are

PAGE 91

Table 5-1 Amateur, Serai-Professional by Campaign Activity (in percent s) 31 Surveys/Polls AmateurProfessional Often Sometimes Never N Amateur 7.7 35.9 56.4 117 Semi-Professional 11.2 40.4 48.4 698 Professional 16.3 40.7 43.0 528 df 4 X 2 = 13.67 b Press Releases Amateur 42.3 46.3 11.4 123 Semi-Professional 45.6 46.7 7.7 741 Professional 55.5 37.2 7.4 557 df = 4 X 2 = 16.83 b Circulars Amateur 41.0 45.9 13.1 122 Semi-Professional 46.4 44.3 9.3 742 Professional 56.8 38.3 4.4 570 df = 4 X 2 = 27.35 a Radio Amateur 28.5 37.4 34.1 123 Semi-Professional 31.3 43.4 25.3 738 Professional 43.0 39.0 18.0 556 df = 4 X 2 = 30.32 a Literature Amateur Semi-Professional Professional 39.7 50.1 60.8 47.1 43.5 34.9 df = 4 13.2 6.3 4.3 X 2 = 31.72' 121 744 558 significant at .001 significant at .01

PAGE 92

82 combined with the "sometimes" responses. The smallest difference after combining categories is 4.1 percent in favor of the professionals. For each activity, the amateurs are more likely to report "never" using the activity in campaigning. These figures tend to bear out the expectation that those chairmen at the amateur end of the spectrum would be less active than those more professionally oriented. The professionals, the figures seem to indicate, are "... preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of winning or losing" (Wilson, 1968, p. 4). The majoritarian subset of the amateurs compared to the remaining amateurs and to professionals is displayed in Table 5-2. The majoritarians are less likely than the remaining amateurs or the professionals to report "often" using any of the five campaign activities. The smallest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is over the use of circulars, with 2.4 percent more amateurs than majoritarians saying they "often" use circulars in election campaigns. The differences over other activities are small: almost 3 percent fewer majoritarians than amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls, nearly 7 percent fewer claim they "often" use press releases, about 8 percent fewer "often" use radio, and 12 percent fewer report "often" using literature while campaigning. The gap between majoritarians and professionals is greater; 16 percent of the professionals "often" use polls, but only 6 percent of the majoritarians; 56 percent of the professionals say they "often" use press releases, but only 37 percent of the majoritarians, figures which are nearly the same for the use of circulars, 57 percent to 39 percent; 8 percent more professionals than majoritarians report "often" campaigning by using radio, and over 30 percent more professionals than majoritarians report "often" using literature,

PAGE 93

Table 5-2 Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by Campaign Activity (in percents) Surveys/Polls 33 Often Sometimes Never df = 4 X^ = 9.36 L N Amateur 8 1 36, 4 55 6 99 Professional 16 3 40 7 43 ,0 528 Majoritarian 5 6 33 3 61 .1 18 Press Releases Amateur Professional Majoritarian Amateur Professional Majoritarian 43.3 45.2 11.5 104 55.5 37.2 7.4 557 36.8 52.6 10.5 19 df = 4 X 2 = 7.88 Circulars 41.3 46.2 12.5 104 56,8 38.8 4.4 570 38.9 44.4 16.7 18 df = 4 X 19.35' Amateur Professional Majoritarian 27.2 43.0 35.0 35.9 39.0 45.0 df = 4 Radio 36.9 18.0 20.0 1 20. 81' 103 556 20 Amateur Professional Majoritarian 41.6 60.8 30.0 45.5 34.9 55.0 df = 4 Literature 12.9 4.3 15.0 X 2 = 26.08' 101 558 20 significant at .001 significant at .05

PAGE 94

84 60.8 percent to 30 percent. The data indicate majoritarians less frequently report "often" engaging in any of the five types of campaign activity considered. Since each of these activities is designed to persuade the electorate, the majoritarians may view them as superfluous, believing the electorate is less appropriately "persuaded" than "represented." On the other hand, maximizing the chances of electoral victory, the professional's concern, may produce an enthusiasm for campaign activity. The comparative figures for the amateurs, semiprof essionals and professionals, as well as those for the amateurs, professionals, and majoritarians seem to suggest that counties headed by amateur-oriented chairmen are less active in the campaign techniques described here. This finding coincides with the description of the amateur as less interested in winning elections than the professional. The next section of this chapter examines internal party activity, specifically, the frequency of contacts made by amateurs, semiprof essionals, and majoritarians with other party and elected officials. Contacts on matters of party business with party and elected officials demonstrate a concern with the party as an organization. Such contacts may encourage the party harmony necessary to mounting an effective campaign, coordinating party activity with other party leaders, and exhorting party members and party activists to greater levels of party activity (Patterson, 1963). In short, maintaining and participating in the communications network of the party are activities that would be more expected of professionals than of amateurs. "The purist worries about issues, while the professional worries about organization" (Sullivan et al., 1976, p. 121).

PAGE 95

85 The data presented in Table 5-3 point toward these expectations. The table presents the reported frequency of contact by amateur, semiprofessional, and professional chairmen with various party and public officials, officials defined in Chapter Three. All of the chi-squares are statistically significant at .001. In each case, the professional chairmen are far more likely than the amateurs and somewhat more likely than the semiprof essionals to report frequent contacts with any of the elected or party officials considered here. While 53 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact the state's governor on party business, only 28 percent of the professionals and 39 percent of the semiprof essionals say they "never" contact the governor. Fewer than 3 percent of the amateurs say they contact state legislators "often," but six times that figure, 20.8 percent, of the professionals say they "often" contact state legislators. In terms of percentages, twice as many professionals as amateurs report "often" contacting congressmen on party business, 31.7 to 15.7 percent. By a margin of 15.5 percent, more professional than amateur chairmen report "often" contacting U.S. senators; almost 39 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact U.S. senators, compared to only 15 percent of the professionals. Looking at party officers, professionals are also more likely to contact state chairmen or other county party chairmen than are the amateurs. More than one-half the professionals, 54.4 percent, report "often" contacting state chairmen, opposed to 43 percent among the amateurs. In each case covered in Table 5-3, semiprof essionals are found between the amateurs and the professionals in regard to "often" contacting. Table 5-4 presents the figures for rates of contact for amateurs, professionals, and majoritarians. Ail chi-squares are statistically

PAGE 96

Table 5-3 Amateur, Semi-Prof essional, and Professional by Frequency of Contact (in percents) 86 Contact: Often Sometimes Hardly Ever Never N Governor Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional 7.8 13.3 21.2 21.7 31.2 34.0 17.4 16.3 16.4 53.0 39.2 28.3 X* = 41.50 J 115 693 523 State Legislators Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional 2.8 31.1 17.2 19.7 122 21.1 39.9 11.8 7.7 730 20.8 36.4 6.1 4.7 555 X 64.54 Congressmen Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional 15.7 28.7 16.5 39.1 115 22.7 41.2 18.4 17.7 695 31.7 41.1 15.7 11.4 542 X = 63.14 U.S. Senators Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional State Chairmen Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional Other Chairmen Amateur Semi-Prof essional Professional 9.7 31.0 9.1 38.9 113 17.0 42.4 20.2 20.5 694 25.2 43.3 17.0 14.5 524 50.23 42.9 31.7 11.1 14.3 126 45.3 39.3 10.9 4.6 746 54.4 34.7 8.5 2.5 568 r= 42.77 25.0 35.8 20.0 19.2 120 29.5 44.2 18.1 8.2 719 37.4 43.4 13.4 5.8 553 X^ = 37.77 a df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001

PAGE 97

Table 5-4 Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarlan by Frequency of Contact (in percents) 87 Contact: Often Sometimes Hardly Ever Never N Governor Amateur Professional Majoritarian 6.4 21.2 16.7 22.3 34.0 11.1 16.0 16.4 27.8 55.3 28.3 44.4 X^ = 35.16' 94 523 18 State Legislators Amateur Professional Majoritarian Congressmen Amateur Professional Majoritarian U.S. Senators Amateur Professional Majoritarian State Chairmen Amateur Professional Majoritarian Other Chairmen Amateur Professional Majority 32.4 31.4 17.6 18.6 102 52.8 36.4 6.1 4.7 551 30.0 30.0 15.0 25.0 20 X* = 56.27 14.4 30.9 15.5 35.5 97 31.7 41.1 15.7 11.4 542 22.2 16.7 22.2 38.9 18 X = 58.52 9.4 32.3 20.8 37.5 96 25.2 43.3 17.0 14.5 524 11.8 23.5 17.6 47.1 17 X = 44.49 44.2 30.8 10.6 14.4 104 54.4 34.7 8.5 • 2.5 568 36.4 36.4 13.6 13.6 22 X = 35.55 26.3 38.4 19.2 16.2 99 37.4 43.4 13.4 5.8 553 19.0 23.8 23.8 33.3 21 37.87 *df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at ,001

PAGE 98

88 significant at .001, and the percentage differences between groups are large. In three instances, contacts with the governor, with congressmen, and with U.S. senators, the majoritarians exceed the remaining amateurs. The governor is contacted "often" by 17 percent of the majoritarians, and by only 6 percent of the other amateur oriented chairmen; 21 percent of the professionals report "often" contacting the governor on party business. Twenty-two percent of the majoritarians, but only 14 percent of the amateurs, report "often" contacting congressmen on party business and 2.4 percent more majoritarians than amateurs report "often" contacting U.S. senators. In all other contacts, the majoritarians are surpassed by both amateurs and professionals. Contacting state legislators is done "often" by 32 percent of the amateurs and 53 percent of the professionals, but by only 30 percent of the majoritarians. While 44 percent of the amateurs and 54 percent of the professionals say they "often" contact state chairmen, 36 percent of the majoritarians report the same frequency of contact and, in contacting other chairmen, only 19 percent of the majoritarians report high levels of contact, as opposed to 37 percent of the professionals and 26 percent of the amateurs. These figures indicate that in contacts with the" offices of governors, congressmen, and U.S. senators, majoritarians surpass the remaining amateurs. When the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are collapsed, the balance of contacting shifts toward the amateurs for each of these three offices, but only by a small edge: the greatest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is in contacting U.S. congressmen, where the amateurs exceed the majoritarians by 6 percent, 45.3 percent for the amateurs and 38.9 percent for the majoritarians;

PAGE 99

89 for contacts with U.S. senators the difference is 6.4 percent; for contacts with the governor, the difference drops to .9 percent. The lower contact rate among amateurs may be less the consequence of amateurism than of relative newness to the position of county chairman. The lack of contact may reflect not a disinterest or disdain for contacting party or political officials within the party on party business, but rather a lack of capacity to make such contacts due to inexperience in the position. If this reasoning is valid, it is to be anticipated that the frequency of contacting would increase as the amateur chairmen become more comfortable in their role; a greater feeling of comfort may be expected to occur with longer time in office. To test this assumption, the chairmen were trichotimized by length of time in office — less than one year to two years, three and four years, and five years or more. This ranking is crosstabulated with the same set of variables dealing with contacts of public and party officials on party business. If time in office has an impact, it would be expected that greater time in office would be associated with increased contacts. The results are presented in Table 5-5. The figures indicate that there is very little difference in frequency of contacts by amateurs as time in office increases. In fact, in all but one of the six potential contacts the percentage of amateurs who report "often" contacting and who have less than two years experience in the position of county chairman is greater than those with five or more years in the office. Only for contacts with congressmen do those with five or more years in office exceed those with the least tenure, and then by only 1.6 percent: 15.6 percent of the amateurs in office longest report "often" contacting congressmen as opposed to

PAGE 100

Table 5-5 Amateur Contacting by Length of Time In Office (in percents) State Legislators Congressmen U.S. Senators State Chairman 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more Other Chairmen X = 3.61' 53.7 24.1 44.1 32.4 25.0 44.4 X" = 3.26 X = .97 X = 3.54 9.3 16.7 X = 8.31 T= 7.36 90 tonidci: Often Sometimes Hardly Ever Never N Governor 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more 11.8 6.1 3.3 17.6 27.3 23.3 19.6 15.2 13.3 51.0 51.5 60.0 51 33 30 2 years or less 37. 25 9 14, 8 22 2 54 3 or 4 years 23 5 38. 2 20. 6 17 6 34 5 years or more 33 3 33 3 18 2 15 .2 33 2 years or less 14. 28. 16 42. 50 3 or 4 years 16. 1 25 8 19 .4 38. 7 31 5 years or more 15 6 34 4 15 ,6 34 4 32 2 years or less 10. 2 24. 5 20. 4 44. 9 49 3 or 4 years 9. 4 28. 1 21 9 40 6 32 5 years or more 10 43. 3 16 7 30 30 13.0 54 14.7 34 13.9 36 2 years or less 25 5 41. 8 20. 12. 7 55 3 or 4 > 'ears 26 7 36. 7 23. *3 13. 3 30 5 years or more 24 .2 24 2 18. 2 33 3 33 df for all chi-squares =

PAGE 101

91 14 percent of the amateurs with less than two years experience. For governors, almost three times as many amateurs with two years of experience or less report "often" contacting as amateurs with five years of experience or more, 11.8 percent to 3.3 percent. Of the amateurs reporting that they "often" make contact with state legislators, 37 percent are relative newcomers to the office of county chairmen, while 33 percent have served in office five years or longer. The difference between amateurs with the least experience in office and amateurs with the most experience in office over contacts with U.S. senators is only .2 percent. However, twice as many amateurs in office two years or less say they "often" contact state chairmen as amateurs in office five years or more, 54 to 25 percent. In contacting other chairmen, there is little difference between the least and the most experienced chairmen, 25.5 percent of those with the briefest tenure report contacting "often" as compared to 24.2 percent of those with longest tenure. At the other end of the continuum the amateurs with the least experience exceed those with the greatest experience in reporting "never" contacting in three of the six cases: state legislators, congressmen, and U.S. senators; in "never" contacting state chairmen the difference is less than 1 percent. These figures seem to indicate that the lower contact rate among amateurs relative to semiprof essionals and prof esisonals is not the result of less experience in office. There is little difference in frequency of contacting between amateurs with less than two years experience and those with more than five years experience. Unlike the demographic and attitudinal variables of Chapter Three, division of the chairmen into amateur, semiprof essional, and professional categories

PAGE 102

92 corresponds to differences in both the types of campaign activity carried out by the local party organization and the degree of contacting of state or party officials by the chairmen on party business. From these results, it follows that chairmen with predominantly amateur orientations would be less likely than chairmen with professional orientations to emphasize party organization within the county party, as the figures for contacting appear to indicate they are less likely to be concerned with party business and organization outside the county. Moreover, it would be anticipated the amateurs would be less concerned with campaigning for the nominees of the party. The selection of delegates from California to the 1972 Democratic National Convention under rules changes mandated by the 1968 Convention designed to make the selection of delegates more broadly representative of the public provides a graphic example of the differing perspectives of amateurs and professionals toward political activity. Professionals saw the new rules as a means of achieving electoral victory; the rules "... would allow the professionals more freedom to choose the best campaign personnel"; the amateur activists, however, were less concerned with electoral success. They participated out of concern for influencing both who would become the party's presidential nominee and what would be the shape of the party's platform. For the amateur activists, "... political skills and resources became a minor consideration," even a liability (Cavala, 1974, pp. 36-37). Whether the differences between amateurs and professionals can be seen in an emphasis upon party organization and in the level of local party campaign activity is approached in two ways: first, by examining the degree to which the county apparatus was organized to conduct an

PAGE 103

93 election campaign and, second, by looking at the degree to which the local party actually did campaign for elective offices. The degree to which the county was organized to campaign is measured by the chairmen's assessment of the number of precincts in the county that are organized. The results, presented in Table 5-6, indicate that the amateurs report fewer organized precincts than do the professionals. Table 5-6 Level of Precinct Organization by Amateurism (in percents) Percent of organized precincts none 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 SemiAmateur prof. -Prof. 28.1 19.4 11.8 17.4 15.7 13.1 11.6 12.1 12.2 15.7 17.1 16.3 27.3 35.7 46.6 121 718 558 rrl cia Percent of organized precincts none 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 N = SemiMajoriAmateur prof. tarian 25.3 11.8 42.1 25.3 11.8 42.1 17.2 13.1 10.5 17.2 16.3 10.5 28.3 46.6 26.3 99 558 19 „2 o-^a X 29.87 c df = 8; significant at .001

PAGE 104

94 Twenty-eight percent of the amateurs report precincts in their counties are without organization. For the semiprof essionals, the figure is almost 10 percent less, 19 percent, and for professionals, less than one-half the percentage of amateurs, 12 percent. The same relative positions are kept for the categories of from 1 to 25 percent of the precincts organized. Conversely, at the other end of the scale, more than 35 percent of the semiprof essionals and more than 46 percent of the professionals say that between 76 and 100 percent of their precincts are organized, while only 27 percent of the amateurs classify that percentage of precincts in their counties as organized. Degree of organization seems clearly associated with increasing professional orientation. As the table reports, the least organized counties are found in those headed by the majoritarian chairmen. Forty-two percent of the majoritarians report no precincts organized. Only 26 percent of the majoritarians say all precincts in their counties are organized, a figure smaller than that of any other group. Thus, while the percentage of organized precincts declines with increasing professional orientation among all groups, the majoritarians show the least precinct organization. That the counties headed by the amateur chairmen are less organized is expected from the attitudes of amateurs toward party politics. While organization is a goal in itself for the professional, the amateur relies upon ideological conviction to maintain loyalty (Wilson, 1968). A. more fundamental question than the degree of organization is whether the organization is put to use in election campaigns. To examine the differences between professionals and amateurs in this regard, two sets of questions asked of the chairmen are correlated. The first series of questions asked the chairmen if an election for any of ten

PAGE 105

95 different offices at the local, state, or national levels had taken place within the last year; the offices are those of mayor, city councilman, county commissioner, sheriff, prosecutor, legislator, judge, congressman, governor, and senator. The second series of questions inquired as to whether the county organization had actually campaigned for these offices. If an election had taken place and if the county party actively campaigned for the office, the county was assigned a score of one; if no election was held or if the county did not campaign for the office, the score was zero. The scores were summed to produce a scale ranging from zero (no elections or no party campaigning) to ten (elections for all ten offices with the party actively campaigning in all ten). This score represents the number of instances in which the party could and did actively campaign. However, since not all counties may have held elections for all ten of the offices, it is necessary to correct this total score by accounting for the number of elections that actually took place. This was done by summing the number of elections held and dividing into the number of instances where the county could and did campaign. This figure was then multiplied by 100; the result is the percentage of offices for which there were elections and in which the party campaigned. The percentages were then divided into quartiles. This measure, together with the percent of precincts organized in the county, should be seen as two aspects of the same phenomenon. Before the advent of political campaigns conducted by electronic media when the candidate needed to rely more exclusively upon the party organization for campaign support, the number of organized precincts would have constituted an adequate measure of party effort for elective

PAGE 106

96 office. Now, however, the reliance upon party assistance may be diminished. When the electorate may easily be reached with electronic or printed media, the need for party organization at the precinct level is undercut. Admittedly, the candidate may bypass the party completely, but to do so would be to isolate his campaign from a potential source of election aid. Thus, despite lack of precinct organization, the county organization may be neither moribund nor nonexistent, but, rather, using new means to reach the electorate, means not requiring organization at the precinct level. The data presented in Table 5-7 indicate that party organizations headed by amateur oriented chairmen are less likely to be active in terms of the percent of offices for which the party actively campaigned, While 20.9 percent of the amateurs reported campaigning for fewer than 25 percent of the offices for which there were elections, only 10 percent of the professionals fall into that category. Similarly, 31 percent of the amateurs actively campaigned for 26 to 50 percent of the elective offices in the county, while only 18 percent of the professionals are at that level. At the other end of the spectrum, nearly 50 percent of the professionals reported actively campaigning for 75 percent of the contests in the county, but only 28 percent of the amateurs are active in that percentage of elections. Only 17 percent of the majoritarians reported actively campaigning in 76 to 100 percent of the election campaigns in their counties. At the other extreme, only 56.6 percent of the majoritarians report mounting campaigns for as many as 50 percent of the offices in the county. Semiprof essionals show few differences when compared to. the professionals; the largest difference between them is 7.2 percent, 49.5 percent of the

PAGE 107

97 Table 5-7 Percent of Offices Actively Campaigned for by County Party and Amateurism (in percents) Percent of offices to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 Percent of offices to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 N = SemiAmateur prof. Prof. 20.3 11.7 10.0 30.8 18.8 18.1 21.1 27.3 22.4 27.8 42.3 49.5 133 781 X = 35.95 a 598 MajoriAmateur Prof. tarian 20.6 10.0 21.7 29.9 18.1 34.8 19.6 22.4 26.1 29.9 49.5 17.4 107 598 X = 31.30 a 23 df = 6; significant at .001 professionals maintain having campaigned for 76 to 100 percent of the electoral contests in their county as opposed to 42.3 percent of the semiprofessionals. These figures seem to indicate that counties with professionally oriented chairmen campaign for a greater percentage of offices than counties with amateur oriented chairmen. The results presented in this chapter help to confirm Wilson's description of the distinction between amateur and professional political activists. In each of the five kinds of campaign activity

PAGE 108

98 considered, the professional chairmen report higher levels of activity than the amateurs. Moreover, the professionals are more likely to say they contact other party or state officials than are the amateurs. The majoritarian chairmen are the least likely to report frequently using any of the five campaign activities, but do exceed the remaining amateurs in the level of reported contacts with the state's governor, with congressmen, and with U.S. senators. Despite the social connections and security that accompany longer time in office, amateurs who have served longest as county chairmen do not appear any more likely than amateurs with less experience to contact party or state officials. These differences remain apparent both when the amateurs and professionals are compared over the percent of organized precincts in their counties or when compared over the percent of elections in which the party campaigns — professionals are more likely to report organized precincts and more likely to report campaigning. While Chapter Four demonstrates that county chairmen can be arrayed on a continuum from amateur to professional, this chapter points to the importance of that distinction: local party organizations led by amateur chairmen appear to campaign less actively than those counties led by professional chairmen. In addition, the amateur seems less concerned with the organizational side of party work. The importance of these differences will be examined in Chapter Six.

PAGE 109

CHAPTER SIX THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES The preceding chapters have tested two models of local party activity as it may be influenced by the county party leadership. The first model tested emphasizes the connection between the demographic characteristics of the county chairmen and local party activity. This model is suggested In much of the literature on the local party. It maintains that the demographic characteristics of the chairmen have an impact upon the chairmen who, in turn, influence the activity of the local party organization. Thus, differences in party activity may be traced to demographic differences among the party leadership. The second model of local party activity stresses the leadership's political orientations, specifically, the county chairman's amateur or professional attitude toward politics. This model postulates that different party activity will be associated with the chairmen's differing political orientations. These models were suggested by earlier research on local party organization but they had not been subjected to analysis that attempted to link them directly to the county party chairmen. I will first discuss the results of this analysis as they relate to both models of party activity. Then, I will consider the wider implications of the results for American political parties. 99

PAGE 110

100 The concentration in previous studies upon the demographic traits of the local party leadership assumed that these traits were significant in explaining the activity of the local party apparatus. The connection between the socio-economic characteristics of individuals and political participation has been freqeuntly noted (Campbell et_ al_. 1964; Verba and Nie, 1972). Since demographic characteristics have been shown to be correlated with political activism and with attitudinal patterns, the next logical step is to take the demographic characteristics of political leaders and link them to political organizations and the activity of these organizations. Chapter Three examines this hypothesized relationship by looking at two sets of personal characteristics of the chairmen. The first set of attributes is the demographic characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time served in the office of county chairman. The second set of characteristics is designed to tap the chairman's political attitudes: selfplacement on a liberal-conservative scale, attitudes toward the activity of the federal government, the level of government for which the chairman had greatest concern, and the chairman's assessment of the greatest problem facing the state. These variables have been frequently used in earlier research into county party leadership. Party activity is also measured in two ways. First, it is viewed as campaign activity: efforts to maximize votes through such activities as passing out literature or circulars or by using press releases. Second, party activity is considered as the communication network within the party, specifically, contacts between the county chairmen and a wide range of party and state officials. Stated another way, these two aspects of the dependent variable reflect, first, externally

PAGE 111

101 directed activity of political parties, actions designed to involve those persons outside the party organization itself, and, second, internally directed activity, interactions chiefly with other party organization members. When the relationship between the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen is tested against the measures of party activity, little connection is apparent. The demographic and attitudinal traits measured here seem unrelated to differences in type of party electoral activity pursued by the county party or the frequency of interparty communications made by the chairmen. The second model of party activity examined links the political orientations of the chairmen to local party activity. Orientations are defined here following John Q. Wilson's division of party activists into amateurs and professionals. Chapter Four divides amateurs from professionals on the basis of the chairman's perceived obligations to the party in terms of following party leaders, offering patronage positions to party supporters, considering party service before choosing party candidates, and keeping public officials accountable to the party. The data presented in Chapter Four indicate, first, that the county chairmen may be divided along amateur-professional lines, and, second, that the amateurs and the professionals differ from each other in regard to demographic characteristics. Over 8 percent of the chairmen are classified as amateurs, while over 30 percent are professionals; the remaining 49 percent fall in between as semiprof essionals. These groups differ in demographic makeup. The amateurs are better educated, younger, and newer to the office of county chairman than their more professional counterparts. In addition, the amateurs are

PAGE 112

102 less likely than semiprof essionals or professionals to desire higher party office or to remain as county chairmen. They are also less likely to have held public office. Amateurs themselves are divided over the question of whether or not politicians should rely upon their own judgment or the wishes of their constituents in making public policy decisions. The majoritarian subset of amateurs is less educated than the remaining amateurs, but they tend to have served in office longer. The raajoritarians are also more likely to call themselves conservative than are the other amateur-oriented chairmen. Chapter Five examines the significance of the amateur-professional division among the chairmen in terms of party activity. The data presented indicate amateurs are less likely than professionals to engage in the five kinds of campaign-related activity considered in this analysis. The amateurs were also less likely than the professionals to report communicating with other party or public officials on matters of party business. While the majoritarians are somewhat less likely to report frequently using the five campaign activities considered in this study, they are more likely to report contacts on party business with the governor, congressmen, and U.S. senators. The failure of the demographic model to indicate differences in party activities would seem to have consequences for American political parties. The success of the amateur-professional model in highlighting differences between the chairmen serves to reinforce these conclusions. An understanding of the significance of the findings of this research requires an understanding of the developments within the American electorate and, consequently, American political parties since the 1950s.

PAGE 113

103 The character of Che American electorate appears to have changed over the last twenty-five years. In the 1950s, political party was, for most Americans, the major guide to political activity: ". party affiliation served as an anchor point for the citizen" (Nie et al 1976, p. 22). Between the 1950s and the 1970s, however, major social changes took place that greatly influenced and modified the relationship between individuals and political parties in the United States. Increases in educational attainment and affluence, coupled with the advent of electronic media and the mass dissemination of political information, has enabled the electorate to depend less upon parties as a source of political information and to rely more upon agents other than parties — journalists, for example — for political intelligence. Greater levels of education, as well as greater availability of information, have also enabled the electorate to rely more upon itself for political information (Agranoff, 1972; Burnham, 1975; Sorauf, 1976). What seems to have happened in the two decades between the 1950s and the 1970s is the development of a politically active class capable of scrutinizing issues, formulating opinions, and actively participating in politics without the heavy reliance upon political .parties that characterized most political participants before the 1950s (Ladd and Hadley, 1975; Nie _e_t_ al_. 1976). This is the antithesis of the environment in which the traditional political machine thrives. The traditional machine, perhaps the highest degree of political party organization in the United States, flourished in conditions of low levels of education and eocnomic distress (Scott, 1969). The consequence of these developments in economics and in education has been to produce a "new style" in American politics, a style

PAGE 114

104 in which the role of the party is considerably diminished. "As candidates have turned to new means of mobilizing their electorate, the party organization, with its tradition of getting out the partisan vote on a face-to-face basis, has become less important" (Agranoff, 1972, p. 97). Burnham says, ". functions once performed by the major parties have lost their utility in recent years" (Burnham, 1975, p. 349). These developments would appear to point to the demise — "decomposition," to use Burnham' s word — of American political parties. The party organization is easily bypassed by candidates and even more easily by incumbents. In itself, this is not a recent development. Political candidates, acting as "self-starters," have always discovered ways to work around the party organization. What is new is the increased capacity for the electorate to bypass the party as a source of information and political guidance. The major change has been in the size of the affluent and educated class and its consequent position as a source of political influence (Ladd and Hadley, 1975). "The longterm trends are surely irreversible," writes Sunquist, "the oldfashioned closed political system is not going to be reestablished, old-style bosses restored to power, media campaigning outlawed, or the level of affluence and education that make for independent politics reduced" (1973, p. 352). Moreover, party membership is increasingly ideologically oriented, concerned more with political issues and less with the potential material gain that may result from political participation (Nie et al. 1976). This study helps to confirm that the new emphasis upon issues and ideology has intruded into the political party in the form of political amateurs. If the party membership in general and the county

PAGE 115

105 chairmen, in particular, are now ideologically motivated, ideological and issues concerns may detract from the concerns of party organization. Ideologically motivated party members may weaken the party organization. Epstein has pointed out that, in addition to purposeful, solidarity, and material incentives for organizational activity, there may exist a fourth incentive for participation in political party activity: a hybrid of the purposeful and solidarity incentives: "The incentive is simply to win as for one's team in a game" (1970, p. 102). As Sorauf says, the party develops loyalties of its own: "... party itself may even become a goal" (1975, p. 37). This goal apparently is not shared by the amateur politician. As the data from Chapter Five indicate, amateur-oriented chairmen (defined, in part, as chairmen who feel an obligation to pick candidates with issue commitments and who feel the need to hold personal beliefs) are less likely than professionally-oriented chairmen to contact elected officials in public or party offices on matters of party business, less likely to report organized precincts in their counties, and less likely to have county organizations that actively campaign for elective offices. The amateurs appear indifferent to party organization. As Ladd and Hadley say, the "purist" of both left and right is ". more sensitive to the integrity of program than to maintenance of the party organization" (1975, p. 305). The political consequences of emphasizing program above party have been seen in Iowa, where some of the county party leadership bolted the party after the failure of their candidate to win, and in California, where activist emphasis upon party platform and the issue integrity of the candidates disrupted the party organization (Johnson and Gibson, 1974; Cavala,

PAGE 116

106 1974). Similar adverse effects upon party organization have been observed in the National Conventions of the Democratic party: ". the amateur activist's urge to transform political discourse into a morality play runs against the grain of the party regulars who have learned to separate their own private moral convictions from the public positions they take in the name of the party" (Sullivan et al. 1976, p. 39). The abandonment of party ties and the ideological approach to politics by an increasing number of the electorate, and as this study indicates, by local party leadership, may lead to a diminution of the importance of the party, the political party becoming one of many extra governmental organizations concerned with influencing the government policy-making process. "Its sole control of the mobilization of power ends amid growing competition from other political organizations. The party remains both a potent orgnaization and powerful reference symbol, but it loses its monopoly of the resources, skills, and information in electoral politics" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 439). Tammany boss George Washington Plunkitt wrote in 1905: "... a reformer can't last in politics. He may make a show for a little while, but he always comes down like a rocket. The great business of your life must be politics if you want to succeed in it" (1905, p. 1). This analysis suggests that the reformers have not only lasted but prospered in politics by moving into positions of party leadership. Yet, Plunkitt' s assessment points to a deficiency in this analysis: the lack of longitudinal data. While this "snapshot" analysis of the county chairmen may be accurate for 1970, it says nothing about how they or those who filled their roles appeared before or after the survey. Placing the chairmen in the context of other studies or other

PAGE 117

107 politically active groups such as convention delegates, comparing a national sample of chairmen with the samples done in individual states, or finding corresponding developments within the electorate as a whole help to mitigate time-bound data, but more research needs to be done to determine if the amateur syndrome in local party organization still exists. The county chairmen are only one part of a much larger political phenomenon, but their position as leaders of the grassroots party organization demands attention, as changes within the ranks of the chairmen may portend changes in American political parties.

PAGE 118

REFERENCES Agranoff, Robert (1972). The New Style in Election Campaigns Boston: Holbrook Press. Bowman, Lewis and Boynton, G. R. (1966). "Recruitment Patterns Among Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in Selected Locales." American Political Science Review 62:667-676. ; Ippolito, Dennis; and Donaldson, William (1969) "Incentives and the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activism." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13:126-139. Burnham, Walter Dean (1975). "American Politics in the 1970s: Beyond Party?" in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (eds.), The American Party Sys tems : Stages of Political Development 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. (1976). "Revitalization and Decay: Looking Toward the Third Century oE Electoral Politics." Journal of Politics 38:146-172. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes, Donald E. (1964). The American Voter New York: John Wiley. Cavala, William (1974). "Changing the Rules of the Game: Party Reform and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Convention." American Political Science Review 68:27-42. Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q. (1961). "Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organization." Administration Science Quarterly 6:129-166. Conway, M. Margaret and Feigert, Frank B. (1968). "Motivations, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization." American Political Scienc e Review 13:1159-1173. Crotty, William J. (1967). "The Social Attributes of Party Organizational Activists in a Transitional Political System." Western Political Quarterly 20:669-681. DeVries, Walter and Tarrance, V. Lance (1972). The Ticketsplitter Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Edradmas. Easton, David (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley. 108

PAGE 119

109 Edwards, Allen L. (1957). Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall. Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1964). Political Parties : A Behavioral Analysis Chicago: Rand McNally. Epstein, Leon (1970). Political Parties in Western Democracies New York: Praeger. Flinn, Thomas A. and Wirt, Frederick M. (1965). "Local Party Leaders: Groups of Like Minded Men." Midwest Journal of Political Science 9:77-98. Gluck, Peter (1972). "Research Note: Incentives and the Maintenance of Political Styles in Different Locales." Western Political Quarterly 25:753-760. Hirschfield, R. ; Swanson, Bert; and Blank, Blanche (1962). "A Profile of Political Activist in Manhattan." Western. Political Quarterly 20:489-506. Hitlin, Robert A. and Jackson, John (1977). "On Amateur and Professional Politicians." Journal of Politics 39:786-793. Hofstetter, C. Richard (1971). "The Amateur Politician: A Problem in Construct Validation." Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:31-56. Huckshorne, Robert (1976). Party Leadership in the United States Amherst, Mass.: Univ. of Mass. Press. Johnson, Donald Bruce and Gibson, James R. (1974). "The Divisive Primary Revisited: Party Activists in Iowa." American Political Science Review 68:67-92. Katz, Daniel and Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1961). "The Impact of Local Party Activity Upon the Electorate." Public Opinion Quarterly 25:1-24. Key, V. 0. (1961). Public Opinion and American Democracy New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ladd, Carll Everett and Hadley, Charles D. (1975). Transformations of the American Party System New York: W. W. Norton. Leiserson, Avery (1958). Parties and Politics New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Madron, Thomas W. and Chelf, Carl P. (1974). Political Parties in the United States Boston: Holbrock Press. McClosky, Herbert J.; Hoffmann, Paul J.; and O'Hara, Rosemary (I960). "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers." American Political Science Review 44:406-427.

PAGE 120

110 Meyer, Marshall W. (1972). "Leadership and Organizational Structure." American Journal of Sociology 81:515-542. Nie, Norman H. ; Verba, Sidney; and Petrocik, John R. (1976). The Changing American Voter Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Patterson, Samuel C. (1963). "Characteristics of Party Leaders." Western Political Quarterly 16:332-352. Plunkitt, George Washington (1905). "Reformers Only Mornin' Glories." As quoted in the New York Times July 22, 197.9, Sec. 4:1. Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B. (1971). Presidential Elections 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner. Pomper, Gerald (1965). "New Jersey County Chairmen." Western Political Quarterly 16:186-197. Roback, Thomas H. (1975). "Amateur and Professional: Delegates to the Republican National Convention." Journal of Politics 37:501-517. Salsbury, Robert H. (1965). "The Urban Party Organization Member." Public Opinion Quarterly 20:555-561. Scott, James C. (1969). "Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change." American Political Science Review 63:1149-1150. Sorauf, Frank J. (1975). "Political Parties and Political Analysis," in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean B.urnham (eds.), The American Party Systems : Stages of Political Development 2nd ed New York: Oxford Univ. Press. (1976). Party Politics in America 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown. Soule, John W. and Clarke, James W. (1970). "Amateurs and Professionals: A Study of Delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Convention." American Political Science Review 64:888-898. and McGarth, Wilma E. (1975). "A Comparative Study of Presidential Nominating Conventions: The Democrats in 1968 and 1-972." American Journal of Political Science 19:501-517. Sullivan, Denis G. ; Pressman, Jeffery L. ; Arterton, Christopher F. (1976). Explorations in Campaign Decision Making : The Democratic Party in the 1970s San Frnacisco: W. H. Freeman. Sunquist, James (1973). Dynamics of the Party System Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America New York: Harper and Row.

PAGE 121

Ill Wiggins, Charles W. and Turk, William L. (1970). "State Party Chairmen: A Profile." Western Political Quarterly 23:321-322. Wildavsky, Aaron (1971). The Revolt Against the Masses. New York: Basic Books. Wilson, John Q. (1968). The Amateur Democrat Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Yeric, Jerry L. (1973). Indiana County Chairmen : A 1972 Profile Terre Haute, Ind.: Center for Governmental Studies.

PAGE 122

APPENDIX A County Chairmen Questionnaire PARTY LEADERSHIP OPINION STUDY 1 What do you consider to be the most important problem facing your state today? 2. What is your opinion on the following state issues: Are you favorable or Very Very No unfavorable toward: Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion a) the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? b) a law which would permit a woman to go to a doctor to end a pregnancy any time during the first three months? c) having all new automobiles equipped with an antipollution device which would add approximately $100 to the price of an automobile? d) a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun? e) permitting public school teachers to join unions? f) permitting public school teachers to strike? g) permitting policemen and firemen to join unions? h) permitting policemen and firemen to strike? i) making the use of marijuana legal? j) a law requiring automobile drivers suspected of having consumed too much alcohol to take a breath test or a blood test? k) the "no fault" plan dealing with auto insurance? 1) state aid for education going to Catholic and oilier private schools? 3. Please rank the top three of the following reasons for why you wanted to become a county chairman. Write "1" for the reason that was most important in your decision, "2" for the reason that was next important, and "3" for the reason that was next important. Strong party loyalty Helpful in private business contacts Politics is part of my way of life Want to seek other public or party offices Social contacts and friends Enjoy campaigns Contact with influential people Personal friendship with candidate Concern with public issues Sense of community obligation 112

PAGE 123

113 APPENDIX A (continued) -?— 4. For which of the following offices were elections held in your state and county for the 1970 general election? Please check those offices for which elections were held. -Mayor or equivalent office City or Town Council County Commissioner or County Council County Sheriff .County Prosecutor -State Legislator -City or County Judge .U.S. Congressman Governor -U.S. Senator 5. Based upon your best estimate, what percentage of county offices did your party contest in the 1970 general election? .0% 1-25% 26-50% .51-75% 76-100% 6. How difficult would you say it is to get people to run for county offices for your party? .Very difficult Somewhat difficult -Not very difficult No one ever runs for county offices from my party 7. Check those offices for which your county committee actively campaigned in the 1970 general election. State Legislator City or County Judge .U.S. Congressman Governor -U.S. Senator Mayor or equivalent office City or Town Council County Commissioner or County Council County Sheriff County Prosecutor 8. In the last year how often have you contacted the following on business for the party? Often Sometimes Hardly ever Never State legislators Governor County Commissioner Other state officials U.S. Congressmen U.S. Senators — State Party Chairman Other County Party Chairmen 9. Did any candidates for local or state office contact you for support before the primary election? 10. Did you give any of these candidates your support before the primary election? 1 1 How likely is a candidate to win the primary election in your county if the party organization were to oppose him? 12. Do you feel you played an important part in the success of primary election candidates for state and local office? 13. Do you participate in planning and strategy meetings of party leaders to discuss nominations and support of candidates for state and local office before primary elections? -Yes .No .Yes .No Sure to win -Makes no difference -He would never win -Very important -No difference -Not important .Yes .No

PAGE 124

114 APPENDIX A (continued) -314. Please check the conditions that exist for your party committee. Yes No County committee is organized County staff is hired County staff is volunteered County records are maintained County committee conducted a campaign in the 1970 general election 1 5. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1970? 16. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1971? 17. How many precincts are there in your county? 18. Please give the percentage of precincts in your county in which the following conditions are met: 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Precinct chairman or captain has been appointed or elected Precinct committees have been organized Precinct rolls are maintained Precincts are meeting at county meetings and conventions i 19. What do you think is the general opinion of the people in your county on the following state issues? Are they favorable or unfavorable toward: Very Very No Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion a) the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? b) a law which would permit a woman to go to a doctor to end a pregnancy any time during the first three months? c) having all new automobiles equipped with an antipollution device which would add approximately $100 to the price of an automobile? d) a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun? e) permitting public school teachers to join unions? f) permitting public school teachers to strike? g) permitting policemen and firemen to join unions? h) permitting policemen and firemen to strike? i) making die use of marijuana legal? j) a law requiring automobile drivers suspected of having consumed too much alcohol to take a breath test or a blood test?

PAGE 125

k) The "no fault" plan dealing with auto insurance? 1) state aid for education going to Catholic and other private schools? 115 APPENDIX A (continued) -4Very Very No Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion 20. In securing voting support, in which one of the following areas is the greatest amount of your effort as chairman concentrated. Check one only. Registration— increasing the number of registered voters favoring your party. Party Morale— that is, keeping the party regulars aware and enthusiastic through public appeals to them. General Public Appeal— that is, radio, TV, or newspaper appeals to the public, regardless of party. Personal contact with party members. Other (please specify: ). No effort to secure support is being made at the present time. 21 Listed below are campaign activities that have been employed by some county committees in general elections. Please indicate whether your county committee often used, sometimes used, or never used each activity in the most recent general election. Did it: Often Sometimes Never Use movie advertisements Organize door to door canvassing Arrange barbecues or chicken fries Use radio time for county campaigns Organize rallies Prepare press releases Use television time for county campaigns Buy newspaper space for county campaigns Mail circulars or letters Distribute literature or throw-aways Organize telephone campaigns Put up billboards or posters Use surveys or polls in county campaigns Emphasize personal campaigns, word of mouth campaigns Other (Please specify ) County committee is essentially inactive 22. In approximately how many precincts, if any, were the following election day activities carried on in the most recent general election? Please check the column closest to the percent of precincts engaging in the activity. Q% l 25% 26 5Q% 51 ^ 75% Transporting voters to and from the polls Poll watchers Providing baby sitters Passing out literature or throw-aways Using sound tracks Phoning registered voters reminding them to vote Last minute newspaper, radio, or TV advertising Parades or motorcades Other (Please specify )

PAGE 126

116 APPENDIX A (continued) 23. Now, let's consider party work. Would you say that you feel a strong obligation or some obligation to do each of the following, or, to avoid doing each of the following in the conduct of your affairs? Strong Some No Some Strong Obligation Obligation Obligation Obligation Obligation To Do To Do Either Way To Do To Do a) Follow decisions of party leaders even when you disagree. b) See to it that those who work for the party get help in form of jobs and other things if they need it. c) Weigh prior service to the party very heavily in selecting candidates for nomination. — — d) Select a nominee who is strongly committed on a variety of issue positions. e) Keep elected public officials strictly accountable to the party organization. f) Hold strong personal beliefs about a number of different issues. 24. In general do you consider yourself: Very Liberal Liberal Middle of Road Conservative Very Conservative 25. Some say most people should be very active in politics while others feel that a division of labor with only a few people being active is desirable. Do you feel that it would be better if all, most, some, or just a few people became highly involved in politics most of the time? All People Most People Some People A Few People 26. In making most kinds of policy decisions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own best judgment even if this means doing some tiling unpopular, or that politicians ought to do what a majority of their constituents want? Use Own Best Judgment Do What Majority Wants Both About Equally 27. Would you say that you are more concerned with local, state, or national political problems? Local State National 28. With which problems are you least concerned? Local State National 29. In general, should the number of things the federal government does increase, remain the same, or decrease? Increase Remain the same Decrease 30. For each of the below issues, please check whether you think government support for the issue should increase, decrease, or remain the same. Increase Remain Same Decrease a) Federal aid to education b) Enforcement of integration c) Defense spending d) Level of state services e) Anti-riot measures f) Law enforcement g) Loyalty oaths for teachers h) Increase old-age assistance

PAGE 127

117 APPENDIX A (continued) -63 1 From what group would you say you get the most information about political problems in your county? (Group) 32. What group most often asks you for information about political problems in your county? (Group) 33. Have you ever held public office? 34. At some time in the future, would you ever want to hold some higher party office? 35. Do you want to keep your present position as county chairman for the foreseeable future? 36. Would you like to run for a public (non-party) office sometime in the future? .Yes -Yes -Yes -Yes 37. a. -Male Female b. What is your age? c. What is your major occupation? .No -No -No -No d. Check the highest level of formal education completed. Some Finished Some Graduated Graduated Grade Grade High From High Some From None School School School School College College PostGraduate Work e. Race: White Negro f. From what country do you trace your ancestry? g. How long have you held your present party office? h. List previous party offices and dates held. Oilier If you would like to have the results of this survey, check here.

PAGE 128

APPENDIX B Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables (in percents) Activity : Use of Surveys or Polls Education None-some high school High school Some college College and post-grad. Democrats Some— Often times Never Age 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 0< 2cupation Professional, technical, kindred workers Managers, officials Farmers, farm workers Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more Activity : Use of Circulars Education None-some high school High school Some college College and post-grad, Age 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 N 5.6 41.7 52.8 36 16.0 29.2 54.7 106 9.9 43.4 46.7 182 10.8 39.4 49.8 325 7.2 42.2 50.6 83 13.9 41.0 45.2 310 8.9 34.7 56.4 202 9.4 39.6 50.9 53 10.5 35.9 53.5 256 12.6 44.7 42.7 206 6.3 27.8 65.8 79 12.5 42.7 44.7 255 11.7 42.7 45.6 171 9.1 32.0 58.9 219 52.5 40.0 7.5 40 40.7 46.6 12.7 118 49.7 40.6 9.6 197 50.6 41.2 8.2 342 37.5 52.3 10.2 88 51.7 40.8 7.5 319 52.0 38.3 9.7 227 38.7 46.8 14.5 62 Republicans SomeOften times Never N 46.4 53.6 51.8 44.6 48.1 44.7 53.3 40.0 16.7 45.8 37.5 24 18.4 28.9 12.5 76 12.0 46.4 41.7 192 24.9 40.5 44.7 430 13.7 39.2 47.1 102 14.2 40.9 44.9 347 13.9 41.8 44.3 201 22.5 42.5 35„0 40 14.3 43.3 42.4 245 16.1 39.2 44.7 255 7.4 34.0 58.5 94 15.7 41.1 43.2 331 12.5 46.4 41.1 168 13.9 36.5 49.5 208 0.0 28 3.6 83 7.3 206 6.6 452 48.1 43.4 8.5 106 53.2 42.7 4.1 393 49.3 43.3 7.4 215 52.0 36.0 12.0 50 118

PAGE 129

APPENDIX B (continued) 119 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers Managers, officials Farmers, farm workers Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more Democrats Repub" icans SomeSomeOften times Never N Often times Never N '48.9 40.8 10.3 272 56.4 37.1 6.6 259 54.5 39.6 5.9 222 50.9 45.0 4.1 271 30.2 51.2 18.6 86 33.7 59,4 6.9 101 50.0 42.5 7.5 268 51.3 44.1 4.6 347 49.7 42.8 7.5 187 52.2 40.6 7.2 180 47.0 39.7 13.2 234 51.5 40.6 7.9 229 Activity : Use of Press Releases Education None-some hi .gh school 36.8 42.1 21.1 38 High school 44.3 45.2 10.4 115 Some college | 51.3 38.9 9.8 193 College and post-grad. 54.8 38.8 6.4 345 Age 22 to 35 50.0 44.3 5.7 88 36 to 50 i58.8 35.0 6.3 320 51 to 65 44.8 43.0 12.2 221 66 to 86 36.7 48.3 15.0 60 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers 57.0 36.3 6.7 270 Managers, officials 53.2 38.2 8.6 220 Farmers, farm workers 29.9 54.0 16.1 87 Time in Office 2 years or less 56.3 36.2 7.5 268 3 or 4 years 51.1 42.9 6.0 184 5 years or more 46.2 41.9 12.0 234 Activity: Use of Radio Education None-some high school High school Some college College and post-grad, 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 30.8 38.5 30.8 39 36.0 43.0 21.1 114 35.0 42.6 22.3 197 37.9 42.6 19.5 338 29.1 45.3 25.6 86 41.1 39.4 29.6 322 33.3 45.5 21.2 222 32.1 42.9 25.0 56 16.7 45.8 37.5 24 18.4 28.9 12.5 76 12.0 46.4 41.7 192 14.9 40.5 44.7 430 13.7 39.2 47.1 102 14.2 40.9 44.9 347 13.9 41.8 44.3 201 22.5 42.5 35.0 40 52.9 42.0 5.1 257 47.8 44.9 7.4 272 29.0 64.0 7.0 100 15.7 41.1 43.2 331 12.5 46.4 41.1 168 13.9 36.5 49.5 208 42.9 28.6 28.6 28 28.0 43.9 28.0 82 36.6 43.9 19.5 205 35.5 38.6 25.9 448 41.5 34.0 24.5 106 35.4 40.1 24.5 387 31.3 44.9 23.8 214 42.3 32.7 25.0 52

PAGE 130

APPENDIX B (continued) 120 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers Managers, officials Farmers, farm workers Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more Democrats Republ icans SomeSomeOften times Never N Often times Never N '35.8 37.7 26.4 265 41.8 37.1 21.1 256 41.7 46.2 12.1 223 34.9 41.3 23.8 269 28.4 42.0 29.5 88 24.8 43.8 31.4 105 37.1 43.1 19.9 267 36.2 40.6 23.2 345 39.3 44.4 16.3 178 32.9 37.6 29.5 173 34.9 38.7 26.4 235 36.5 40.9 22.6 230 Activity: Use of Literature Education None-some hn High school Some college College and .gh school 1 post-grad. 51. 49. 55. 54. 2 6 1 5 36. 43. 36. 38. 6 5 2 1 12. 7. 8. 7. 2 7 3 41 115 196 341 50. 56. 53. 53, 1 8 46. 40. 42. 42. 2 2 3 1 3, 3. 3. 4, 8 7 8 9 26 82 208 451 Age 22 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 86 48, 59 50, 42 9 6 .4 44, 35 40 40 3 1 3 .7 6. 5 9 16 8 3 ,7 .9 88 317 226 59 55, 54 47 61 2 9 .7 ,2 35, 42, 47 34 2 1 7 ,7 9, 3, 4 4 5 1 6 ,1 105 390 218 47 Occupation Professional, technical, kindred workers 56.1 Managers, officials 54.8 Farmers, farm workers 37.9 Time in Office 2 years or less 3 or 4 years 5 years or more 55.6 51.6 53.9 34.3 9.6 271 56.7 36.6 6.7 254 41.6 3.6 221 54.1 44.1 1.9 270 48.3 13.8 87 34.0 57.5 8.5 106 39.6 4.9 268 55.8 39.0 5.2 346 41.4 7.0 186 48.6 48.0 3.4 177 34.1 12.1 232 54.6 41.0 4.4 229

PAGE 131

APPENDIX C Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables (in percents) Democrats Activity ; SomeUse of Surveys or Polls Often times Never Liberal-Conservative Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative Activity of Federal Government Increase Remain the same Decrease Most Concerned With : Local State Nation Most Important Problem Facing State Social Issues Economic 13.3 44.0 42.7 11.8 37.1 51.1 3.8 27.4 68.9 13.9 43.7 42.4 10.0 41.7 48.3 9.7 35.1 55.2 10.0 41.7 48.3 11.4 34.2 54.3 9.6 41.7 49.3 9.4 31.2 59.4 12.1 43.7 44.2 State Govt. /Pol. Party 4.4 44.4 51.1 Republ icans SomeN Often times Never N 293 20.0 40.0 40.0 35 229 14.2 45.4 40.4 218 106 14.2 38.7 47.1 450 151 29.0 32.3 38.7 31 120 11.3 41.9 46.8 62 319 13.7 41.8 44.5 600 180 18.2 37.4 44.4 187 184 11.2 43.4 45.4 196 146 9.7 40.0 50.3 195 135 17.2 40.1 42.7 157 355 13.1 41.6 45.2 389 45 18.7 37.4 44.0 91 Activity : Use of Circulars Liberal-Conservative Liberal 57.2 38.6 4.2 311 45.7 45.7 8.6 35 Middle-of-the-Road 43.8 45.9 10.3 242 57.8 38.4 3.9 232 Conservative 37.0 42.9 20.2 119 48.5 44.6 6.9 478 Activity of Federal Government Increase 55.2 41.7 3.1 163 60.0 31.4 8.6 35 Remain the same 54.3 40.3 5.4 129 48.4 46.8 4.8 62 Decrease 42.8 43.4 13.8 341 50.4 43.0 6.6 639 Most Concerned With: Local 54.5 34.8 10.7 187 54.2 39.9 5.9 203 State 44.7 47.7 7.6 197 54.4 38.7 6.9 204 Nation 47.1 43.8 9.2 153 41.0 49.5 9.5 200 121

PAGE 132

APPENDIX C (continued) 122 Democrats Republicans Most Important Problem Facing State Social issues Economic State Govt. /Pol. Party 44,9 SomeSomeOften times Never N Often times Never N 46.7 42.1 11.2 152 46.7 46.2 7.1 169 52.0 40.5 7.5 373 54.1 39.3 6.6 407 44.9 42.9 12.2 49 49.0 44.7 6.3 96 Activity : Use of Press Releases Liberal-Conservative Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative Activity of Federal 60.4 33.1 6.5 308 45.9 51.4 2.7 37 43.2 48.5 8.3 241 53.3 41.5 5.2 229 43.7 40.3 16.0 119 45.5 46.9 7.6 473 Government Increase 55.4 35.5 9.0 166 58.8 35.3 5.9 34 Remain the same 54.0 41.9 4.0 124 51.6 43.5 4.8 62 Decrease 47.9 41.4 10.7 338 46.3 46.6 7.1 635 Most Concerned With: Local 55.4 33.9 10.8 186 59.1 33.8 7.1 198 State 46.4 46.9 6.8 192 45.1 45.6 9.2 206 Nation 51.3 43.3 5.3 150 41.9 51.5 6.6 198 Most Important Problem Facing State Social Issues 47.3 36.7 16.0 150 47.7 42.4 9.9 172 Economic 55.5 41.0 3.5 373 51.7 43.3 4.9 406 State Govt. /Pol. Party 51.0 46.9 2.0 49 41.9 49.5 8.6 93 Activity : Use of Radio Liberal-Conservative Liberal Middle-of-the-Road Conservative Activity of Federal Government Increase Remain the same Decrease Most Concerned With : Local State Nation 35.8 45.9 18.2 307 39.1 39.1 21.8 238 30.8 40.0 29.2 120 38.3 40.1 21.6 167 40.8 37.5 21.7 120 34.7 42.9 22.4 340 44.7 37.2 18.1 188 30.6 43.5 25.9 193 32.7 48.7 18.7 150 40.5 32.4 27.0 37 38.7 40.0 21.3 225 32.8 41.1 26.1 475 41.2 32.4 26.5 34 31.3 45.3 23.4 64 34.7 40.1 25.2 631 38.7 37.2 24.1 199 32.7 43.1 24.3 202 33.0 41.0 26.0 200

PAGE 133

APPENDIX C (continued) 123 Most Important Problem Facing State Social issues Economic State Govt. /Pol. Party 27.1 50.0 22.9 Democrats SomeOften times Never N 36.8 38.8 24.3 152 39.0 43.4 17.6 369 48 Republicans SomeOften times Never N 32.9 38.2 28.8 170 38.8 37.8 23.5 405 31.6 46.3 22.1 95 Activity : Use of Literature Liberal-Conservative Liberal 62.5 33.3 4.2 312 63.9 27.8 8.3 36 Middle-of-the-Road 50.0 43.3 6.7 240 54.6 41.0 4.4 229 Conservative 37.9 40.5 21.6 116 51.9 43.9 4.2 478 Activity of Federal Government Increase 66.9 30.1 3.1 163 61.8 32.4 5.9 34 Remain the same 54.0 40.5 5.6 126 53.8 41.5 4.6 65 Decrease 45.6 43.2 11.2 340 52.1 43.3 4.6 635 Most Concerned With: Local 59.9 32.6 7.5 187 59.3 36.2 4.5 199 State 49.7 44.6 5.7 193 50.7 45.3 3.9 203 Nation 52.9 39.9 7.2 153 51.7 42.4 5.9 203 Most Important Problem Facing State Social Issues 53.3 37.3 9.3 150 54.2 41.1 4.8 168 Economic 56.0 38.9 5.1 373 55.0 41.1 4.0 404 State Govt. /Pol. Party 49.0 34.7 16.3 49 50.5 44.2 5.3 95

PAGE 134

124 x Q SB W Cm CJ Id P c o u >^ o d cu 3 u •H a l-l 60 O E CD o ^ a) > aj SB CO C >-. 3 r-i M o < a) •H U > i-H n w W 3 D, cu S3 >s r-H S-t 13 a) (-1 > co w B co TO CU fl •H cn pq >s t-i cd P-l e o GO l-l o d > o CM co 00 t- Os o Os CM SO CO 1—1 CM in CO CM r~~ ON CM Os r-x c \D co *— 1 en o o SO m as en co cn CO CN| ,— I CM OS r~~ i—( •— i \£> CM CO vO co • • • • • • • a • a • • CO o r^ t^ c St co 1^ CT> vO CO m o — l t— i I-H 1 — I H CM — i •*>o n m vc co co in CO coo msr o VD CM co m •so n Mn w o* o st •* r- -JO CT. CM CM CM vO O CO • • • CM rSO i-l i— I 00 CM CM ~dco oo sJD < OS CO CM CM CM O CO a • e r~ m ^H TJ CO o (-1 Xi 60 1 CO cn ^ o 60 Cu •H 0) ,d O 60 *d CO c 0) O i-H ecl -d ^H c o o o cu o CD 00 a so H 1 (U 4-> a) XI CU H ee 3 &0 6 H CJ O •H o o 3 SB rc CO o CJ -3 6C w 3 O •H 4-J cd a 3 O o o CO o cn •r-l 5-J 3 cn cu ^= r-H Jd U cn cd S-J a; U •H o H cu U !3 ^ •H ^ S-l IW B i— 1 o M-I c ca s o cd 3 M-l O -3 # •rH CD cn CO M u CO CO -a cu S-i 0) 3 60 01 iw •H 3 B o ^S 3 t-i M 3 3 Cm S Pn VC >J0 o CM CM CO OS CM •> o >-. CM co m

PAGE 135

125 S3 mono CM CO .— I LTl CM sain LP) •— 1 < — I O co cm in h ro cm r~ cr\ — i in vo o CM CM •— I CT\ O CO -J N dl CO •— I CM J-l CD > CD !Z CO >. cfi H M O T3 CD •H U > r-i CO W ja 35 3 P, 0) 1 w pi (1) ID e e o H w b 0) 4-1 o O O O CO • • • a ID O Ol N O CO sf — I st oo o i— i O CO oo r-. co cm st st st st CO IA H Ol • • • • co rco in vo oi n co cooh n -Cf CM CN| I s vD i— 1 0> co co st co o n vo t m • 0O CM — ( i— i CJ 0) 3 Q 01 >, J H M X! rfl •O 0) H S-i !-i > Q CJ nj w 2 W W e P^ CD Pd C 1 to 3 4J u CtJ 4-1 B o o en CO 0) H en 3 pa >• +J cd (U o en M p crj en •H CD -J CD 4J Cfl 4-> c/l B 0) +J M-l O oo rh o co — o m .—I CM CO m m m r~ • • • o oo co rs co co co co H) Ci OM30 CM CO CO CO CO O CM St in h cm en in st m st H T) O cfl o J3 60 U CO CO j= o OO O, •H CD X iH bO Td o co CO CM CM VD CO CM — i r-~ r~i— i r-. vo m — ( m m st st st roo i— I vO CT. I-CTi ^D CO CO CO CO en H CD CJ M -H V-l iw O u-i TJ • -( 60 CD cC 6 C U cfl cd g Cm co o m tji -* CM r-l CM H CO CM lO m CO ON i—l >X> CO CO rH CO OvO (J\ st O O • • o • e • • • • t • • r-~ — i • o St 0"\ ^O £> •— 1 \0 i— 1 CO o m •—1 in i—i i—l 1-H 1—1 1—1 CO CO vD rvo os CO CO CO CO o> CO oo r~ co St St St CD CJ H 14-1 IW O B •H B •H co CD en M CD O — i CO & U M cfl u O CD o en co l-i sf M cfl cfl 0) U CD oj co m

PAGE 136

126 1 i— i o •£> co o lOCA rH m -H is N N Ol t1 O r-O uo io m o> O i£> CM i-i oo 00 O rH CO x> o r-~ o-i -dO CM rH co in oo •> r< B N N OO 00 m sd" O 00 CM CM NiDCO o •a a) • m • • • • • • • • • BOS •H Vj > OvO CON rH \o o> r-~ o> 60 o m rH cfl w M r-t r—t —A CM rH i-H i-H -H r-H r-t i— 1 CM —4 ,fi H 3 (D 1 TO n n h cn N CO CO 00 CM o c^ (3 cu 4-1 C NiOOH • • • • CJ> CO OJ' yo 00 O co in co m in NCOlO 1 V r-t 1-1 i— |-i— 4 CM ••— I in co ri r~~ in in in rH CM rH X R) T3 0) a • c M • a a • a a a M U r< > CO WiO Ol in (TlN rl en cm o a-. r~cm a o t w -r-l i—l i— 1 rH rH i-H r-i i—l rH rH rH rH z c a w PLi Ph e a) a 1 co m m r-r-. CO CM r^ C\ -3< 4-1 o cm m m r-. • • • co m en cm ~d" CM CO CM vO CM VD r~ • • • CM & 60 & rH A! 4-J O 1 o CO CO U (J CO +J OJ U . E a O U O 0) co in o co o CO SH (H TO o TO TO .. w o to to a &o •H TO TJ 01 5h M 4-1 4-J cfl UH •h co e •H h t* O >> +j to O O v-t O CM H vO ~r M cO ccj 0) (3 c 3 123 35 CO u oj cm co m VO a Ph S F*4 cm co m O o 13 6d o •H o o w ^1 o H

PAGE 137

127 CM cr\ co co cm r- o*i cm rfvO N O o w O m h tn n — i co rJ3 CS1 m r-H CM to c co o H rH p. qj M ,— < r-. r^ — i |- --< -J" o < VD r^ ICIMO 0) o • • • a • • • • • • t > o cm co co .— 1 N rv o CM CO Orr~ vo s .—1 CM CM en CM H i-l CM — 1 CM CM i—l i — l S3 r-. m n-j 00 \DtnO ITl H \0 rm co t-j a) • • • • • • 9 • • a • • V-i > t\( H H CA o y—IO\\0 CTs CM 0> ooo-t cd w CM CM CM .-I CM CM — 1 i— 1 H CM H ^ cn i-i ffi CD Q) 6 B o co a\ £) kO in co co rCO o CN I-CM co r-~ r— 1 o o CO 0> S3 CO \D co CO CO O —i m in 1 1 CO in r^ cm •~s ,— i .— i P0 CO CM CsJ CM CM i~* CM d s-l i— 1 a-. o -* I— 1 m o CTN +J OJ .—I r-1 .— I i — i CM r— 1 i— < i—l t— 1 1 CM .— i—l ^-1 d o z o en >> w* +-> i-H H CO O CO o\ CO CM CO o CO • 1 m 00 m co o CO r-l O ai CO r~ CM CO cr. -da cd w .—j -H CM 1-1 CM i—l — •< ^H t— { .— < .— i 1—1 1—1 X o Cd !— 1 e o qj z n 1 ^ CN] ^o CO O^ O r- o^ CO < CM co O! o CO str-t CO m o m Ph o -H -3 CO CO CM i—l 1-^ -dco in d o •H j-i cd o d w CO O CO CO CO i—l CO O co m co co m o CO CM CM i-i .—I CM CM CM —1 CM i—l H N CM H 13 o cfl o M ^ 60 a 1 to to 43 o M & H (1) x: o bOd qj d OJ o i—i cd e X i—i m o m v£) o o o OJ co in VO CO to to O 60 1 a) o o o o CD -C QJ rH 4-1 +j 4-> 4-1 d CO 6 >H o •H O O CM ^D ^H o S3 rd co o QJ 60 . o >i cm co m

PAGE 138

128 1 in oi vo ci \0 k£) CM CT> CO O CM COH-I a N OO H m o o^ cm in in oo O st CO st CM st r-l CO CM CM CM r-l CO t-1 CM u o reM m I-r-i cm rs. t— 1 ^D CJ"\ lO N CI aj 1 • e ft ft • ft ft a • • • oft > O VO (O to lO CI CO co rs. cm H T3 0) > i • • • CM St —1 O • • • • LO — 1 — 1 — ft ft ft i-l C/iCO a • • CO CN i— 1 rH co w r-l •— 1 r1 I— 1 r-l 1—1 r1 — 1 X W fl 0) 1 03 o h in co (Ji O CO CO i— 1 i— 1 CM O H CO 06 0) s S •H • • • \o n h m ft • ft -t -) [v H CO CO NOH O m rs oj e • • • ft • ft • • • • • • +j cm -— i rn o st o r r-i — i o ^o \o rs. rs U_l in in in in in in st M3 m in st in st st C i— i c^ co rs |v CM is (M hh m m i— i cc B5 st i— i o m 00 CO CO vD 00 CO oo rs oi st ^ h N en CO CM CM CM CM H CM 3 u co vo st rst m in cm 00 O CM r-l rs r-l H CD > • o ft ft r^ r^ co vo ft ft ft ft co rs m co a ft IS. CO CO ft ft ft m st co 4-1 0) C! E3 O o to i— i !-< CO 00 St OI [- 00 CO >— 1 St O 0> rs in r-s Q t-l t-l a) > • • • rs i-H oo o ft a ft' • m o o> \d • • i-h o m • • • 00 O —! O a W t— 1 — f r-l r-l i— i i— i f — 1 1 — 1 X o w H o ss e a) n 1 to m o o o r-l O t~. CT> oo co m H VO H CM CU 6 0) •H • • • |~I CM St 00 ft ft ft ft os. st sico • • • 00 O CO ft ft ft ts St r-l Pj -3" st CO CO CO CO St CO CO st st co CO st < w +J e cj\ r-. cm st is vo m co ooic +J •H tJ en • CO fl A-> Oi P5 a c 0) >, +J +J +J c TO M o +-> to o C/l Ph o o -d o CO JS M •H O 3 w -a co M I CO o OJ 60 13 CD pi rH Ct) 0) 60 OJ X! OJ 60 6 rH •H o o to u in o m vo ro in id co o o o 0)1 n CM >Xi CT> O cm co m ^o u c y 0) 4-J CO d o H co CO a) ct) &J o CO t-l CO OJ I-H r£ S-i o co co U -H (1) o Vl U-l O M-l S O 13 a) co 6 u cd t-l CO a) t-i 60 OJ co B C t-i CO co a) o e t-i o CD tJ CO cu

PAGE 139

129 vo co cm in IN N H ^t CM , i-H p TJ 0! l-l > co w W J CD vo i— i e • • in in oo H in • • • vC en o\ CM r v£) O fr C^ CM r-o *3" • • a • • • • • A • • in m CN o O OA CO CM m r- < 1 in *£> vO en co O CO * <;~^r -CT vO o -dm i- t-H m VD OO CN! CO co en CM 9 • • m • • • • • a • l $ t-H in CO CN o *-< CN CTi in m o CN CO co — 1 T-l CO CO CM CM CM CM i—( CM H h in oo co r-~ cm 00 o o o cm en oo oo r— 1 r-l P3 T-l. U u > tsfl 1 en CJJ CJ 3 B H oo +J 00-<3" VD <-l • • O — i m ON CO [n N co co -vr m o co m • iv in, co oino co <}m lO lO lO ft e m vc> co — i m CO CO CO CM .—I CM CM CO CO CO co co rCO CO CM 'J CO (J d o o u CO > d o o u 0) d o •H +J CO a -a w • CO H T3 O CO O CO H u Vj d CD QJ ^3 M j= ^H M rj I o en CO V-i m CD QJ M OJ •H O & co OJ _d O ^ •H CO u 00 a, u CM B CD o r-i QJ rH o K-l Vj QJ iH CD e J= rH DO X) cO O cO CJ U O aj e d ip •H ^ cj !-J a) o r-i co o T3 t> 4-J o OJ o c ,n i—i m o in vD d •H OJ CD • IH >. O o O QJ CO m \o 00 o CO U H CD O CD CO en co O cjO •H CD T) a) M Li > o £, o •r-i o o CM VD 1 — 1 m 3 )-l cfl cO QJ Z w 00 O OJ -5 CM CO m v^ CJ O o Ph X ^ e •H H CN CO m

PAGE 140

in -i d n m oi oo o oo in o oo esl i-i co Fn +J B >, co ,£> O CO CD 0) & ^o oj •H M cd > U a> > a; 53 CO c >, cd i— 1 U O T3 CD •H Vj > i— 1 id w .0 hC 3 a a) 1 CO pd CD 0) E J3 •H co +1 d CO 4-J O co co ocn <-< o >1 1— 1 M T3 <1) u > cd w S3 I en OJ CD e e O -H CO 4-> oo in in cm co stm -j n in • i— 1 00 \C I— 1 I— I T— 1 N in \o • a in in vo 1— I 1— 1 T— 1 vo co oo • • • r^r^ 00 iv CO CM CO CO in cm o CM tn r-t CM i-t CO • co m o vo in r-s crm-cf .-I CO CM 00 vD CO CM C O o rl cd P-i d o en U o a a) > o o O r- \0 CM r-l i— I oo vo in ft t • vOOK) • ID CO \D CM \D 00 • • • -4 CO CM +J >-. > J o e l-l o 0) cd CD • • rH & > 1—1 rO H cd +J o 4-> M a) -H u I—! cd -d a> s 13 Ph o > T3 cd CO ex M o Q) OJ CO •X) *J CD **--. CD erf > fti CD d P • CO 1 •H CD £ cfl CD CO 4-1 C in 4-1 M-l X U 4J 4-> CO > o o rt O OJ 4-1 0) CD u CO •H CJ o u H 1 > CO CO O O 4-1 •H 00 cd a) u >i cd s CS d d a. CO i—l i— I u r-l OJ 4-> CD •H cu o H QJ o 6 cd O CD cd OJ -d CO •H u ctj u u cd 4J •H H 60 •H d +1 M ja 13 (3 > u g CJ o cfl 4-1 c o cd CD •H •H o •H d a) 0) 4- o p cd 4-1 •H o CJ -P ,Q hJ s CJ +J H erf a CO h4 co B CD a CO W co •r-i CJ o O cd •J < X S Cu 130

PAGE 141

131 a p. >N H M t) 0) M > 01 UJ P3 I 03 n i~4 •> i-h S-f OCO -^ ^ < o r-~ O <-H CO o o cd Tj 0) • i o a 9 • • • • • • w M M > ON CO o oo m oo ON r-l O ON i—4 CO CJ cd W 1—1 i— i r—1 i—1 r— 4 X! o PB H B § CU O 1 w O CO O co m on r* m cm P> o o 6J o 0J • • • no r-CM t T— 1 • • CM ON • • cm -<)j-i •* 4-1 >< rd Pm > o o e OJ 4-> V4 cd d & •• 1—1 o. o > H 03 r4 4-> o W +-> U OJ H u t— i M CO t3 a) 1 13 P4 o O f> cd T3 cd 03 &, 4-> U O CD OJ 03 T3 4-> 0) "^. cd QJ erf > Cm OJ d p lH 03 1 "H OJ d cd OJ 03 4-> 03 d 14-1 4-1 14-1 ^3 H 4J '.-> 03 > •rl o o cd o 0) +J OJ OJ !-i cd •H CJ O 60 CJ 03 03 CJ O 4-1 •H 60 ., aj 1 cd oj u >1 cd d cd d d Cu CO --I e 41 hJ i— 1 M H 91 +J OJ vH OJ o t-H OJ o e cd O 0) fj ce 0) T3 [/I •r-l i-i cd u o cd 4-> -H M 61 H d 4-> CtJ o 6 o a CTJ 4-1 d o o cd 4-1 4-1 8J •H -H O •H d OJ oj +J o +j cd 4-> •H O CJ 4-> c cd -o ^ X a 4-> i-4 pi a 03 k3 co [a CD CJ in w co o 4-" •H CJ o o cd CJ> co J
PAGE 142

132 1 U~l — 1 — CO ON CO m co .— ) CO r-S O 1 co — < o> CO CM C5\ en is >t co i • • • • • • • • a ft >l CU st O -t P* v£) CT\ O^ CN 00 -3" i 1 1 1 1 CO i-H •— 1 — 1 i — 1 i — T i— 1 — 1 CN 55 1 CO c co >> H •JNO CN O i— 1 in id co CO st 00 o T3 0) • • • • • • • • • ft ft ft •H V-j > .— i co rin cm oo o rr~CO is t^ rP CO M — 1 CN i— 1 .— < CN i-H CM —! — 1 CM H i — I Xi rd 3 p. a) I CO v£> st o> st roo a-. St l- S3 ctn co >— i VO CN CN r-. cy\ - st st — 1 co o m rco in in st st 4J i—l i-H CN i-H CN i— 1 i— l i— 1 i-S i—l i—l i—l C 53 en i-t P i— i r*. r-CO st CN 00 CO CN CO rH v£> r-. cm r~i oi m oo >.c m in c3 \o o CO fcd i-H i— ) i—1 t-l i-l .— 1 i— i r-< •— i i — i i—i X o rc >— 1 g 0) p i CO ^D Cfi CO \o r~ st in ca rs O^i-f B3 P-i cu e o a) B •H • ft CT\N Ol • • • vo -sr cm • • i— i vo O Q*\ C^i i — I Ph co st co st co st O O g 4-1 CO >-. CU • • r-i P. p > H X, >o u •H C8 4J o 4J M cu H M rH pj CO > T3 CO a) TO e cO & Ph CO (X a !~i O cu cu CO 13 4-1 CU ~s o CO Di > Pn CU d P • CO 1 -H co d CO CU CO 4-1 d a) fi CM 4-1 U-l ja p 4-> *J CO > o O CO O cu 4J cu CO M cfl •H CJ O B u H 1 > CO CD CJ O +J •H 00 ,, CO 1 CO 0) S-J >s cfl C cO C d a CO H B -!_) CD r— 1 u i-h cu +-> a) -h cu o !H cu o e cfl O CU CJ 0) cs O -O in •H U cfl S-4 o cfl 4-i -H M 6C •H d 4J cfl (J u J3 TJ C > o 6 a CJ CO 4-1 d CJ O cfl 1-1 60 CD •rl -H O H C o cj 4-> O 4-1 CO 4-1 •H O CJ 4-1 c a X! kJ S O 4-1 m erf n CO hIme; 00 CJ co w on o o •H CJ o O CO O o hJ < S s f3H

PAGE 143

133 1 m 00 VC N P^ CD CM i—l O —-II ON H no f*. st CO in co en CO 0O ON. NH-J H cO (H r— 1 CM i— 1 CM CO (-1 CNIH H CM CM CM X> Bd s O0) 1 co .— ( CO O d Ocm r^ io in co CO CO o O 00 cD 0) • a • • • m • 4-1 i-H on r~~ cm C-* co st oo o CO cD St M-l CO ^H — < T-H 1— 1 i— 1 H H CN| i— 1 *— 1 i— 1 O Sf St I— 1 st — i m ro st cD in CM S5 On CM — 1 CM CM i-l in cm h .—I i-H CO cd on st i— 1 — 4 —l co r^ rCD 00 O O < CO On in i— 1 4-1 CD .— i i— 4 CM i— 4 t— 1 CM CM i—l i-l i-H i-4 CM d E3 o y en &*N +j t— 1 M o h m CM CM O in cm st CO CO N CO T3 CD • • • • a • i a a a ta S-J M > N OCO CO CO ON rco r^r^ co co o d w i— 1 CM i-4 1— 1 1-4 1— ( CM i— 1 •— i — i i — i i — i X! o W M Q i en vo co cn st CO ON co m cm co r-. o w CD cd a a e • a a a a m • • Ph s O 6 in en cm r — i — i i — i in ON r CO CO O P-, •H st st st st st 4J >! o e t-l +-> CJ3 CD cfl }-i cd • r-< (A co > i—i J£ .Q fU •H 4J U CD 4-> •H O a i-H c cd 13 QJ s j^ P4 O o > cd T3 cO co a. l-i O CD CD CO 13 +J a) "* CO OJ Pi > fe CD 13 D )-J CO 1 -H CD C CO CD CO 4-> o d H J1 4H -d Vj +-J 4J CO > 4-> o O CO o OJ +J 0) CD 5-1 cO •H O cd u (H 1 > CO CO O O 4-1 H 60 a C 1 cfl CD M >> cd d ctf d d a CO i-i e +J CD rH VJ rH CD 4J OJ -H CD o i-l CD O s CO O CD o c/3 CO CD T3 CO H U CO M o CO 4-> >H H M •H fl 4-1 cd M jQ T3 d > O CJ CJ CO 4-1 a O O cfl 4-> c CD •H -H O •H d O 4J cfl 4-1 •H O CJ 4-4 c C/3 .a iJ S o 4-1 HciJn CO i-J 00 S CO co a w o • H O o o CO O p >J
PAGE 144

134 co C id o •H rH J= 3 P-. . in CO c rH ON CM flj > • • • • • • • • • • CM CO CO O St en CO CO st =— i St sr CD S3 1— 1 5-1 *— 1 in ff! CM ON r-~ 1— 1 NO 00 CO st T3 0) r~~ • on ON LO in co O • ON CM r4 ON 4 o td -H rH T-t !— 1 r-( r( T— I W 1 CO & S o H CO +J O CM LO on* CM CO CO h in CO CO CO cm r-co co co ON CO CO CO m co st r-H NO St CO CO CO O CO ON vd m sr oo r^ cm st st in co on co co cm sr m m st vOO o m on t— i m st m QJ 5 d o o H X H Q W >. rH Vj T1 a) n > rd w Cd 1 co a) aj e 6 o •H IX •P i— 1 St ON ^ o tv st co m St ON CO • • • NO CO NO St CM CO • • • 00 CO ^ CO St CO NO .-I O CO St St O r no • • • NO CM i-H CM CO O ON St .-I CO CO st st O i-i ft ON O CM m st m co CO st in r-4 CO • ft • CO CO NO CM ON •— l St CO CO g LH o on in st st st co O 00 CM CO st O m st st o i- NO in st co CO O CO tON NO co st m 4-J 5>N > o e o QJ td a QJ • rH px 0) > •H 4-1 rH Cd r4 0J •H o r4 • rH •H cd T3 0) e t3 PM O cd > cd T3 cd CO O-, 6 !-j O QJ OJ ~~~~QJ Pi > Pm a) c o CO •H QJ a rt QJ CO 4-1 >. c <4H 4J 14H rC !h i-> 4-1 CO > j-i o o o 0) 4-> a) QJ !h tfl H o o u O i-4 ) > CO co o l-l H 00 • • CTl 1 Cd 0) r4 >ed a CO e d p. w H ^ 4_J cli rH J_i rH QJ +J a) •H 0) o ^H CD o E Cfl QJ (J Cd a) "0 CO •H tH cd |H CJ cfl 4-> •H H 61 •H +J cC CD S-l ^3 T3 a > o a u y cs) 4-1 £ O o td +J 4-1 cd •H •H o •H 13 QJ QJ 4-> o +J rd 4-1 •H o O +J C cd *a rH g a 4-1 M Pi Pi CO nJ to S3 CO O c/o W co o 4-i H o o O td CJ CO rH fl X X P4

PAGE 145

135 M 0) > (1) SB en i cd H M o 13 01 •H H > H cd w X> ffi 3 P0) 1 00 pi qj a) a e O -H CO +j 3 0) 4J lm c vO CO 1/1 O-l CM NO cm — I CO on o cjn t— < CM — 1 cvi O — i • • vD CO CO r~ O NO O CM —I CM CNl CNl ON 4co CNl ON O co O CO CO CO a CU 3 u 3 0) H > +J N N^ 4-1 H M tti T3 0) W M U > U cd w X o W H B P cu E3 p I co W 0> tt) P-i e & SI So Often ti CNl CNl r-l O CO CM CO CM r-H on r> cm m cm co H H tO to o> co co N > o g o CU cd g CD • • rH Ph > t-H ^ -Q t •H cd CU 4-> •H O M o H H CO T3 OJ e Hi PO cd > cd 13 cC CO P6 V> o 0) cu w -O +-> 01 "**^ co Pd > PM CU C 3 • to H 0> a cd cu CO 4- >. p LM j-j w -c u 4-J 4-> CO > +j o o cd o cu 4-> 0) 0) M cd H CJ O u u l-H 1 > CO CO CJ o 4-J •H 60 • • crt 1 cd 0) p >^ efl c cd c d p. C/J t-H S +J p^ t-H M r-l 0) p cu •H QJ o rH OJ o 6 cd o o) o cd CD Tj (0 •I-< M cfl u u cd 4-J •H H M •H d +1 cd VI u XI T3 c > o CJ o cd 4-1 C3 CJ o cd +J CU CD H •H o H c 0) OJ +J o 4-1 Cd 4J •H O CJ -M c ,c .e J X o +J l-H f^ o CO kJ 00 is CO CJ CO W CO o 4-1 •H o o o cd o O iJ
PAGE 146

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born May 25, 1949, Dwight Lambert attended Hialeah High School in Hialeah, Florida. He completed undergraduate work at the University of Florida, earning a Master of Arts degree there in 1974. He has taught political science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, and now teaches at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg. 136

PAGE 147

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. /7 /yjfl David P. Conradt, Chairman Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree o£. Doctor of Philosophy. ^gjr^Sk Alfrec\B. Clubok, Professor of il Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. J. Damicri,, Associate r of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that-in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of^.,scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as''a dissertation ^orlthe degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / //// f /'Ik, ^ =r __ r _4 Michael A. Maggiott^i, /'Assistant Professor of PolitfCaT Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the^dggree of Doctor of Philosophy. / • 'Benjamin W. Gorman', Professor of Sociology

PAGE 148

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. March 1980 Dean, Graduate School


107
politically active groups such as convention delegates, comparing a
national sample of chairmen with the samples done in individual states,
or finding corresponding developments within the electorate as a whole
help to mitigate timebound data, but more research needs to be done
to determine if the amateur syndrome in local party organization still
exists. The county chairmen are only one part of a much larger politi
cal phenomenon, but their position as leaders of the grassroots party
organization demands attention, as changes within the ranks of the
chairmen may portend changes in American political parties.


104
in which the role of the party is considerably diminished. "As candi
dates have turned to new means of mobilizing their electorate, the
party organization, with its tradition of getting out the partisan vote
on a face-to-face basis, has become less important" (Agranoff, 1972,
p. 97). Burnham says, ". . functions once performed by the major
parties have lost their utility in recent years" (Burnham, 1975,
p. 349). These developments would appear to point to the demise
"decomposition," to use Burnham's wordof American political parties.
The party organization is easily bypassed by candidates and even more
easily by incumbents. In itself, this is not a recent development.
Political candidates, acting as "self-starters," have always discovered
ways to work around the party organization. What is new is the in
creased capacity for the electorate to bypass the party as a source of
information and political guidance. The major change has been in the
size of the affluent and educated class and its consequent position as
a source of political influence (Ladd and Hadley, 1975). "The long
term trends are surely irreversible," writes Sunquist, "the old-
fashioned closed political system is not going to be reestablished,
old-style bosses restored to power, media campaigning outlawed, or the
level of affluence and education that make for independent politics
reduced" (1973, p. 352).
Moreover, party membership is increasingly ideologically oriented,
concerned more with political issues and less with the potential
material gain that may result from political participation (Nie et al.,
1976). This study helps to confirm that the new emphasis upon issues
and ideology has intruded into the political party in the form of poli
tical amateurs. If the party membership in general and the county


Table 4-7
77
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)
Degree of professionalism
Liberal-
Conservative
Amateur
Prof.
Majori
tarian
Liberal
26.2
26.3
4.3
Middle-of-the-Road
29.9
31.2
26.1
Conservative
43.9
42.5
69.6
N =
107
586
23
X = 8.14a
df = 4; not significant
fact, only 4 percent of the majoritarians call themselves liberal,
opposed to about 26 percent of both amateurs and professionals.
A number of conclusions may be drawn from the preceding analysis.
Amateurs are not unidimensional: among the amateurs there are distinc
tions in attitudes over the function of the representative. Some believe
the politicians should use their best judgment in representing their
constituency, others that the politician should follow the dictates of
the constituency. This second group, the majoritarians, differ from
other amateurs in demographic as well as attitudinal characteristics,
as well as differing from professionals. This finding implies that
amateurs must be treated as a more complex phenomenon than they have
been in the past. In addition, the results indicate the amateur
oriented chairmen somewhat better educated, younger, and newer to the
job of chairman than their semiprofessional or professional counter
parts. The amateurs are also less likely to have held public office
than semiprofessionals or professionals, and less likely to want higher


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EHEDSGSZU_5R238X INGEST_TIME 2014-12-06T00:03:56Z PACKAGE AA00026473_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


91
14 percent of the amateurs with less than two years experience. For
governors, almost three times as many amateurs with two years of exper
ience or less report "often" contacting as amateurs with five years of
experience or more, 11.8 percent to 3.3 percent. Of the amateurs
reporting that they "often" make contact with state legislators, 37 per
cent are relative newcomers to the office of county chairmen, while 33
percent have served in office five years or longer. The difference
between amateurs with the least experience in office and amateurs with
the most experience in office over contacts with U.S. senators is only
.2 percent. However, twice as many amateurs in office two years or
less say they "often" contact state chairmen as amateurs in office five
years or more, 54 to 25 percent. In contacting other chairmen, there
is little difference between the least and the most experienced chair
men, 25.5 percent of those with the briefest tenure report contacting
"often" as compared to 24.2 percent of those with longest tenure. At
the other end of the continuum the amateurs with the least experience
exceed those with the greatest experience in reporting "never" contact
ing in three of the six cases: state legislators, congressmen, and
U.S. senators; in "never" contacting state chairmen the difference is
less than 1 percent.
These figures seem to indicate that the lower contact rate among
amateurs relative to semiprofessionals and profesisonals is not the
result of less experience in office. There is little difference in
frequency of contacting between amateurs with less than two years ex
perience and those with more than five years experience. Unlike the
demographic and attitudinal variables of Chapter Three, division of
the chairmen into amateur, semiprofessional, and professional categories


89
for contacts with U.S. senators the difference is 6.4 percent; for con
tacts with the governor, the difference drops to .9 percent.
The lower contact rate among amateurs may be less the consequence
of amateurism than of relative newness to the position of county chair
man. The lack of contact may reflect not a disinterest or disdain for
contacting party or political officials within the party on party
business, but rather a lack of capacity to make such contacts due to
inexperience in the position. If this reasoning is valid, it is to
be anticipated that the frequency of contacting would increase as the
amateur chairmen become more comfortable in their role; a greater
feeling of comfort may be expected to occur with longer time in office.
To test this assumption, the chairmen were trichotimized by length of
time in officeless than one year to two years, three and four years,
and five years or more. This ranking is crosstabulated with the same
set of variables dealing with contacts of public and party officials
on party business. If time in office has an impact, it would be ex
pected that greater time in office would be associated with increased
contacts. The results are presented in Table 5-5.
The figures indicate that there is very little difference in fre
quency of contacts by amateurs as time in office increases. In fact,
in all but one of the six potential contacts the percentage of amateurs
who report "often" contacting and who have less than two years experi
ence in the position of county chairman is greater than those with
five or more years in the office. Only for contacts with congressmen
do those with five or more years in office exceed those with the least
tenure, and then by only 1.6 percent: 15.6 percent of the amateurs
in office longest report "often" contacting congressmen as opposed to


57
or older), the average for those chairmen below age fifty-one who
"often" or "sometimes" contact the governor is 40 percent, 17 percent
less than those above fifty-one years of age. The figures indicate
that contacting the governor is more clearly associated with age than
is contacting any other official.
High levels of contacts between the county chairmen and state
chairmen or the county chairmen and other county chairmen are not
remarkable, given the probable mutuality of interests; congressmen and
U.S. senators, because of distances both geographic and social, may
make special efforts to facilitate communication with the county chair
men as a source of political information and support; the high turnover
rate and low public visibility of state legislators would probably en
courage large numbers of contacts in an effort to build and solidify
support for campaign efforts. On the other hand, inability to succeed
themselves in office, limited influence upon state legislative elec
tions, and, in many states, dispersal and consequent dilution of execu
tive power among elected members of a state cabinet perhaps contribute
to the smaller incidence of reported contacts made between county chair
men and the governor.
Other differences are also apparent. Between Democratic chairmen
and contacts with congressmen when the chairmen are classified by edu
cation, almost twice as many Democratic chairmen, in terms of percen
tages, with less than a high school education report "often" contacting
congressmen than do Democratic chairmen with at least a college educa
tion, 43 percent to 22 percent. Similarly, relatively larger differ
ences exist between Republicans and contacts with U.S. senators when
the chairmen are divided by time-in-office. While just under 54 percent


Ill
Wiggins, Charles W. and Turk, William L. (1970). "State Party Chairmen:
A Profile." Western Political Quarterly 23:321-322.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1971). The Pvevolt Against the Masses. New York:
Basic Books.
Wilson, John Q. (1968). The Amateur Democrat. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Yeric, Jerry L. (1973). Indiana County Chairmen: A 1972 Profile.
Terre Haute, Ind.: Center for Governmental Studies.


REFERENCES
Agranoff, Robert (1972). The New Style in Election Campaigns.
Boston: Holbrook Press.
Bowman, Lewis and Boynton, G. R. (1966). "Recruitment Patterns Among
Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in
Selected Locales." American Political Science Review 62:667-676.
; Ippolito, Dennis; and Donaldson, William (1969).
"Incentives and the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activ
ism." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13:126-139.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1975). "American Politics in the 1970s: Beyond
Party?" in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (eds.),
The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, 2nd
ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
(1976). "Revitalization and Decay: Looking Toward the
Third Century of Electoral Politics." Journal of Politics
38:146-172.
Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes,
Donald E. (1964). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
Cavala, William (1974). "Changing the Rules of the Game: Party Reform
and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Con
vention." American Political Science Review 68:27-42.
Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q. (1961). "Incentive Systems: A
Theory of Organization." Administration Science Quarterly 6:129-166.
Conway, M. Margaret and Feigert, Frank B. (1968). "Motivations, Incen
tive Systems, and the Political Party Organization." American
Political Science Review 18:1159-1173.
Crotty, William J. (1967). "The Social Attributes of Party Organiza
tional Activists in a Transitional Political System." Western
Political Quarterly 20:669-681.
DeVries, Walter and Tarrance, V. Lance (1972). The Ticketsolitter.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Edradmas.
Easton, David (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York:
John Wiley.
108


18
Finally, the tenure of the chairmen in office seems brief. Almost
46 percent of the Democratic chairmen report they have been in office
two years or less. At the other extreme, nearly 36 percent of the
Democratic chairmen and slightly more than 31 percent of the Republican
chairmen have been in office five years or more. While, in both par
ties, there is a tendency for the numbers of chairmen to cluster at the
extremes (two years or less, five years or more), the figures indicate
that Democrats are slightly more likely to have served in office longer
than Republicans.
Southern chairmen* show few differences when compared with chair
men from other areas of the country, as shown in Table 2-2, Six and
one-tenth percent more Southern Chairmen than non-Southern chairmen
have a college education or better; educational differences at other
levels are even smaller. For age, differences are not statistically
significant.
Occupational differences are also small. Among non-Southern chair
men, 42 percent are found in professional occupations, compared to 45
percent among the Southern chairmen. Four percent more Southern chair
men are in managerial positions than are non-Southern chairmen. The
largest percentage difference between non-Southern and Southern chairmen
is found in the classification of farmers and farm workers, 18 percent
among the non-Southerners and 11 percent among the Southern chairmen.
Occupational differences between regions are not substantial.
*The Southern states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.


113
APPENDIX A (continued)
_o_
4. For which of the following offices were elections held in your state and county for the 1970
general election? Please check those offices for which elections were held.
Mayor or equivalent office _ State Legislator
City or Town Council City or County Judge
County Commissioner or County Council U.S. Congressman
County Sheriff Governor
County Prosecutor -U.S. Senator
5. Based upon your best estimate, what percentage of county offices did your party contest in the
1970 general election?
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
6. How difficult would you say it is to get people to run for county offices for your party?
Very difficult Not very difficult
Somewhat difficult No one ever runs for county offices from my party
7. Check those offices for which your county committee actively campaigned in the 1970 general
election.
Mayor or equivalent office State Legislator
City or Town Council City or County Judge
County Commissioner or County Council U.S. Congressman
County Sheriff Governor
County Prosecutor U.S. Senator
8.In the last year how often have you contacted the following on business for the party?
Often Sometimes Hardly ever Never
State legislators
Governor
County Commissioner
Other state officials
U.S. Congressmen
U.S. Senators
State Party Chairman
Other County Party Chairmen
9. Did any candidates for local or state office contact you
for support before the primary election?
10. Did you give any of these candidates your support
before tire primary election?
11. How likely is a candidate to win the primary
election in your county if the party organization
were to oppose him?
12. Do you feel you played an important part in the
success of primary election candidates for state
and local office?
13. Do you participate in planning and strategy meetings
of party leaders to discuss nominations and support
of candidates for state and local office before
primary elections?
Yes No
Yes No
Sure to win
Makes no difference
He would never win
Very important
No difference
Not important
Yes No


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
5avid P. Conradt, Chairman,
Professor of Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree o£_
Doctor of Philosophy.
AlfreSiB.Clubok, Professord£
Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy. \
:essor of Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that-Jui my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of^_s<¡:holarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as'a dissertation''-for jthe degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
fiichael A. Maggiotto,/'Assistant
Professor of Political" Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the,degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Beniamin I/. Gorman, Professor
of Sociology


APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats
Congressmen on Party Business
Some-
Hardly
Of ten
times
Ever
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
30.2
39.6
16.1
Middle-of-Road
24.7
42.9
17.7
Conservative
26.3
39.8
12.7
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
28.6
46.6
11.8
Remain the same
25.8
34.7
19.4
Decrease
26.6
42.4
15.2
Most Concerned With:
Local
22.7
41.5
18.8
State
27.7
46.9
16.8
Nation
29.0
40.7
15.2
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
29.5
39.0
15.8
Economic
27.5
39.6
18.1
State govt./pol. party
27.7
51.1
6.4
Republicans
Never
W
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
14.1
298
25.7
48.6
11.4
14.3
35
14.7
231
24.6
37.4
23.2
14.7
211
21.2
118
24.2
38.9
17.0
19.9
447
13.0
161
18.2
36.4
15.2
30.3
33
20.2
124
25.4
40.7
22.0
11.9
59
15.8
323
24.2
39.8
18.1
17.9
518
17.0
176
23.8
38.9
20.5
16.8
185
13.6
191
22.8
40.4
17.6
19.2
193
15.2
145
19.9
42.4
17.8
19.9
191
15.8
146
22.1
41.7
23.3
12.9
163
14.8
364
24.6
39.4
17.4
18.7
391
14.9
47
25.6
32.2
17.8
24.4
90


12
their party activity. In short, I will look at the leadership of the
local party organization to assess its impact upon the activities and
organization of the local party.
In the remainder of this analysis, Chapter Two defines the demo
graphic and attitudinal independent variables to be used in Chapter
Three. Chapter Three first formulates the dependent variables of
party activity to be used throughout the analysis, and, second, com
pares the demographic and attitudinal variables with the measures of
party activity. Chapter Four begins the discussion of the political
orientations of the chairmen by defining in operational terms the
amateur-professional dimension; then the amateurs and professionals
among the chairmen are compared in demographic and attitudinal make
up. Chapter Five builds upon Four by examining the relationship
between the amateurs and professionals and the measures of party
activity.


95
different offices at the local, state, or national levels had taken
place within the last year; the offices are those of mayor, city coun
cilman, county commissioner, sheriff, prosecutor, legislator, judge,
congressman, governor, and senator. The second series of questions
inquired as to whether the county organization had actually campaigned
for these offices. If an election had taken place and if the county
party actively campaigned for the office, the county was assigned a
score of one; if no election was held or if the county did not cam
paign for the office, the score was zero. The scores were summed to
produce a scale ranging from zero (no elections or no party campaign
ing) to ten (elections for all ten offices with the party actively
campaigning in all ten). This score represents the number of instances
in which the party could and did actively campaign. However, since not
all counties may have held elections for all ten of the offices, it is
necessary to correct this total score by accounting for the number of
elections that actually took place. This was done by summing the num
ber of elections held and dividing into the number of instances where
the county could and did campaign. This figure was then multiplied by
100; the result is the percentage of offices for which there were
elections and in which the party campaigned. The percentages were
then divided into quartiles.
This measure, together with the percent of precincts organized
in the county, should be seen as two aspects of the same phenomenon.
Before the advent of political campaigns conducted by electronic media
when the candidate needed to rely more exclusively upon the party or
ganization for campaign support, the number of organized precincts
would have constituted an adequate measure of party effort for elective


4
regard to demographic and attitudinal characteristics. The reasoning
underpinning this assumption is readily understood. "The function of
leadership," Meyer says, is ". .to mediate between environmental
uncertainities and organizational structures" (1972, p. 516). The
perception of what constitutes an "uncertainity" and an appropriate
response for that uncertainty will be conditioned by the nature of the
leadership that confronts alterations in the environment. The model
implies that knowing the characteristics of the chairmen makes possible
a prediction of the activities of the organization. As Key says:
The traits and characteristics of political activists assume
importance in the light of a theory about why the leadership and
governing levels in any society behave as they do. That theory
amounts to the proposition that these political actors consti
tute in effect a subculture with its own peculiar set of norms
of behavior, motives, and approved standards. (1961, p. 537)
Patterson echoes this assessment, arguing that knowledge regarding
demographic composition, political experience, and the self-perceptions
of the chairmen is ", . suggestive of the nature and function of
party leadership at the county level" (1963, p. 334). Crotty maintains
that background characteristics of political leadership ". . shape
an individual's perceptions and consequently his interpretation of his
role while in office" (1967, p. 670). The implicit connection that
has been made in some of the literature on local party personnel
between the demographic variables of individuals and the activity of
party leadership seems to be an effort to duplicate the connection that
has been found between demographic variables and individual political
participation (Verba and Nie, 1972). However, there is no reason to
assume the traits that correlate with higher levels of participation
among individualseducation, age, income, for examplewill necessarily


10
amateurs; 80 percent had less than five years of political experience,
75 percent were not strong party identifiers, and nearly all had no
previous campaign experience" (1974, p. 76).
The division between amateur and professional has also been ob
served within party leadership. Wildavsky explains the nomination of
Barry Goldwater by the Republican party in 1964 as the product of the
efforts of political "purists" (1971, pp. 248265). A study of the
Democratic counterpart of the Goldwater nomination, McGovern's presi
dential nomination in 1972, finds among the Democrats a similar divi
sion between amateurs and professionals in outlook (Sullivan _et_ al. ,
1976), a conclusion confirmed by Soule and Clarke in their study of
delegates to the Democratic conventions of 1968 and 1972 (1975).
The appearance of the amateur-professional syndrome in local party
activity has serious implications for the local party. The amateur-
professional model of party organization postulates a portion of the
party's activists for whom party electoral success and the rewards of
that success are no longer adequate to sustain party activity. In
creased emphasis among the amateurs upon policy goals results in
decreased emphasis upon the success of the party organization, thus
further weakening the organization. This fundamental difference
between amateurs and professionals over the party's goals may finally
result in disruption of the party organization and hostility between
the amateur and professionally oriented politicians. This was appar
ently the case in the selection of delegates from California to the
1972 Democratic National Convention (Cavala, 1974).
Thus, there is evidence to suggest that political orientations
and the view of politics brought by the individual to the post of


100
The concentration in previous studies upon the demographic traits
of the local party leadership assumed that these traits were signifi
cant in explaining the activity of the local party apparatus. The
connection between the socio-economic characteristics of individuals
and political participation has been freqeuntly noted (Campbell et
al., 1964; Verba and Nie, 1972). Since demographic characteristics
have been shown to be correlated with political activism and with
attitudinal patterns, the next logical step is to take the demographic
characteristics of political leaders and link them to political organi
zations and the activity of these organizations. Chapter Three exam
ines this hypothesized relationship by looking at two sets of personal
characteristics of the chairmen. The first set of attributes is the
demographic characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time
served in the office of county chairman. The second set of character
istics is designed to tap the chairman's political attitudes: self
placement on a liberal-conservative scale, attitudes toward the activity
of the federal government, the level of government for which the chair
man had greatest concern, and the chairman's assessment of the greatest
problem facing the state. These variables have been frequently used in
earlier research into county party leadership.
Party activity is also measured in two ways. First, it is viewed
as campaign activity: efforts to maximize votes through such activi
ties as passing out literature or circulars or by using press releases.
Second, party activity is considered as the communication network
within the party, specifically, contacts between the county chairmen
and a wide range of party and state officials. Stated another way,
these two aspects of the dependent variable reflect, first, externally


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Before finishing this study, I regarded acknowledgments as
necessary but usually gratuitous exercises, prompted more by polite
ness than by genuine appreciation. Five years and three states later,
I have changed my opinion. No one is more conscious of the errors in
this work than am I; no one is more aware than I of the errors it has
been spared by the advice and help of friends.
First, my thanks to friends in Texas, Charles Hansen and Mary
Fontenot, both of Lamar University, for their long suffering patience
in helping me overcome problems presented by the computer. I want also
to thank friends at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg:
Dr. Evan Krauter of the Department of Psychology for his willingness
to listen to me talk about the whole project and for his excellent
suggestions; Dr. Michael Dressman of the Department of English for
such superb editing it almost succeeds in transforming my social science
prose into standard English; Choong Lee of the Political Science
Department for his invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript
on the computer: a great expenditure of his time and a great saving
of mine; and Gretchen Worth, who put it all into final form; her
corrections were always better than my own.
From Florida, where it both began and ended, I must thank Dr.
Clubok for his fortitude in refusing to accept what was unacceptable
work, probably saving me future embarrassment, if causing me momentary
iv


117
APPENDIX A (continued)
-6-
31. From what group would you say you get the most information about political problems in your
county? (Group)
32. What group most often asks you for information about political problems in your county?
(Group)
33. Have you ever held public office? Yes -No
34. At some time in the future, would you ever
want to hold some higher party office? Yes No
35. Do you want to keep your present position as
county chairman for the foreseeable future? Yes No
36. Would you like to run for a public
(non-party) office sometime in the future? __Yes No
37.a. _Male Female
b. What is your age?
c. What is your major occupation?
d. Check the highest level of formal education completed.
Some
Finished
Some
Graduated
Graduated
Post-
Grade
Grade
High
From High
Some
From
Graduate
None
School
School
School
School
College
College
Work
e. Race: White Negro -Other
f. From what country do you trace your ancestry?
g. How long have you held your present party office? _
h. List previous party offices and dates held. __
If you would like to have the results of this survey, check here.


45
conservatives claim to "often" use literature while campaigning. On
the other hand, there are only small differences between Republican
chairmen who categorize themselves as liberal and those calling them
selves conservatives. Even the greatest differences are small. Only
6 percent more Republican liberals than Republican conservatives report
"often" using surveys or polls; there is almost no difference between
conservative and liberal Republicans who report that they "often" use
press releases. Only about 3 percent more conservatives say they
"often" use circulars; only 9 percent more conservative Republicans
say they "sometimes" use radio advertisements in campaigns. A varia
tion from this pattern exists in the use of literature. There, 16 per
cent more conservative than liberal Republicans report "sometimes"
using literature. However, only 12 percent more liberal Republican
chairmen than conservative Republican chairmen report "often" using
literature and only 4 percent more liberals say they "never" use liter
ature in campaigning.
That the distinction between Democratic liberals and Democratic
conservatives is the consequence of genuine differences between liber
als and conservatives and not solely the result of being a Democrat is
shown by the figures presented in Table 3-6. Large and statistically
significant differences exist between liberals and conservatives, re
gardless of party. These differences are larger than those between
the parties themselves. Almost 9 percent more conservatives than
liberals report "never" using surveys or polls; nearly 14 percent more
liberals than conservatives say they "often" use press releases, 59
percent to 45 percent; 10 percent more liberals than conservatives say
they "often" use circulars; 8 percent more conservatives than liberals


39
the chairmen determines the activity of the county organization, occu
pation may be a key to differences between counties. Farmers and farm
workers are likely to be found in less populated counties, managers and
professionals may tend to be found in more heavily populated counties.
The data presented in Table 3-3 support this contention. The counties
have been divided according to population, from the lowest to the
highest 25 percent. While ,18 percent of the professionals, nationwide,
are found in counties with populations of 8,000 or less, that figure
rises steadily from 22 percent in counties of 8,001 to 23,999 in popu
lation, 27 percent in counties with a population of 24,000 to 72,999,
and finally, 32 percent in the most populated counties, those above
73,000 population. Farmers and farm workers dwindle in number as the
county population increases: 47 percent in the least populous counties
falling to only 6 percent in the most populated counties. Managers and
officials remain essentially unchanged across all levels of population,
an average of 25 percent, with the greatest deviation from that aver
age, only 4 percent, occurring in counties of 8,000 or less population.
The national figures are mirrored in those reported by party. The
percentage of professionally employed Democrats rises from 19 percent
in counties of 8,000 or less population to 36 percent in the most popu
lated counties, while Democratic farmers and farm workers fall from 47
percent to 4 percent. Among Republicans, professionals grow from 18 per
cent in counties of 8,000 or less to 28 percent in counties of 73,000 or
above. On the other hand, farmers decrease from 47 percent in the least
populated counties to 8 percent in the most populated. The implications
of population as a factor in local party activity will be discussed
further below in conjunction with the frequency of contacting.


94
Twenty-eight percent of the amateurs report precincts in their
counties are without organization. For the semiprofessionals, the
figure is almost 10 percent less, 19 percent, and for professionals,
less than one-half the percentage of amateurs, 12 percent. The same
relative positions are kept for the categories of from 1 to 25 percent
of the precincts organized. Conversely, at the other end of the scale,
more than 35 percent of the semiprofessionals and more than 46 percent
of the professionals say that between 76 and 100 percent of their pre
cincts are organized, while only 27 percent of the amateurs classify
that percentage of precincts in their counties as organized. Degree of
organization seems clearly associated with increasing professional
orientation. A.s the table reports, the least organized counties are
found in those headed by the majoritarian chairmen. Forty-two percent
of the raajoritarians report no precincts organized. Only 26 percent of
the majoritarians say all precincts in their counties are organized, a
figure smaller than that of any other group. Thus, while the percentage
of organized precincts declines with increasing professional orientation
among all groups, the raajoritarians show the least precinct organiza
tion. That the counties headed by the amateur chairmen are less organ
ized is expected from the attitudes of amateurs toward party politics.
While organization is a goal in itself for the professional, the amateur
relies upon ideological conviction to maintain loyalty (Wilson, 1968).
A more fundamental question than the degree of organization is
whether the organization is put to use in election campaigns. To exam
ine the differences between professionals and amateurs in this regard,
two sets of questions asked of the chairmen are correlated. The first
series of questions asked the chairmen if an election for any of ten


APPENDIX D (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
Other County Party Chairmen
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
35.1
45.9
10.8
8.1
37
34.6
45.2
15.4
3.8
26
High school
25.4
51.7
14.4
8.5
118
41.0
37.2
15.4
6.4
78
Some college
36.8
43.2
12.6
7.4
190
35.4
44.8
12.3
7.5
212
College and post-grad.
33.1
38.6
16.1
12.1
347
28.3
43.6
20.9
7.2
445
Age
22 to 35
39.3
39.3
13.1
8.3
84
32.7
35.6
20.2
11.5
104
36 to 50
33.5
38.5
17.7
10.2
322
30.1
44.6
19.7
5.7
386
51 to 65
31.6
47.1
11.1
10.2
225
31.5
47.9
14.6
6.1
213
65 to 86
25.4
52.5
11.9
10.2
59
42.6
33.3
13.0
11.1
54
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
31.3
39.6
17.0
12.2
270
29.8
42.0
22.4
5.9
255
Managers, officials
32.6
42.1
15.8
9.5
221
35.2
43.3
15.9
5.6
270
Farmers, farm workers
32.9
50.0
8.5
8.5
82
25.3
44.4
17.2
13.1
99
Time in Office
2 years or less
38.5
39.2
13.6
8.7
265
30.3
41.9
21.7
6.1
346
3 or 4 years
33.1
43.1
16.6
7.2
181
32.9
48.6
15.0
3.5
173
5 years or more
27.1
44.2
14.6
14.2
240
33.2
42.8
14.4
9.6
229


48
obtain statistical significance; even there, however, the greatest per
centage difference between the organizations of the Democratic and
Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements is
only 3.2 percent, 24.6 percent of the Republican chairmen reporting
they "never" use radio advertisements as opposed to 21.4 percent of
the Democratic chairmen. For the use of literature, the figures are
similar: only 4 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they
"never" use literature; almost identical percentages, 53.8 percent
among Democrats and 53.3 percent among Republicans, say they "often"
use it.
Why such wide differences should exist between liberal Democrats
and conservative Democrats merits consideration, particularly in light
of the muted differences between Republican liberals and Republican
conservatives. If political attitude itself were an adequate explana
tion for the activity differences, it would be anticipated that liber
als and conservatives would behave similarly, regardless of party. As
this is not the case, explanations must be sought elsewhere.
In examining the percentage differences between liberal and con
servative Democrats over each of the five party activity areas, the
liberal Democratic chairmen report greater campaign activity than do
the conservative Democratic chairmen. This is true if only the "often"
category is examined or if the "often" responses are combined with the
"sometimes" responses. As for the Republicans, while the differences
between the liberal Republican chairmen and the conservative chairmen
are very small, the liberal Republicans still exceed the conservative
Republican chairmen in the percentage of "often" responses in four of
the five activity areas. The one exception is the distribution of


70
Table 4-3
Chairmens Ambitions by Amateur,
Semiprofessional, and Professional
Degree of Professionalism
(percent answering "yes")
Semi-
Ambition
Amateur
Prof.
Prof.
Ever held public
office?
29.2
38.7
47.7
N =
38
300
282
X = 20,05a
Wish higher party office?
29.7
36.7
41.0
N =
38
274
235
X = 6.46a
Wish to keep present
position?
41.5
44.8
53.8
N =
51
335
302
X = 12.72a
£
df = 2; significant at .05
of them wish for higher party office, compared to 41 percent of the
professionals. Only 41 percent of the amateurs (opposed to 54 percent
of the professionals) want to keep their present positions. The semi
professionals fall between the amateurs and the professionals. The
lesser interest of amateurs in pursuing higher party office or in main
taining their current party office may be indicative of a dissatisfac
tion with party politics as was the case among the Iowa activists. A
final variable frequently mentioned in the literature of amateurs and
professionals is the liberalconservative dimension. While Wilson
reports that Democratic clubs in California tend overwhelmingly to be
liberal, he also maintains that ". . it is not his liberalism ...


86
Table 5-3
Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional
by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
N
Governor
Amateur
7.8
21.7
17.4
53.0
115
Semi-Professional
13.3
31.2
16.3
39.2
693
Professional
21.2
34.0
16.4
x2
28.3
= 41.50a
523
State Legislators
Amateur
2.8
31.1
17.2
19.7
122
Semi-Professional
21.1
39.9
11.8
7.7
730
Professional
20.8
36.4
6.1
x2
4.7
= 64.54
555
Congressmen
Amateur
15.7
28.7
16.5
39.1
115
Semi-Professional
22.7
41.2
18.4
17.7
695
Professional
31.7
41.1
15.7
X2
11.4
= 63.14
542
U.S. Senators
Amateur
9.7
31.0
9.1
38.9
113
Semi-Professional
17.0
42.4
20.2
20.5
694
Professional
25.2
43.3
17.0
x2
14.5
= 50.23
524
State Chairmen
Amateur
42.9
31.7
11.1
14.3
126
Semi-Professional
45.3
39.3
10.9
4.6
746
Professional
54.4
34.7
8.5
x2
2.5
= 42.77
568
Other Chairmen
Amateur
25.0
35.8
20.0
19.2
120
Semi-Professional
29.5
44.2
18.1
8.2
719
Professional
37.4
43.4
13.4
x2
5.8
= 37.77
553
a
df
for all chi-squares
6; all figures significant at .001


109
Edwards, Allen L. (1957), Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1964). Political Parties: A Behavioral
Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Epstein, Leon (1970). Political Parties in Western Democracies, New
York: Praeger.
Flinn, Thomas A. and Wirt, Frederick M. (1965). "Local Party Leaders:
Groups of Like Minded Men." Midwest Journal of Political Science
9:77-98.
Gluck, Peter (1972). "Research Note: Incentives and the Maintenance
of Political Styles in Different Locales." Western Political
Quarterly 25:753-760.
Hirschfield, R.; Swanson, Bert; and Blank, Blanche (1962). "A Profile
of Political Activist in Manhattan." Western Political Quarterly
20:489-506.
Hitlin, Robert A. and Jackson, John (1977). "On Amateur and Profes
sional Politicians." Journal of Politics 39:786-793.
Hofstetter, C. Richard (1971). "The Amateur Politician: A Problem in
Construct Validation." Midwest Journal of Political Science
15:31-56.
Huckshorne, Robert (1976). Party Leadership in the United States.
Amherst, Mass.: Univ. of Mass. Press.
Johnson, Donald Bruce and Gibson, James R. (1974). "The Divisive
Primary Revisited: Party Activists in Iowa." American Political
Science Review 68:6792.
Katz, Daniel and Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1961). "The Impact of Local
Party Activity Upon the Electorate." Public Opinion Quarterly
25:1-24. .
Key, V. 0. (1961). Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Ladd, Carll Everett and Hadley, Charles D. (1975). Transformations
of the American Party System. New York: W. W. Norton.
Leiserson, Avery (1958). Parties and Politics. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Madron, Thomas W. and Chelf, Carl P. (1974). Political Parties in
the United States. Boston: Holbrock Press.
McClosky, Herbert J.; Hoffmann, Paul J.; and O'Hara, Rosemary (I960).
"Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers."
American Political Science Review 44:406-427.


85
The data presented in Table 5-3 point toward these expectations.
The table presents the reported frequency of contact by amateur, semi-
professional, and professional chairmen with various party and public
officials, officials defined in Chapter Three. All of the chi-squares
are statistically significant at .001. In each case, the professional
chairmen are far more likely than the amateurs and somewhat more likely
than the semiprofessionals to report frequent contacts with any of the
elected or party officials considered here. While 53 percent of the
amateurs say they "never" contact the state's governor on party
business, only 28 percent of the professionals and 39 percent of the
semiprofessionals say they "never" contact the governor. Fewer than
3 percent of the amateurs say they contact state legislators "often,"
but six times that figure, 20.8 percent, of the professionals say they
"often" contact state legislators. In terms of percentages, twice as
many professionals as amateurs report "often" contacting congressmen
on party business, 31.7 to 15.7 percent. By a margin of 15.5 percent,
more professional than amateur chairmen report "often" contacting U.S.
senators; almost 39 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact
U.S. senators, compared to only 15 percent of the professionals. Look
ing at party officers, professionals are also more likely to contact
state chairmen or other county party chairmen than are the amateurs.
More than one-half the professionals, 54.4 percent, report "often"
contacting state chairmen, opposed to 43 percent among the amateurs.
In each case covered in Table 5-3, semiprofessionals are found between
the amateurs and the professionals in regard to "often" contacting.
Table 5-4 presents the figures for rates of contact for amateurs,
professionals, and majoritarians. All chi-squares are statistically


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial ful
fillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
March 1980
Dean, Graduate School


17
thirty-five; 19 percent of the Democrats and 29 percent of the Repub
licans were between ages fifty-six and sixty-five (Yeric, 1973).
As Table 2-1 indicates, for the national sample of chairmen,
Republicans tend to be slightly younger than Democrats, an average age
of forty-eight and forty-nine years old, respectively. For both par
ties, most chairmen are between ages thirty-six and fifty: 46 percent
of the Democrats and 51 percent of the Republicans. An additional
33 percent of the Democrats and 28 percent of the Republicans are found
between ages fifty-one and sixty-five. Participation in the role of
county chairman declines rapidly after age sixty-five. Between ages
sixty-five and eighty-six are found only 10 percent of the Democrats
and 8 percent of the Republicans. Differences between the parties in
respect to age are minimal; the chairmen of both parties tend to be
middle and slightly above middle age.
Because of the wide range of occupations held by the county chair
men, only those occupational classifications that comprise 10 percent
or more of the whole sample (i.e., 160 chairmen or more) were included.
These classifications are those of (1) professional, technical, and
kindred workers, (2) managers, officials, and proprietors, and (3)
farmers and farm managers. These categories comprise 81 percent of the
whole sample (1,305 cases). The differences between the Democratic and
Republican chairmen are not statistically significant. The largest
differences are found between Democratic and Republican chairmen in
professional occupations; 6 percent more Democrats than Republicans
are found in that classification. Overall, the differences between
the chairmen are small.


APPENDIX B
Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables
(in percents)
Democrats Republicans
Activity:
Use of Surveys or Polls
Often
Some
times
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
5.6
41.7
52.8
36
16.7
45.8
37.5
24
High school
16.0
29.2
54.7
106
18.4
28.9
12.5
76
Some college
9.9
43.4
46.7
182
12.0
46.4
41.7
192
College and post-grad.
10.8
39.4
49.8
325
24.9
40.5
44.7
430
Age
22 to 35
7.2
42.2
50.6
83
13.7
39.2
47.1
102
36 to 50
13.9
41.0
45.2
310
14.2
40.9
44.9
347
51 to 65
8.9
34.7
56.4
202
13.9
41.8
44.3
201
66 to 86
9.4
39.6
50.9
53
22.5
42.5
35.0
40
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
10.5
35.9
53.5
256
14.3
43.3
42.4
245
Managers, officials
12.6
44.7
42.7
206
16.1
39.2
44.7
255
Farmers, farm workers
6.3
27.8
65.8
79
7.4
34.0
58.5
94
Time in Office
2 years or less
12.5
42.7
44.7
255
15.7
41.1
43.2
331
3 or 4 years
11.7
42.7
45.6
171
12.5
46.4
41.1
168
5 years or more
9.1
32.0
58.9
219
13.9
36.5
49.5
208
Activity:
Use of Circulars
Education
None-some high school
52.5
40.0
7.5
40
46.4
53.6
0.0
28
High school
40.7
46.6
12.7
118
51.8
44.6
3.6
83
Some college
49.7
40.6
9.6
197
48.1
44.7
7.3
206
College and post-grad.
50.6
41.2
8.2
342
53.3
40.0
6.6
452
Age_
22 to 35
37.5
52.3
10.2
88
48.1
43.4
8.5
106
36 to 50
51.7
40.8
7.5
319
53.2
42.7
4.1
393
51 to 65
52.0
38.3
9.7
227
49.3
43.3
7.4
215
66 to 86
38.7
46.8
14.5
62
52.0
36.0
12.0
50
118


83
Table 5-2
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian
by Campaign Activity
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
Amateur
8.1
36.4
55.6
99
Professional
16.3
40.7
43.0
528
Maj oritarian
5.6
33.3
61.1
18
df =
4
X2 = 9.36b
Press Releases
Amateur
43.3
45.2
11.5
104
Professional
55.5
37.2
7.4
557
Maj oritarian
36.8
52.6
10.5
19
df =
4
X2 = 7.88
Circulars
Amateur
41.3
46.2
12.5
104
Professional
56.8
38.8
4.4
570
Maj oritarian
38.9
44.4
16.7
18
df =
4
X2 = 19.35a
Radio
Amateur
27.2
35.9
36.9
103
Professional
43.0
39.0
18.0
556
Majoritarian
35.0
45.0
20.0
20
df =
4
X2 = 20.81a
Literature
Amateur
41.6
45.5
12.9
101
Professional
60.8
34.9
4.3
558
Maj oritarian
30.0
55.0
15.0
20
df =
4
X2 = 26.08a
Significant at .001
Significant at .05


90
Table 5-5
Amateur
Contacting
by Length of
Time in
Office
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
Governor
2 years or less
11.8
17.6
19.6
51.0
3 or 4 years
6.1
27.3
15.2
51.5
5 years or more
3.3
23.3
13.3
60.0
x2
= 3.61'
State Legislators
2 years or less
37.0
25.9
14.8
22.2
3 or 4 years
23.5
38.2
20.6
17.6
5 years or more
33.3
33.3
18.2
2
X
15.2
= 3.26
Congressmen
2 years or less
14.0
28.0
16.0
42.0
3 or 4 years
16.1
25.8
19.4
38.7
5 years or more
15.6
34.4
15.6
34.4
x2
= .97
U.S. Senators
2 years or less
10.2
24.5
20.4
44.9
3 or 4 years
9.4
28.1
21.9
40.6
5 years or more
10.0
43.3
16.7
30.0
x2
= 3.54
State Chairman
2 years or less
53.7
24.1
9.3
13.0
3 or 4 years
44.1
32.4
8.8
14.7
5 years or more
25.0
44.4
16.7
13.9
x2
= 8.31
Other Chairmen
2 years or less
25.5
41.8
20.0
12.7
3 or 4 years
26.7
36.7
23.3
13.3
5 years or more
24.2
24.2
18.2
33.3
X2 = 7.36
adf for all chi-squares = 6
N
51
33
30
54
34
33
50
31
32
49
32
30
54
34
36
55
30
33


20
Larger differences appear, however, in regard to length of time
in office. Southern chairmen serve in office longer than their non-
Southern counterparts. While 45 percent of the non-Southern chairmen
have been in office less than two years, only 36 percent of the
Southern chairmen fall into that category. Conversely, nearly 38 per
cent of the Southerners, but only 31 percent of the non-Southerners,
have been in office five years or more. With regard, then, to the
demographic variables of age, education, occupation, and time in
office, it may be said Democratic and Republican chairmen do not differ
greatly one from another. Differences are minor between Southern and
non-Southern chairmen, also, with the exception of tenure in office.
The second step in this analysis is to examine the opinion struc
ture of the county chairmen. Differences in policy preferences among
party leaders have been noted in several studies; McClosky's is probably
the best known (McClosky et al., 1960). He examined delegates to the
Democratic and Republican national party conventions, comparing their
issue preferences with the preferences of a national sample of adults.
The issues fell under five broad headings: Public Ownership, Government
Regulation of the Economy, Equalitarianism and Human Welfare, Tax
Policy, and Foreign Policy. McClosky found differences between Repub
licans and Democratic leaders "... conform with the popular image in
which the Democratic party is seen as the more 'progressive' or
'.radical,' the Republican as the more 'moderate' or 'conservative' of
the two" (p. 410). A similar division has been reported by Nie, Verba,
and Petrocik. They find that Democrats, especially the party activists,
tend to cluster heavily in the liberal end of an issue scale while
the Republicans are likely to be found at the conservative end of the


THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON
COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY
By
DWIGHT LAMBERT
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
REFERENCES 108
APPENDICES
A County Chairmen Questionnaire .... 112
B Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 118
C Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 121
D Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact 124
E Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact 130
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 136
vii


103
The character of the American electorate appears to have changed
over the last twenty-five years. In the 1950s, political party was,
for most Americans, the major guide to political activity: . party
affiliation served as an anchor point for the citizen" (Nie at al,,
1976, p. 22). Between the 1950s and the 1970s, however, major social
changes took place that greatly influenced and modified the relation
ship between individuals and political parties in the United States.
Increases in educational attainment and affluence, coupled with the
advent of electronic media and the mass dissemination of political
information, has enabled the electorate to depend less upon parties as
a source of political information and to rely more upon agents other
than partiesjournalists, for examplefor political intelligence.
Greater levels of education, as well as greater availability of informa
tion, have also enabled the electorate to rely more upon itself for
political information (Agranoff, 1972; Burnham, 1975; Sorauf, 1976).
What seems to have happened in the two decades between the 1950s and
the 1970s is the development of a politically active class capable of
scrutinizing issues, formulating opinions, and actively participating
in politics without the heavy reliance upon political parties that
characterized most political participants before the 1950s (Ladd and
Hadley, 1975; Nie et al., 1976). This is the antithesis of the en
vironment in which the traditional political machine thrives. The
traditional machine, perhaps the highest degree of political party
organization in the United States, flourished in conditions of low
levels of education and eocnomic distress (Scott, 1969).
The consequence of these developments in economics and in educa
tion has been to produce a "new style" in American politics, a style


44
Table 3-5
Liberal-Conservative Dimension by Attitude Toward
Activity of the Federal Government
(in percents)
Liberal-Conservative
Dimension Federal Government Activity
increase
remain
the same
decrease
N
Liberal
38.1
21.7
40.2
336
Middle-of-the-Road
9.5
18.5
72.0
465
Conservative
5.3
6.9
87.8
625
X2 = 287.90a
o.
df = 4; significant at .001
with the exception of the use of radio. Other than the campaign use of
the radio, the lowest chi-square among the Democrats in the liberal-
conservative category is 23.03, for surveys or polls; the highest
figure is for the use of literature, 46.78. Substantial percentage
differences exist between Democratic chairmen who classify themselves
as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. For example,
liberal Democrats are three and one-half times more likely, in terms
of percentages, to report "often" using surveys or poll's than are con
servative Democrats, 13.3 percent to 3.8 percent. Democratic liberals
are 16.7 percent more likely to report "often" using press releases
than are their conservative counterparts, while Democratic conserva
tives are five times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report
"never" using circulars, 20 percent to 4 percent. Eleven percent more
conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats claim "never" to use the
radio in election campaigns, while 25 percent more liberals than


APPENDIX C
Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables
(in percents)
Activity:
Use of Surveys or Polls
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
Remain the same
Decrease
Most Concerned With:
Local
State
Nation
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
Activity:
Use of Circulars
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
Remain the same
Decrease
Most Concerned With:
Local
State
Nation
Democrats
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
13.3
44.0
42.7
293
11.8
37.1
51.1
229
3.8
27.4
68.9
106
13.9
43.7
42.4
151
10.0
41.7
48.3
120
9.7
35.1
55.2
319
10.0.
41.7
48.3
180
11.4
34.2
54.3
184
9.6
41.7
49.3
146
9.4
31.2
59.4
135
12.1
43.7
44.2
355
4.4
44.4
51.1
45
57.2
38.6
4.2
311
43.8
45.9
10.3
242
37.0
42.9
20.2
119
55.2
41.7
3.1
163
54.3
40.3
5.4
129
42.8
43.4
13.8
341
54.5
34.8
10.7
187
44.7
47.7
7.6
197
47.1
43.8
9.2
153
Republicans
Some
Often
times
Never
N
20.0
40.0
40.0
35
14.2
45.4
40.4
218
14.2
38.7
47.1
450
29.0
32.3
38.7
31
11.3
41.9
46.8
62
13.7
41.8
44.5
600
18.2
37.4
44.4
187
11.2
43.4
45.4
196
9.7
40.0
50.3
195
17.2
40.1
42.7
157
13.1
41.6
45.2
389
18.7
37.4
44.0
91
45.7
45.7
8.6
35
57.8
38.4
3.9
232
48.5
44.6
6.9
478
60.0
31.4
8.6
35
48.4
46.8
4.8
62
50.4
43.0
6.6
639
54.2
39.9
5.9
203
54.4
38.7
6.9
204
41.0
49.5
9.5
200
121


61
77 percent. Middle-of-the-road Republicans fall between the conserva
tives and the liberals with 86 percent contacting state legislators
"often" or "sometimes."
These figures, in conjunction with the figures comparing the im
pact of the demographic and attitudinal variables, have implications
for the understanding of local party activity. They do not tend to
substantiate the speculation made in the literature of county party
chairmen that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the
chairmen will have an impact upon the activity of the county organiza
tion, at least as the activity of the local organizations has been
measured here: in terms of electorally oriented activity. The demo
graphic and attitudinal variables do appear to make a difference in
the organization's electoral activities in the case of occupation or
liberal-conservative attitudes; however, theoretical explanations as
well as the empirical evidence appear to indicate otherwisein the
case of occupation or liberal-conservative beliefs, the appropriate
ness of the activity in regard to the county's population seems to make
a larger difference. The next chapter establishes the framework for a
move away from demographic and attitudinal traits, toward an examina
tion of the chairmen's political orientations and the impact of those
orientations upon local party activity.


APPENDIX A
County Chairmen Questionnaire
PARTY LEADERSHIP OPINION STUDY
1.What do you consider to be the most important problem facing your state today?
2. What is your opinion on tire following state issues:
Are you favorable or Very Very No
unfavorable toward: Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
a) the death penalty for persons
convicted of murder?
b) a law which would permit
a woman to go to a doctor
to end a pregnancy any
time during the first
three months?
c) having all new automobiles
equipped with an anti-
pollution device which would
add approximately $100 to
the price of an automobile?
d) a law which would require a
person to obtain a police
permit before he or she
could buy a gun?
e) permitting public school
teachers to join unions? -
f) permitting public school
teachers to strike?
g) permitting policemen and
firemen to join unions?
h) permitting policemen and
firemen to strike?
i) making the use of marijuana
legal?
j) a law requiring automobile
drivers suspected of having
consumed too much alcohol
to take a breath test or a
blood test?
k) the no fault plan dealing
with auto insurance?
l) state aid for education going
to Catholic and other
private schools?
3. Please rank the top three of the following reasons for why you wanted to become a county
chairman. Write 1 for the reason that was most important in your decision, 2 for the reason
that was next important, and 3 for tire reason that was next important.
Strong party loyalty Helpful in private business contacts
Politics is part of my way of life Want to seek other public or party offices
Social contacts and friends Enjoy campaigns
Contact with influential people Personal friendship with candidate
Concern with public issues Sense of community obligation
112


43
"often using surveys or polls but who desire a decrease in the activ
ity of the federal government. The 14 percent of the Republican chair
men who claim "often" to use surveys but who want a decrease in national
government activity exceeds by about 15 percent those Republicans who
"often" use surveys or polls and wish for more federal activity. The
differences within the category of federal government activity are con
sistent across all five campaign activities, but are greatest among
Democratic chairmen over the use of literature, as reflected in the chi-
square of 24.67 as well as in the percentage results that indicate 21
percent more Democrats who favor increased activity than Democrats
favoring lessened activity, 66.9 to 45.6 percent, report "often" using
literature.
These relatively large percentage differences probably reflect a
correspondence between ranking on the liberal-conservative continuum
and attitudes toward the activity of the federal government. This
expectation is borne out by the data in Table 3-5, which crosstabulates
the liberal-conservative dimension with attitudes toward federal gov
ernment activity. Regardless of rank on the liberal-conservative
dimension, large proportions of chairmen favor a decrease in federal
activity. However, more than twice as many conservatives as liberals
favor such a decrease, 88 percent to 40 percent. On the other hand,
the percentage of liberals favoring an increase in the activity of the
federal government is more than seven times the number of conservatives
favoring an increase.
Impact of the liberal-conservative distinction. Turning specifi
cally to the liberalconservative category, the chi-squares are con
sistently high and statistically significant across all activities,


120
APPENDIX B (continued)
Democrats
Some-
Often times Never N
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
Managers, officials
Farmers, farm workers
Time in Office
2 years or less
3 or 4 years
5 years or more
35.8
37.7
26.4
265
41.7
46.2
12.1
223
28.4
42.0
29.5
88
37.1
43.1
19.9
267
39.3
44.4
16.3
178
34.9
38.7
26.4
235
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
41.8
37.1
21.1
256
34.9
41.3
23.8
269
24.8
43.8
31.4
105
36.2
40.6
23.2
345
32.9
37.6
29.5
173
36.5
40.9
22.6
230
Activity:
Use of Literature
Education
None-some high school
51.2
36.6
High school
49.6
43.5
Some college
55.1
36.2
College and post-grad.
54.5
38.1
Age
22 to 35
48.9
44.3
36 to 50
59.6
35.1
51 to 65
50.0
40.3
66 to 86
42.4
40.7
Occupation
Professional, technical
S>
kindred workers
56.1
34.3
Managers, officials
54.8
41.6
Farmers, farm workers
37.9
48.3
Time in Office
2 years or less
55.6
39.6
3 or 4 years
51.6
41.4
5 years or more
53.9
34.1
12.2
41
50.0
46.2
3.8
26
7.0
115
56.1
40.2
3.7
82
8.7
196
53.8
42.3
3.8
208
7.3
341
53.0
42.1
4.9
451
6.8
88
55.2
35.2
9.5
105
5.3
317
54.9
42.1
3.1
390
9.7
226
47.7
47.7
4.6
218
16.9
59
61.2
34.7
4.1
47
9.6
271
56.7
36.6
6.7
254
3.6
221
54.1
44.1
1.9
270
13.8
87
34.0
57.5
8.5
106
4.9
268
55.8
39.0
5.2
346
7.0
186
48.6
48.0
3.4
177
12.1
232
54.6 '
41.0
4.4
229


75
Table 4-6
Amateur, Professional, Majoritarian
by Demographic Traits
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Amateur Professional Maj oritarian
Education
None-high school
11.3
21.8
31.8
Some college
20.8
27.7
31.8
College and post-grad.
67.9
50.5
36.4
N =
106
596
22
Age
df =
4
X2 = 14.36a
22 to 50
69.2
54.4
68.2
51 to 86
30.8
45.6
31.8
N =
104
594
22
df =
2
X2 = 9.13a
Time in Office
2 to 4 years
74.3
60.8
47.6
5 years or more
25.7
39.2
52.4
N =
105
587
21
df =
2
X2 = 8.90a
Sex
Male
89.7
94.1
86.4
Female
10.3
5.9
13.6
N ='
107
597
22
df = 2 X2 = 4.52
significant at
.01


93
election campaign and, second, by looking at the degree to which the
local party actually did campaign for elective offices.
The degree to which the county was organized to campaign is mea
sured by the chairmen's assessment of the number of precincts in the
county that are organized. The results, presented in Table 5-6, indi
cate that the amateurs report fewer organized precincts than do the
professionals.
Table 5-6
Level of Precinct Organization by Amateurism
(in percents)
Percent of
organized
precincts
Amateur
Semi
prof .
"Prof.
none
28.1
19.4
11.8
1 to 25
17.4
15.7
13.1
26 to 50
11.6
12.1
12.2
51 to 75
15.7
17.1
16.3
76 to 100
27.3
35.7
46.6
N =
121
718
558
9
X = 35
.51a
Percent of
organized
precincts
Amateur
Semi-
prof.
Majori-
tarian
none
25.3
11.8
42.1
1 to 25
25.3
11.8
42.1
26 to 50
17.2
13.1
10.5
51 to 75
17.2
16.3
10.5
76 to 100
28.3
46.6
26.3
N =
99
558
19
X2 = 29.87a
df = 8; significant at .001


CHAPTER TWO
THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITHDINAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHAIRMEN
Despite the emphasis analysts give to the importance of the county
organization in American politics, little empirical work has been done
on county party chairmen. The work that has been done is confined to
studies of one or two states and the studies themselves limited to the
analysis of socio-economic differences, only occasionally and only
peripherally touching upon differences in the attitudes or the activi
ties of the chairmen. This analysis is based upon a sample comprising
all fifty states; the sample includes information on the social charac
teristics of the chairmen as well as their attitudes on a variety of
policy positions. With these data it is possible to arrive, first, at
a national profile of county chairmen, and, second, to explore their
political attitudes and values. This chapter is divided into two sec
tions: first, an examination of the demographic characteristics of the
chairmen, and second, a comparison of the chairmen in terms of their
political attitudes.
I will compare the chairmen in terms of the demographic variables
of education, age, and occupation; in addition, length of time in the
office of county chairman is considered. These variables have been
selected to be consistent with earlier studies of county party chair
men. These characteristics are important in the context of political
13


73
respond to the wishes of the constituency. The professional, concerned
with winning elections, is likely to be more sensitive to the constitu
ency's wishes.
The chairmen were asked: "In making most kinds of policy deci
sions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own best
judgment even if this means doing something unpopular, or that poli
ticians ought to do what a majority of their constituents want?" The
responses are reported in Table 4-5. The majority of the activists,
52 percent, believe politicans should rely upon their own judgment in
making policy decisions; 30 percent feel politicians should use a
combination of their own judgment and that of their constituents, while
18 percent believe majority opinion should provide the guide to politi
cal action. At the other extreme, while 38 percent of the profession
als think politicians should rely upon their own judgment exclusively,
only 5 percent fewer, 33 percent, believe policy decisions should be
made upon the preferences of the majority. The figures bear out the
expectation that professionals are more sensitive to the demands of
the constituency and, by implication, that most amateurs expect the
politician to pursue a "correct" policy solution, not necessarily
relying upon the attitudes of constituents for guidance.
Especially intriguing in these figures are the disparities among
the amateurs. While the semiprofessionals and professionals array
themselves evenly across the three categories, the amateurs cluster
heavilymore than one-halfupon reliance upon a politician's own
judgment. Yet almost 18 percent of the amateurs would rely exclusive
ly upon the majority opinion for making policy decisionsa surprising
response for the amateur activists, preoccupied with "correct" policy


60
and state legislators. When divided by the level of government with
which they are most concerned, the chi-squares for Republican chairmen
and contacting the governor is 19.55, for contacts with state legis
lators, 35.72; over the liberal-conservative dimension, the figure
between Republican chairmen and contacting of state legislators is
20.06. All of these figures are statistically significant; but in the
first two cases, contacts with the governor and with state legislators
by level of government with which the chairmen feel most concerned,
they tend to magnify smaller percentage differences. For instance,
while two times as many Republicans with local government as their
major concern indicate "often" contacting the governor as Republicans
concerned with national government, 14 percent to 7 percent, when the
categories of "often" and "sometimes" are combined, the difference
shrinks to a less substantial 7 percent. The figures do indicate,
however, a greater willingness among Republicans most concerned with
state government to contact the governor on party business.
In contacts with state legislators, 77 percent of the Republican
chairmen most concerned with local government maintain they "often" or
"sometimes" contact these state officials, compared to 73 percent of
those Republican chairmen most concerned with national government.
Once again, Republicans most concerned with state government, 83 per
cent, report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state legislators on
party business. Larger differences appear among Republicans when
divided along the liberal-conservative continuum over contacts with
state legislators. Over 62 percent of the liberals report "often" con
tacting state legislators compared to 41 percent of the conservatives;
when combined with the "sometimes" responses, the figures are 92 to


11
county chairman, may have an impact upon the county party organiza
tion. In addition, as discussed earlier, much previous research on
county chairmen implicitly postulates a connection between the demo
graphic traits of the chairmen and party activity. These are the
propositions examined in this study.
The research in the following pages is based upon a national
sample of county party chairmen done by the Institute of Public Admin
istration, Indiana University. The data themselves come from a mail
questionnaire sent in 1970 to 2,786 county chairmen across the United
States; 1,606 of the chairmen, or 57.6 percent, responded. The return
rate among Democrats was 55.6 percent and among Republicans 59.7 per
cent. The questions asked may be grouped into five broad categories:
(1) campaign activities of the county and precinct party organizations,
(2) organization of the county party, (3) the chairmen's opinions on a
variety of policy and government oriented issue areas at both the state
and national level, (4) the chairmen's perceptions of the job of county
chairman, and (5) demographic information on the chairmen. A copy of
the questionnaire may be found in Appendix A. This study makes possible
an exploration of the stratum of county party chairmen at the national
level and the county organizations they lead. In addition, it allows
for the analysis of the attitudes and political outlook of the chair
men, missing from earlier studies.
The balance of this research will examine local party organization
in the United States in light of the models described earlier: (1) that
the demographic and altitudinal characteristics of the chairmen are
associated with party activity; and (2) that the personnel orientations
of the chairmen toward political activity are related to differences in


56
of both parties over contacts with the states governors when the
chairmen are grouped by age; between Democratic chairmen and contacts
with congressmen, when broken down by education; and between Republican
chairmen and contacts with U.S, senators based on time-in-office of the
chairmen.
Regarding contacts with the state's governor, in both parties the
frequency of reported contacts increases with the chairman's age. Only
16 percent of the Democrats ages twenty-two to thirty-five report
"often" contacting the state's governor on party business, but that
figure rises to 25 percent among those Democratic chairmen sixty-six
years old or older. Among Republicans, 10 percent of those twenty-two
to thirty-five say they "often" contact the governor, but that figure
more than doubles, 21.4 percent, among those above sixty-five years
old. Similarly, for the chairmen of both parties, the incidence of
"never" responses decreases with the chairmen's age.
The frequency of "often" and "sometimes" responses by the chairmen
with regard to contacting the governor are generally lower in the two
highest age classifications, fifty-one to sixty-five and sixty-six to
eighty-six, than they are for any other office, public or private. In
all other offices, an average of nearly 78 percent of Democratic and
Republican chairmen above age fifty-one report "often" or "sometimes"
contacting public or party officers on party business; for governor,
the figure is less than 57 percent. Moreover, differences by age are
not as apparent in reported contacts for offices other than governor.
While, on the average, 71 percent of the chairmen from ages twentytwo
to fifty report "often" or "sometimes" contacting across all categories
except that of governor (7 percent fewer than those fifty-one years old


29
characteristics are negligible. Consequently, the following analysis
concentrates upon the chairmen without regional distinctions.
These results amount to a confirmation as well as an expansion of
earlier work on the county chairmen. Reaffirmed are the findings of
the chairmen's high social and educational status: they are well-
educated and tend to be found in professional and white-collar jobs.
They are also likely to be middle-aged, thirty-six to fifty years old.
These characteristics are those that enable political participation,
providing the necessary time, skill, and resources for participation.
In addition, the chairmen differ in their political attitudes. There
are appreciable differences between the parties on self-classifica
tion as liberal or conservative, the Democratic chairmen being more
liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Republican chairmen
are also more likely to favor a decrease in the activity of the
federal government than are Democrats.
Whether these differences in demographic and attitudinal profiles
among county chairmen appear as differences in local party activities
is an unexplored question. It is toward this question that attention
is turned in the following chapter.


52
greater population. Moreover, while there is no apparent reason that
demographic and attitudinal variables should be associated with county
party activity, the population of the county can be connected to county
activity by considering the utility of the activities for the local
party organization; the activities considered here are more useful in
more populated counties.
Population and party activity. The final step in this section of
the analysis is to examine the relationship between the activity areas
and the county population. If, in fact, population makes a difference
in the kinds of activity carried out by the county organizations, these
differences should be evident across different levels of population.
As Table 3-8 indicates, the frequency of reported activity does
differ in counties with differing populations. The lowest chi-square,
for the use of press releases, is 57.16, while the highest, for the
use of radio in campaigns, is 206.35; all are statistically significant
at .001. The percent differences are persuasive. While only 16 per
cent of the chairmen in counties of 8,000 or fewer population report
"often" using surveys or polls, over 46 percent report "often" using
them in counties of 73,000 and above population, a difference of 36
percent. Thirty percent of those reporting no use of surveys or polls
are in the least populated counties. The frequent use of press re
leases expands from 22 percent in lightly populated counties to 34 per
cent in heavily populated counties; figures for the use of circulars
parallel those for press releases. In the least populous counties,
radio is used frequently by only 10 percent of the chairmen, while in
the same counties 51 percent report "never" using radio. The per
centage of those "often" using radio increases steadily across the


3
A review of the research on the county party chairmen makes one
fact apparent: there is little consensus among the case studies.
Consequently, no ready summary of the previous work is possible. While
the variables examined have been consistentage, education, income,
occupation, liberal or conservativefew of the findings coincide.
Flinn and Wirt, studying state party chairmen in Ohio, conclude that
there is very little difference with regard to age, education, occu
pation, and income (1965). Patterson's study of Oklahoma chairmen,
on the other hand, finds Democratic chairmen older than Republican
chairmen, but the Republicans more educated, with higher occupational
status and higher incomes (1963). Pomper's study of chairmen in New
Jersey reports few differences between Democratic and Republican
chairmen in terms of age and income; in terms of occupation, however,
Republicans rank above Democrats in status (1965). These differences
in demographic characteristics imply the potential for differences in
the actions and in the attitudes of the county chairmen.
The premise underlying the study of demographic and attitudinal
traits is that those characteristics influence the local party leader
ship which, in turn, influences the local party organization. This
model may be specified as follows:
leadership
The model implies that demographic characteristics of individuals in
a party organization are an indicator of different types of party
activity. If this is true, one would anticipate differing party
activities from organizations directed by individuals who differ in


Table 3-6
46
Campaign Activity by Liberal-Conservative
Categorization and by Party
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Attitude
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
Liberal
14.0
43.6
42.4
328
Middle-of-Road
13.0
41.2
45.9
447
Conservative
12.2
36.5
51.3
556
df = 4 X2 = 7.14
Party
Democratic
11.0
39.2
49.8
653
Republican
14.5
41.0
44.6
725
df =
2
2
X = 5.
45
Attitude
Press
Releases
Liberal
58.8
35.1
6.1
345
Middle-of-Road
48.1
45.1
6.8
470
Conservative
45.1
45.6
9.3
592
df = 4 X2 = 18.67a
Party
Democratic
51.1
40.2
8.8
697
Republican
47.7
45.3
7.0
768
df = 4
X2 = 4.
50
Attitude
Circulars
Liberal
56.1
39.3
4.6
346
Middle-of-Road
50.6
42.2
7.2
474
Conservative
46.2
44.2
9.2
597
df = 4
2
X = 12
.69b
Party
Democratic
48.8
42.0
9.2
703
Republican
51.2
42.4
6.3
773
df
2
4.48


19
Table 2-2
Demographic Variables by Region
(in percents)
Region
Education
non-
Southern
Southern
nonesome high school
5.1
4.8
high school
14.7
12.6
some college
28.9
25.2
college and post-grad.
51.3
57.4
X2 = 5.34
N =
1073
516
df = 3
Age
22 to 35
12.7
12.3
36 to 50
47.9
46.8
51 to 65
31.3
31.4
66 to 86
8.2
9.6
9
X = 1.93
N =
1076
505
df = 3
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
41.9
44.9
Managers, officials
39.8
43.7
Farmers, farm workers
18.3
11.4
X = 10.16
N =
884
421 .
df = 2
Time in Office
2 years or less
44.5
36.1
3 or 4 years
24.3
26.0
5 years or more
31.2
37.9
X2 = 7.935
N =
1066
495
df = 2
significant at .001
^significant at .01


87
Table 5-4
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian
by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
N
Governor
Amateur
6.4
22.3
16.0
55.3
94
Professional
21.2
34.0
16.4
28.3
523
Maj oritarian
16.7
11.1
27.8
x2
44.4
= 35.16a
13
State Legislators
Amateur
32.4
31.4
17.6
18.6
102
Professional
52.8
36.4
6.1
4.7
551
Majoritarian
30.0
30.0
15.0
x2
25.0
= 56.27
20
Congressmen
Amateur
14.4
30.9
15.5
35.5
97
Professional
31.7
41.1
15.7
11.4
542
Majoritarian
22.2
16.7
22.2
X2
38.9
= 58.52
18
U.S. Senators
Amateur
9.4
32.3
20.8
37.5
96
Professional
25.2
43.3
17.0
14.5
524
Maj oritarian
11.8
23.5
17.6
X2
47.1
= 44.49
17
State Chairmen
Amateur
44.2
30.8
10.6
14.4
104
Professional
54.4
34.7
8.5
2.5
568
Maj oritarian
36.4
36.4
13.6
x2
13.6
= 35.55
22
Other Chairmen
Amateur
26.3
38.4
19.2
16.2
99
Professional
37.4
43.4
13.4
5.8
553
Maj ority
19.0
23.8
23.8
X2
33.3
= 37.87
21
adf for all ch
i-squares
6; all figures significant at .001


APPENDIX D (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
U.S. Senators on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
33.3
47.2
8.3
11.1
36
18.2
50.0
22.7
9.1
22
High school
20.6
48.6
15.0
15.9
167
17.7
48.1
21.5
12.7
79
Some college
23.9
46.3
13.8
16.0
188
19.7
34.8
21.7
23.7
198
College and post-grad.
18.8
40.9
20.9
19.4
330
18.7
38.8
19.4
23.1
428
Age
22 to 35
18.3
39.0
18.3
24.4
82
16.8
30.7
20.8
31.7
101
36 to 50
21.2
39.7
21.2
17.9
307
17.2
39.1
21.6
22.1
366
51 to 65
23.1
50.9
10.8
15.1
212
19.8
43.5
19.3
17.4
207
66 to 86
20.7
48.3
19.0
12.1
58
30.0
38.0
16.0
16.0
50
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
18.7
44.4
18.3
18.7
257
18.7
39.4
19.5
22.4
241
Managers, officials
25.1
41.2
17.1
16.6
211
19.8
39.5
22.1
18.6
263
Farmers, farm workers
13.8
53.8
12.5
20.0
80
11.3
44.3
19.6
24.7
97
Time in Office
2 years or less
18.4
45.2
18,4
18.0
250
17.4
36.4
18.7
27.5
327
3 or 4 years
25.8
40.4
19.1
14.6
178
16.5
35.4
30.5
17.7
164
5 years or more
20.5
45.4
14.4
19.7
229
22.0
46.6
14.8
16.6
223
127


76
Despite the loss of some variability, differences between the groups
are still apparent. For example, the majoritarians are three times as
likely, in terms of percentages, to have only a high school education
or less than are the remaining amateurs, 32 percent to 11 percent. The
amateurs are 17 percent more likely to have a college education or post
graduate work, 68 percent, than professionals, 51 percent, but far more
likely than the majoritarians, who report only 36 percent with a
college education or greater. Distinctions between amateurs and major
itarians over age are negligible, 69.2 percent of the amateurs are
below age fifty-one with 68.2 percent of the majoritarians in the same
category. Both of these groups, however, differ from the profession
als, where only 54 percent are under age fifty-one and nearly 46 per
cent are above age fifty.
Larger differences are noticeable when the chairmen are compared
over the time they have served in office. While 75 percent of the
amateurs and 61 percent of the professionals have served two to four
years, only 48 percent of the majoritarians have served five years or
less. Conversely, more than one-half the majoritarians, 52 percent,
have served five years or more, in contrast to 25 percent of the ama
teurs. There is little distinction between amateurs and majoritarians
regarding sex; only 3.6 percent more majoritarians are women.
To complete the comparisons among amateurs, professionals, and
majoritarians, Table 4-7 presents the distribution of amateurs by the
liberal-conservative dimension. While not statistically significant,
the figures indicate the greatest portion of the majoritarians classify
themselves as conservatives, over 69 percent, compared to 44 percent
among the remaining amateurs and 43 percent among professionals. In


122
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
APPENDIX C (continued)
Democrats
Some
Often
times
Never
N
46.7
42.1
11.2
152
52.0
40.5
7.5
373
44.9
42.9
12.2
49
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
46.7
46.2
7.1
169
54,1
39.3
6.6
407
49.0
44.7
6.3
96
Activity:
Use of Press Releases
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
60.4
33.1
Middle-of-the-Road
43.2
48.5
Conservative
43.7
40.3
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
55.4
35.5
Remain the same
54.0
41.9
Decrease
47.9
41.4
Most Concerned With:
Local
55.4
33.9
State
46.4
46.9
Nation
51.3
43.3
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
47.3
36.7
Economic
55.5
41.0
State Govt./Pol. Party
51.0
46.9
6.5
308
45.9
51.4
2.7
37
8.3
241
53.3
41.5
5.2
229
16.0
119
45.5
46.9
7.6
473
9.0
166
58.8
35.3
5.9
34
4.0
124
51.6
43.5
4.8
62
10.7
338
46.3
46.6
7.1
635
10.8
186
59.1
33.8
7.1
198
6.8
192
45.1
45.6
9.2
206
5.3
150
41.9
51.5
6.6
198
16.0
150
47.7
42.4
9.9
172
3.5
373
51.7
43.3
4.9
406
2.0
49
41.9
49.5
8.6
93
Activity:
Use of Radio
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
35.8
39.1
30.8
45.9
39.1
40.0
Government
Increase
38.3
40.1
Remain the same
40.8
37.5
Decrease
34.7
42.9
Most Concerned With:
Local
44.7
37.2
State
30.6
43.5
Nation
32.7
48.7
18.2
307
40.5
32.4
27.0
37
21.8
238
38.7
40.0
21.3
225
29.2
120
32.8
41.1
26.1
475
21.6
167
41.2
32.4
26.5
34
21.7
120
31.3
45.3
23.4
64
22.4
340
34.7
40.1
25.2
631
18.1
188
38.7
37.2
24.1
199
25.9
193
32.7
43.1
24.3
202
18.7
150
33.0
41.0
26.0
200


16
chairmen have post-graduate experience but only 13 percent of the
Republican chairmen have had the same experience (1967). Similar
findings are reported by Patterson for Oklahoma chairmen: more Demo
crats than Republicans have college degrees or better; Conway and
Feigert reach similar conclusions for precinct committeemen in Illinois
and Maryland (Patterson, 1963; Conway and Feigert, 1968). Neverthe
less, the figures point toward high educational levels for the chairmen
of both parties.
Age is significant in calculations of political participation.
As Campbell has pointed out, the various changes in life style and
activity brought by changes in age mean that certain age groups will
have more interest and time to devote toward political activity; in
addition increased age appears associated not only with increased party
identification, but also with increased political awareness (Campbell
et al., 1964). This conclusion is reached by Verba and Nie who find
that participation, after controlling for social status and length of
residence in the community, increases throughout the life cycle, with
only a small downward trend among those sixty-five years of age or
older. They conclude, "the longer one is exposed to politics, the
more likely one is to participate" (1972, p. 148).
In their study of state party chairmen, Wiggins and Turk find
99.4 percent of the Republican state chairmen and 77.7 percent of
the Democratic state chairmen over the age of forty with the highest
percentage of chairmen between ages forty and forty-nine (1970). An
analysis of Indiana chairmen in 1972 found IS percent of the Democratic
chairmen and 36 percent of the Republican chairmen below the age of


Contact:
State Party Chairmen
Often
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal 49.8
Middle-ofRoad 45.9
Conservative 34.1
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase 53.0
Remain the same 44.8
Decrease 40.2
Most Concerned With:
Local 50.8
State 47.3
Nation 36.9
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues 37.8
Economic 49.0
State govt./pol. party 56.3
APPENDIX E (continued)
Democrats
Republicans
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
36.3
8.4
5.5
41.4
8.2
4.5
40.3
16.3
9.3
39.2
6.0
1.8
34.3
12.7
8.2
41.0
11.6
7.2
35,1
9,4
4.7
34.8
10.0
8.0
45.2
12.1
5.7
Some
N
Often
times
311
60.0
20.0
244
53.9
33.2
129
49.9
36.5
166
48.5
36.4
134
47.6
31.7
346
52.4
35.1
191
53.3
33.2
201
52.9
33.7
157
44.3
39.3
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
17.1
2.9
35
9.5
3.4
232
9.9
3.8
477
15.2
0.0
33
15.9
4.8
63
8.7
3.7
641
10.1
3.5
199
9.6
3.8
208
12.4
4.0
201
42.3
13.5
6.4
156
55.6
31.5
11.8
1.1
178
39.1
8.1
3.9
384
49.0
36.8
9.3
4.9
410
31.3
6.3
6.3
48
51.0
34.4
10.4
4.2
96
134


69
predict. It may be that the amateur is willing to participate in poli
tical activityeven to the extent of becoming a county chairmanonly
insofar as policy goals, electoral or ideological, are perceived as
obtainable. There is some evidence for this argument. In their study
of county political activists in Iowa, Johnson and Gibson report that
despite activity as campaign workers in a primary election, 21 percent
of the activists intended to bolt their party in the general election.
This group included five precinct committeemen, three precinct chair
men, and one county party official: "... more than one-half of the
bolters were, or had been, delegates to county conventions" (1974,
p. 73). Of course, the amateurs may view political activity as socially
or personally beneficial, may have enjoyed their political experience
and have higher political aspirations. The results are presented in
Table 4-3.
As predicted, the amateurs are less likely to have held public
office than either the semiprofessionals or the professionals. Only
29 percent of the amateurs have held public office while 39 percent of
the semiprofessionals and 48 percent of the professionals have held
office. This pattern of office-holding coincides with that reported
by Hitlin and Jackson for delegates to the Democratic Mid-Term Conven
tion. They found 59 percent of the amateurs had held party office
while 81 percent of the professionals had held office (1977). The
difference between the chairmen and the delegates may be the conse
quence of delegates to the national convention having first served in
the county party.
The amateurs have less desire than professionals for both higher
party office or for keeping their own position. Less than 30 percent


CHAPTER FIVE
LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE
AMATEUR-PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION
Chapter Four examined the amateur and professional chairmen by
looking at their demographic and attitudinal differences or similar
ities. This chapter continues the examination of the amateur-
professional phenomenon among the county chairmen by focusing upon
the connection between the amateur, semiprofessional, or professional
status of chairmen and their local party campaign activity and, second,
the frequency of contacts between chairmen and various government and
party officials.
The different orientations of amateurs and professionals may pro
duce different levels of campaign activity. Amateurs are concerned
primarily with issues and only secondarily with winning elections.
"The belief in compromise and bargaining; the sense that public policy
is made in small steps rather than in big leaps; the concern with
conciliating the opposition and broadening public appeal; and the
willingness to bend a little to capture public support are all charac
teristic of the traditional politics in the U.S." (Wildavsky, 1971,
p. 254). The amateur diverges from traditional politics: concerns
for compromise, cementing electoral coalitions, and placating the
opposition, give way to an emphasis upon issues to the exclusion of
traditional political values. Obtaining political power is not the
79


40
Table 3-3
Chairmen's Occupational Classification by County Population
(in percents)
Population
Occupation (in thousands)
Nation
8 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
73 and
above
N
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
18.4
22.4
27.0
32.2
559
Managers,
officials
21,3
24.3
26.7
27.8
536
Farmers, farm
workers
46.7
31.4
15.7
6.2
210
X2
= 107.70a
Democrats
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
18.9
20.3
25.1
35.7
291
Managers,
officials
18.7
26.8
28.0
26.4
246
Farmers, farm
workers
46.9
35.4
13.5
4.2
96
X2
= 67.34a
Republicans
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
17.9
24.6
29.1
28.4
268
Managers,
officials
23.4
22.1
25,5
29.0
290
Farmers, farm
workers
46.5
28.1
17.5
7.9
114
X2 = 48.29a
df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001


15
Table 2-1
Demographic Variables by Party
(in percents)
Party
Education
Democrat
Republican
nonesome high school
6.3
3.9
high school
17.1
11.2
some college
28.2
27.2
college and post-grad.
48.4
57.7
X2 = 20.93a
N =
766
823
df = 3
Age
22 to 35
11.8
13.7
36 to 50
45.8
50.5
51 to 65
32.8
27.9
66 to 86
9.7
8.0
X2 = 7.34
N =
756
804
df = 3
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
46.0
39.9
Managers, officials
38.9
43.2
Farmers, farm workers
15.2
17.0
X2 = 4.94
N =
633
672
df = 2
Time in Office
2 years or less
37.8
45.5
3 or 4 years
26.6
23.2
5 years or more
35.6
31.3
X2 = 9.35b
N =
756
805
df = 2
Significant at .001
Significant at .01


74
Table 4-5
Attitude on Representation by Amateurism
(in percents)
Legislator should
rely on
Amateur
Semi
prof.
Prof.
Own judgment
52.3
41.6
38.2
Both equally
30.0
31.4
29.0
Majority opinion
17.7
24.4
32.9
N =
130
772
587
X2
= 21.72
adf = 4; significant at .001
choice. This 18 percent bears more extended analysis. The existence
of the schism within the amateur ranks is indicative of a "fundamental
problem" confronted by the amateurs: to abandon democracy for elitism
or to surrender policy decisions to popular input (Wilson, 1968,
pp. 344-346). The majority of the amateurs would appear to have come
down on the elite side of the issueover 50 percent maintaining
politicians should rely solely on their own judgment in making policy
decisions. Eighteen percent of the amateurs, however, argue the majority
opinion should govern political decisionsa "majoritarian" approach.
It appears, then, that amateurism is more complex than a liberal-
conservative division would indicate. An analysis of the majoritarian
amateurs vis-a-vis the remaining amateurs and the professionals may
clarify this phenomenon.
Table 4-6 presents comparisons by demographic traits among (1)
amateurs minus the majoritarians, (2) semiprofessionals, and (3) the
majoritarians. Since the number of majoritarians is small (N = 22),
the categories of education, age, and time-in-office have been collapsed.


42
Table 3-4
Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables
Campaign Activity3
Attitudinal
Trait
Surveys/
Polls
Press
Releases
Circulars
Radio
Literature
Liberal-
Conservative
Democratic
23.03b
26.34b
35.27b
8.01
46.78b
Republican
4.08
5.52
7.05
3.95
4.50
Activity of
Federal Govt.
Democratic
7.53
7.05
21.14b
1.78
24.67b
Republican
6.28
2.78
2.47
1.67
1.63
Level of Govt.
Most Concerned
With
Democratic
2.61
9.12
7.02
11.89
5.89
Republican
7.59
15.21
9.92
2.38
4.61
Most Important
Problem Facing
State
Democratic
11.29
29.39b
3.32
5.51
9.65C
Republican
2.78
7.37
3.02
5.00
.86
£
percentages are found in Appendix C
^significant at .001
significant at .05
see such activity increase. However, the differences between those in
favor of more federal activity who indicate they "often" use surveys or
polls, 13.9 percent, is only 4.2 percent greater than those who report


Copyright 1980
by
Dwight Lambert


119
APPENDIX B (continued)
Democrats
Some
Often times Never N
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
Managers, officials
Farmers, farm workers
Time in Office
2 years or less
3 or 4 years
5 years or more
48.9
40.8
10.3
272
54.5
39.6
5.9
222
30.2
51.2
18.6
86
50.0
42.5
7.5
268
49.7
42.8
7.5
187
47.0
39.7
13.2
234
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
56.4
37.1
6.6
259
50.9
45.0
4.1
271
33.7
59.4
6.9
101
51.3
44.1
4.6
347
52.2
40.6
7.2
180
51.5
40.6
7.9
229
Activity:
Use of Press Releases
Education
None-some high school
36.8
42.1
High school
44.3
45.2
Some college
51.3
38.9
College and post-grad.
54.8
38.8
Ass.
22 to 35
50.0
44.3
36 to 50
58.8
35.0
51 to 65
44.8
43.0
66 to 86
36.7
48.3
Occupation
Professional, technical
9
kindred workers
57.0
36.3
Managers, officials
53.2
38.2
Farmers, farm workers
29.9
54.0
Time in Office
2 years or less
56.3
36.2
3 or 4 years
51.1
42.9
5 years or more
46.2
41.9
Activity:
Use of Radio
Education
None-some high school
30.8
38.5
High school
36.0
43.0
Some college
35.0
42.6
College and post-grad.
37.9
42.6
A££
22 to 35
29.1
45.3
36 to 50
41.1
39.4
51 to 65
33.3
45.5
66 to 86
32.1
42.9
21.1
38
16.7
45.8
37.5
24
10.4
115
18.4
28.9
12.5
76
9.8
193
12.0
46.4
41.7
192
6.4
345
14.9
40.5
44.7
430
5.7
88
13.7
39.2
47.1
102
6.3
320
14.2
40.9
44.9
347
12.2
221
13.9
41.8
44.3
201
15.0
60
22.5
42.5
35.0
40
6.7
270
52.9
42.0
5.1
257
kC

CO
220
47.8
44.9
7.4
272
16.1
87
29.0
64.0
7.0
100
7.5
268
15.7
41.1
43.2
331
6.0
184
12.5
46.4
41.1
168
12.0
234
13.9 '
36.5
49.5
208
30.8
39
42.9
28.6
28.6
28
21.1
114
28.0
43.9
28.0
82
22.3
197
36.6
43.9
19.5
205
19.5
338
35.5
38.6
25.9
448
25.6
86
41.5
34.0
24.5
106
29.6
322
35.4
40.1
24.5
387
21.2
222
31.3
44.9
23.8
214
25.0
56
42.3
32.7
25.0
52


CHAPTER THREE
THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON
LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY
Chapter Two examined the county chairmen from the perspective
of demographic and attitudinal variables considered in earlier re
search, variables indicated in the literature on county chairmen
to be of importance for their impact upon local party organization.
While it is possible for activity to affect the ideology of the
chairmen, most of the literature indicates that the chairmen affect
the activity of the local party organization and that demographic
and attitudinal characteristics are a key to the chairmen's influence.
For example, in his study of party workers in Detroit, Samuel Patterson
suggests that the nature and functions of party leadership at the
county level can be understood in terms of the characteristics of
party leaders (1963). My purpose in this chapter is to test this
assumption. I shall first test the proposition that the independent
variables of age, education, party, and time in office have an impact
upon the activity of the county party. Second, 1 will examine what
impact political orientations of the chairmen such as self-catagoriza-
tion as liberal or conservative, attitude toward federal government
activity, concern for local, state, or national government, and the
most important problem facing the state have upon party activity.
Initially, the dependent variable, party activity, must be defined
more precisely.
30


37
Table 3-2
Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables
Campaign Activity
Demographic
Trait
Surveys/
Polls
Press
Releases
Circulars
Radio
Literature
Education
Democratic
8.10
13.80
4.83
3.06
2.95
Republican
7.09
10.63
5.80
7.02
2.04
Democratic
8.92
20.61
11.06
6.90
16.2 2b
Republican
2.99
6.54
8.27
5.77
21.00b
Occupation
Democratic
13.41
21.6 7b
20.08b
'20.14b
18.04b
Republican
9.18
17.8 4b
17.70b
10.50
25.12b
Time in Office
Democratic
11.62
9.06
6.04
6.70
10.48
Republican
4.80
5.44
3.29
3.09
8.39
£
percentages are found in Appendix B
^significant at .001
(2
significant at .01
of the Republican chairmen sixty-six to eighty-one years old, with small
differences across other categories.
The second notable aspect of the chi-squares is that for both the
Democratic and Republican chairmen, the figures for occupational cate
gories are appreciably and consistently larger than those for any other
demographic variable. With the exception of the use of surveys or


92
corresponds to differences in both the types of campaign activity
carried out by the local party organization and the degree of contact
ing of state or party officials by the chairmen on party business.
From these results, it follows that chairmen with predominantly
amateur orientations would be less likely than chairmen with profes
sional orientations to emphasize party organization within the county
party, as the figures for contacting appear to indicate they are less
likely to be concerned with party business and organization outside
the county. Moreover, it would be anticipated the amateurs would be
less concerned with campaigning for the nominees of the party. The
selection of delegates from California to the 1972 Democratic National
Convention under rules changes mandated by the 1968 Convention de
signed to make the selection of delegates more broadly representative
of the public provides a graphic example of the differing perspectives
of amateurs and professionals toward political activity. Profession
als saw the new rules as a means of achieving electoral victory; the
rules "... would allow the professionals more freedom to choose the
best campaign personnel"; the amateur activists, however, were less
concerned with electoral success. They participated out of concern
for influencing both who would become the party's presidential nominee
and what would be the shape of the party's platform. For the amateur
activists, ". . political skills and resources became a minor con
sideration," even a liability (Cavala, 1974, pp. 36-37).
Whether the differences between amateurs and professionals can be
seen in an emphasis upon party organization and in the level of local
party campaign activity is approached in two ways: first, by examining
the degree to which the county apparatus was organized to conduct an ,


51
Table 3-7
Liberal-Conservative Categorization by Population
of County by Party and Region
(in percents)
Liberal-Conservative Population
Region/Party (in thousands)
8 and
73 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
above
N
Nation
Liberal
25.2
22.2
19.2
33.3
369
Middle-of-Road
22.3
22.1
28.0
27.6
493
Conservative
27.2
28.6
27.0
17.2
644
X2
= 43.65a
Democrats
Liberal
24.1
22.5
20.4
32.8
329
Middle-of-Road
22.2
24.5
28.8
24.5
257
Conservative
27.3
34.5
27.3
10.8
139
x2
= 30.05a
Republican
Liberal
32.5
20.0
10.0
37.5
40
Middle-of-Road
22.5
19.5
27.1
30.9
236
Conservative
27.1
26.9
26.9
19.0
505
X2
= 23.40a
adf for all chi-
squares = 6
; significant at .001
correspond to the pop
ulation of
the county,
farmers and
farm
workers
are found in less populous counties while managerial and professional
occupations are more heavily represented in more heavily populated
counties; conservatives are more apt to be found in counties with less
population, but liberals are more likely to be found in counties with


66
Soule and McGarth, 1975). The remainder of this chapter deals with an
analysis of the county chairmen divided along the amateur-professional
dimension.
The demographic variables for the first portion of this analysis
are those examined in earlier research: level of education, age,
time-in-office, and sex. Statistical research has confirmed Wilson's
observation that amateurs are, for the most part, ". . young, well-
educated professional people, including a large number of women"
(1968). Soule and McGarth reach similar conclusions in their examina
tion of delegates to the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Conventions, and
Roback reports a like profile of amateurs at the 1972 Republican Con
vention (Soule and McGarth, 1975; Roback, 1975). The data presented
in Table 4-2 reflect these findings for the county chairmen. Amateur
chairmen are better educated than semiprofessionals or professionals:
63 percent of the amateurs report having a college degree or having
done postgraduate work, compared to 54 percent of the semiprofessionals
and 51 percent of the professionals. Among delegates to the 1974 Demo
cratic Midterm Convention, Hitlin and Jackson report 76 percent of the
amateurs as college graduates or holding advanced degrees, compared to
54 percent of the professionals (1977). The figures also indicate
amateurs are more likely to be younger than the more professionally-
oriented chairmen. More than 25 percent of the amateurs, but two-
thirds fewer professionals, only 8 percent, are between ages twenty-two
and thirty-five. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and
professionals; 14 percent are ages twenty-two to thirty-five. While
31 percent of the amateurs are fifty-one years old or older, 46 percent
of the professionally-oriented chairmen are above age fifty-one. Among


21
scale (1976). Among previous studies of county chairmen, there is
little consistency in the attitudes that have been examined. Flinn and
Wirt employed a "salience of issues" approach while Bowman reports only
the generalized categories "concern with issues" and "community obli
gation," as the prime incentives for participation in politics among
precinct chairmen in North Carolina and Massachusetts (Flinn and Wirt,
1965; Bowman et al., 1969). As these examples indicate, examination
of attitudinal preferences among the chairmen has been erratic and
ancillary to a concern with demographic traits. The question exam
ined in the next pages is whether or not the chairmen hold differing
attitudinal preferences and, if so, over what issues.
The chairmen's attitudes will be gauged from their responses to
several questions. They were asked to rank themselves on a five-place
continuum from very liberal to very conservative; to facilitate presen
tation, this continuum is collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and
conservative by combining the very liberal with the liberal responses
and the very conservative with the conservative responses. In addi
tion, the chairmen were asked their views on whether the activity of
the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease;
with what level of government, local, state, or national, they are most
concerned; and, last, an open-ended question regarding what they see as
the most important problem facing their state. Responses to this ques
tion were grouped under three major categories: social issues, econ
omic problems, and state government and political party responses.*
^Answers to the open-ended question regarding the major problem
facing the state were categorized as follows: (1) Social: racial
problems, corruption in government, welfare, education, urban problems,


Contact:
State Legislators on Party Business
APPENDIX D (continued)
Republicans
Democrats
Of ten
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
55.3
26.3
7.9
10.5
38
48.0
32.0
4.0
16.0
25
High school
41.0
39.3
11.1
8.5
117
47.6
33.8
8.8
10.0
80
Some college
52.2
39.3
5.0
3.5
201
43.1
37.4
10.4
9.0
211
College and post-grad.
43.4
38.3
10.6
7.7
350
42.0
39.6
11.1
7.3
450
Age
22 to 35
44.0
34.5
14.3
7.1
84
41.0
37.1
8.6
13.3
105
36 to 50
46.0
37.5
9.8
6.7
328
45.2
36.4
10.9
7.5
385
51 to 65
49.8
38.4
6.1
5.7
229
39.4
41.2
11.3
8.1
221
66 to 86
38.1
44.4
6.3
11.1
63
47.1
39.2
7.8
5.9
51
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
44.1
37.1
11.0
7.7
272
42.4
39.3
10.1
8.2
257
Managers, officials
48.9
39.6
6.6
4.8
227
45.0
37.5
10.0
7.4
269
Farmers, farm workers
41.7
36.9
11.9
9.5
84
38.6
38.6
13.9
8.9
101
Time in Office
2 years or less
48.3
37.3
8.4
6.1
263
41.5
41.3
8.3
8.9
349
3 or 4 years
47.9
36.3
10.0
5.8
190
45.9
34.1
12.9
7.1
170
5 years or more
43.3
39.6
9.0
8.2
245
43.3
37.8
11.6
7.3
233


28
Table 2-5
Incentives for Initial Local Party Activity
by Party and Region
(in percents)
Purposive
Party
Democratic 54.7
Republican 63.4
Region
Non-Southern 59.3
Southern 59.1
Incentive
Solidarity
Material
N
43.7
2.5
775
35.1
1.4
831
X =
12.72
39.3
1.4
1093
39.2
1.8
513
X =
.35
df = 2; significant at .01
^df = 2; not significant
of the federal government and they differ in their self-classification
as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. Moreover, the county
party chairmen are concerned about policy questions, most of them
indicating issue concerns as their chief reason for becoming county
chairmen. While a substantial degree of consensus exists as to the
major problem facing their states, the wide variety of responses as to
the government activity and political attitudes is tentative evidence
of major attitudinal differences among the chairmen. Differences
between Southern and non-Southern are muted; what differences exist
over attitudinal variables are small and differences over demographic


APPENDIX D
Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact: Democrats
Governors on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Education
None-some high school
24.3
37.8
18.9
High school
17.5
38.6
13.2
Some college
19.1
38.2
16.9
College and post-grad.
17.3
31.4
16.4
Age
22
to
35
16.0
23.5
13.6
36
to
50
18.6
31.8
17.0
51
to
65
16.8
44.9
15.0
66
to
86
25.0
30.4
19.6
Republicans
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
18.9
37
18.2
36.4
13.6
31.8
22
30.7
114
15.4
43.6
10.3
30.8
78
25.8
178
16.7
26.3
17.2
39.9
198
34.9
341
11.9
25.5
17.1
45.4
427
46.9
81
10.1
20.2
20.2
49.5
99
32.7
318
13.2
25.4
14.9
46.5
370
23.4
214
14.4
33.5
18.7
33.5
209
25.0
56
21.4
40.5
7.1
31.0
42
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
16.9
29.5
17.2
Managers, officials
20.1
40.2
15.0
Farmers, farm workers
13.1
42.9
14.3
Time in Office
2 years or less
18.8
34.5
14.6
3 or 4 years
20.0
29.7
18.9
5 years or more
15.8
38.6
16.2
36.
,4
261
12.6
24.4
19.1
43.9
246
24.
,8
214
17.0
20.4
16.6
36.0
253
29.
.8
84
6.6
29.7
13.2
50.5
91
32.2
261
10.9
26.4
15.8
46.9
322
31.4
175
17.6
26.7
20.6
35.2
165
29.4
228
15.2
30.5
14.3
39.9
223


27
of the Republicans listing concern with public issues as the major
reason they became active in party affairs (Boxraian et al., 1969).
The figures for the national sample of county chairmen, reported
in Table 2-5, duplicate these findings. While 63 percent of the Repub
lican chairmen list purposive concerns as their most important reason
for becoming chairmen, a majority of the Democratic chairmen, almost
55 percent, also cite purposive incentives as the major reason for
becoming involved in local party politics. The Democratic chairmen,
however, are more likely to have solidarity incentives, 43.7 percent,
than are the Republicans, 35.1 percent. By far the least significant
factor in initial local party work is the material incentives. Only
2.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen and only 1.4 percent of the
Republican chairmen indicate material incentives were the major
stimulus to political party activity.
Table 2-5 also presents the figures for the regional breakdown.
Purposive incentives predominate for both non-Southern and for Southern
chairmen, both regions about 59 percent, followed by solidarity in
centives, both about 39 percent. Material incentives were, once more,
the least important factor.
These results coincide with those reported by Wiggins and Turk for
state party chairmen: "... the data indicate that they were moti
vated primarily by what might be termed idealistic, philosophical,
task-oriented, or impersonal motives" (1970, pp. 330-331). Personal
motivations or material gain in the Wiggins-Turk study, as in the
national sample, received less frequent mention.
There would appear to be, then, substantial differences between
the chairmen. They differ as to their attitudes toward the activity


32
raising, election activities, for exampleanalysts agree the most
outstanding endeavor is election or campaign activity, since from cam
paign activity and the desire to win elections springs the need for
the other activities. Epstein argues party organization always exists
for an electoral purpose. "It may have other purposes as well and
still be regarded as that of a party, provided the electoral purpose
is predominant, if not dominant" (1970, p. 98).
Despite the predominant position given to winning elections, in
each of these assessments of party function there is a second common
theme, party organization. The achievement of vote maximization is
contingent upon organizational activity, organization for the purposes
of formulating, coordinating, and implementing campaign strategy.
Campaign activity is a portion of the external leadership of the
chairmen, leadership which has as its primary focus the electorate.
Organizational activity is internally directed, focusing upon other
party officials or elected officials (Katz and Eldersveld, 1961).
Eldersveld identifies three theoretical roles of the party: first,
the party is a task group, competing for political power in elections;
second, the party is a communications subsystem, within which take
place interactions "between actors, between echelons, between coali
tions . third, the party is a decision group, dealing with
tactics and the means to exploit as fully as possible opportunities
to the party's advantage (1964, p. 333).
While I have no information applicable to the party as a decision
making group, the first of Eldersveld's categories, the party as a task
group, corresponds to campaign activity, while the second category, the
party as a communications subsystem, is related to the communications


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to
the Graduate Council of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON
COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY
By
Dwight Lambert
March 1980
Chairman: Dr. David P. Conradt
Major Department: Political Science
Despite the position of the county as the major political sub
division of party organization in the United States, little work has
been done on the impact of county party leadership upon the activities
of the local party organization. This study is based upon a question
naire administered to Democratic and Republican county chairmen from
across the country. Using these data, two models of local party
activity are examined.
The first model is developed from earlier research on county
party chairmen. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demo
graphic traits of the county leadership. These traits have been
assumed to be significant in explaining the activity of the local
party organization. This study examines this hypothesis by looking
viii


98
considered, the professional chairmen report higher levels of activity
than the amateurs. Moreover, the professionals are more likely to say
they contact other party or state officials than are the amateurs. The
majoritarian chairmen are the least likely to report frequently using
any of the five campaign activities, but do exceed the remaining ama
teurs in the level of reported contacts with the state's governor, with
congressmen, and with U.S. senators. Despite the social connections
and security that accompany longer time in office, amateurs who have
served longest as county chairmen do not appear any more likely than
amateurs with less experience to contact party or state officials.
These differences remain apparent both when the amateurs and profes
sionals are compared over the percent of organized precincts in their
counties or when compared over the percent of elections in which the
party campaignsprofessionals are more likely to report organized pre
cincts and more likely to report campaigning.
While Chapter Four demonstrates that county chairmen can be arrayed
on a continuum from amateur to professional, this chapter points to the
importance of that distinction: local party organizations led by ama
teur chairmen appear to campaign less actively than those counties led
by professional chairmen. In addition, the amateur seems less concerned
with the organizational side of party work. The importance of these
differences will be examined in Chapter Six.


For My Parents


53
Table 3-8
Campaign Activity by County Population
(in percents)
Population
Activity (in thousands)
8 and 7 3 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
above
N
Survey/Polls
Often
16.4
14.7
22.0
46.9
177
Sometimes
19.9
19.5
25.7
34.9
533
Never
29.8
29.5
26.9
X2 = 118.92
13.9
,a
648
Press Releases
Often
21.6
20.5
24.1
33.8
722
Sometimes
24.8
26.4
29.0
19.7
628
Never
36.5
32.2
18.3
X2 = 57.16
13.0
115
Circulars
Often
22.6
18.4
25.3
33.7
739
Sometimes
25.8
28.7
25.5
19.9
623
Never
31.6
29.8
28.1
X2 = 57.49
10.5
114
Radio
Often
10.5
24.5
31.5
33.5
523
Sometimes
20.5
24.5
28.5
26.5
600
Never
Literature
51.0
22.3
13.1 13.6
X2 = 206.35
337
Often
23.0
18.1
24.1
34.8
788
Sometimes
25.3
30.5
26.8
17.5
594
Never
32.2
33.3
25.6
8.9
90
X2 = 78.34
3
df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001


38
polls by Democrats, statistically significant at .01, the remaining
chi-squares are significant at .001; only for surveys or polls and the
use of radio are the figures not significant at the .001 level for the
Republican chairmen. More specifically, both Democratic and Republican
chairmen who are farmers or farm workers are more likely to "never" use
surveys or polls than are chairmen in other occupations: 66 percent
among Democrats as compared with 43 percent among those employed as
managers and 54 percent among the professionals, 59 percent among
Republicans compared to about 45 and 42 percent, respectively, for
Republican chairmen employed in managerial or professional positions.
The percentage of Democratic chairmen employed as farmers or farm
workers who report "never using circulars, 19 percent, is almost three
times as large as those in managerial positions, 6 percent. Among
Democratic and Republican farmers or farm workers, only about one-half
as many report "often" using press releases as Democratic and Republi
can chairmen in professional occupations. Democratic chairmen who are
managers or officials are more likely, in terms of percentages, to
indicate that they "often" use radio in election campaigns, 42 percent,
compared to 28 percent among the farmers or farm workers. Fewer Demo
cratic and Republican chairmen in farming occupations are likely to
"often" use literature, 38 percent for the Democrats and 34 percent
for the Republicans, than are Democratic or Republican chairmen who
are managers or professional workers, about 56 percent in each instance.
Population and occupation. In short, chairmen of both parties
employed as farmers or farm workers are less likely to report frequent
use of any of the five types of campaign activity than are profession
als or managers. While there is no reason to assume the occupation of


123
APPENDIX C (continued)
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
Democrats
Some
Often
times
Never
N
36.8
38.8
24.3
152
39.0
43.4
17.6
369
27.1
50.0
22.9
48
Republicans
Some
Often
times
Never
N
32.9
38.2
28.8
170
38.8
37.8
23.5
405
31.6
46.3
22.1
95
Activity:
Use of Literature
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
62.5
33.3
Middle-of-the-Road
50.0
43.3
Conservative
37.9
40.5
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
66.9
30.1
Remain the same
54.0
40.5
Decrease
45.6
43.2
Most Concerned With:
Local
59.9
32.6
State
49.7
44.6
Nation
52.9
39.9
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
53.3
37.3
Economic
56.0
38.9
State Govt./Pol. Party
49.0
34.7
4.2
312
63.9
27.8
8.3
36
6.7
240
54.6
41.0
4.4
229
21.6
116
51.9
43.9
4.2
478
3.1
163
61.8
32.4
5.9
34
5.6
126
53.8
41.5
4.6
65
11.2
340
52.1
43.3
4.6
635
7.5
187
59.3
36.2
4.5
199
5.7
193
50.7
45.3
3.9
203
7.2
153
51.7
42.4
5.9
203
9.3
150
54.2
41.1
4.8
168
5.1
373
55.0
41.1
4.0
404
16.3
49
50.5
44.2
5.3
95


25
Table 2-4
Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Region
(in percents)
Region
non-
Southern Southern
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
27.1
16.4
Middle-of-the-Road
35.9
33.8
Conservative
37.0
49.8
N =
951
445
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
16.5
9.9
Remain the Same
14.7
12.3
Decrease
68.7
77.8
N =
985
473
Most Concerned with:
Local
31.5
40.6
State
40.0
23.3
National
28.6
36.1
N =
826
382
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
21.8
37.6
Economic
69.3
45.5
State govt./pol. party
00
0
17.0
N =
918
418
X2 = 27.44a
X2 = 14.75
X2 = 31.99
df for all Chi Squares
Chi Squares, .001
2; significance for all
X2 = 69.38


130
APPENDIX E
Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact: Democrats
Governors on Party Business
Some-
Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
20.0
34.9
12.9
Middle-of-Road
17.9
33.2
21.1
Conservative
16.9
43.2
13.6
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
17.8
33.1
17.8
Remain the same
17.6
37.8
19.3
Decrease
19.5
35.9
13.6
Most Concerned With:
Local
16.6
28.6
20.0
State
18.0
37.6
16.9
Nation
16.6
38.6
13.8
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
21.2
30.8
15.8
Economic
18.6
36.6
16.6
State govt./pol. party
12.8
29.8
10.6
Republicans
Never
N
Some- Hardly
Often times Ever Never
N
32.
.2
295
25.7
34.3
11.4
28.6
35
27.
,8
223
13.1
33.2
18.2
35.5
214
26.
,3
118
13.3
25.2
16.5
45.1
437
31.
,2
157
21.
2
30.2
15.2
33.3
33
25.
.2
119
12.
1
43.1
15.5
29.3
58
31.
.0
323
13.
6
26.4
16.6
43.4
590
34.9
175
13.9
24.6
17.6
43.7
187
27.5
189
17.8
30.9
17.3
34.0
191
31.0
145
6.9
24.9
14.8
53.4
189
32.
.2
146
8.2
25.9
21.5
44.3
158
28.
,2
355
15.1
32.4
11.5
41.1
392
46.
,8
47
6.8
19.3
23.9
50.0
88


65
only one, the extent of obligation to follow decisions of party lead
ers, loads on the first factor, procedural, at less than .50. The
remaining three questions, the extent of a feeling of obligation to
give patronage help to party workers, weigh prior service in selecting
a nominee, and keep public officials accountable to the party, all
load on the procedural factor at more than .60. Because the question
tapping obligation to follow decisions of party leaders is only .04
less than the cutoff point for loading on the first factor, and because
it is theoretically justifiable in light of earlier research, I have
included the question in the procedural dimension. For clarity in
presentation, because of limitations in the county chairmen survey
(specifically, the lack of information on inter-party activities of
the chairmen), and for conformity with earlier research on amateurism,
subsequent analysis in this chapter will deal only with the procedural
dimension of the amateur character; this is the approach adopted by
Roback (1975). Responses to the four questions that fall in the pro
cedural dimension were summed to produce an additive index for each
chairman ranging from zero, indicating all responses were "obligation
to avoid," to a score of 16, indicating all responses to the four ques
tions were "strong obligation to do." Thus, the lower the score, the
more deeply rooted the amateur convictions, the higher the score, the
more professional the chairman's convictions.
The scores were trichotomized into amateur, semi-professional, and
professional. This division yields 133 amateurs (8.3 percent), 781
semiprofessionals (48.6 percent) and 598 professionals (37.2 percent).
While skewed in the direction of professionals, the results correspond
favorably with those of earlier studies (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977;


at two sets of characteristics of the chairmen: first, the demographic
characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time served in
office; and, second, the attitudinal characteristics of liberal-
conservative self-placement, attitudes toward the activity of the
federal government, the level of government about which the chairman
is most concerned, and the chairmans assessment of the most important
problem facing the state. Party activity is measured first as election
activity, those tasks designed to influence voters, and, second, as the
degree of interparty communication between the chairmen and various
public and party officials. Little connection is found between the
demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen and the
activities of the local party organization.
The second model examined links the political orientations of the
chairmen with local party activity. Orientations are defined according
to Wilson's division of party activists into amateur and professional
politicians. This division is made on the basis of the degree of the
chairman's party loyalty and the degree of commitment to issues. An
additional distinction is made between those amateurs who believe poli
ticians should make decisions based upon their own best judgment and
those who feel the politician should follow the wishes of the constitu
ency. The results indicate the amateurs are less likely than pro
fessionals to engage in campaign activity and less likely to participate
in communications on party business with other party and public offi
cials. On the other hand, those amateurs"majoritarians"who feel
the politician should rely upon the wishes of the constituency in
making policy decisions are less likely than both the remaining ama
teurs and the professionals to engage in campaign activity, but more
ix


7
of this transformation are only now apparent. Distinctions between
party alignments based upon social and economic class have blurred,
modified by new alignments based upon issues and attitudes (Ladd and
Hadley, 1975; Sunquist, 1973). This emphasis upon issues and atti
tudes has produced a change in political leadership, a change amount
ing in some instances to a schism between "old" and "new" style
political activists. This development points directly to the county
party chairmen.
In control of the county party organization, the chairmen would
be expected to have an impact upon the operation of that organization.
The county chairmen may be unwilling to adopt strategies, espouse
political philosophies, or advocate governmental solutions to politi
cal questions that they feel are in conflict with their own political
outlook. As Walter Dean Burnham has observed, "no established poli
tical elite is prepared to incorporate demands the effective realiza
tion of which is incompatible with its fundamental interests or with
the existing rules of the game" (1976, p. 148). Different orientations
toward politics may result in different local party activity. From
these observations a second model of party activity emerges:
Political orientations -party activity
This model implies that county leadership holding different orienta
tions toward political activity may emphasize different aspects of
party activity in the interest of maximizing its own interests.
"Leadership incentives and orientation, as well as their stability and
change over time, are likely to have considerable impact on the style
of politics which prevails at the grassroots level of the party organi
zation" (Gluck, 1972, p. 760). Several examples serve to illustrate


96
office. Now, however, the reliance upon party assistance may be dimin
ished. When the electorate may easily be reached with electronic or
printed media, the need for party organization at the precinct level is
undercut. Admittedly, the candidate may bypass the party completely,
but to do so would be to isolate his campaign from a potential source
of election aid. Thus, despite lack of precinct organization, the
county organization may be neither moribund nor nonexistent, but,
rather, using new means to reach the electorate, means not requiring
organization at the precinct level.
The data presented in Table 5-7 indicate that party organizations
headed by amateur oriented chairmen are less likely to be active in
terms of the percent of offices for which the party actively campaigned.
While 20.9 percent of the amateurs reported campaigning for fewer than
25 percent of the offices for which there were elections, only 10 per
cent of the professionals fall into that category. Similarly, 31 per
cent of the amateurs actively campaigned for 26 to 50 percent of the
elective offices in the county, while only 18 percent of the profes
sionals are at that level. At the other end of the spectrum, nearly
50 percent of the professionals reported actively campaigning for 75
percent of the contests in the county, but only 28 percent of the ama
teurs are active in that percentage of elections. Only 17 percent of
the raajoritarians reported actively campaigning in 76 to 100 percent
of the election campaigns in their counties. At the other extreme,
only 56.6 percent of the majoritarians report mounting campaigns for
as many as 50 percent of the offices in the county. Semiprofessionals
show few differences when compared to. the professionals; the largest
difference between them is 7.2 percent, 49.5 percent of the


likely than the other amateurs to contact the governor, congressmen,
and U.S. Senators on party business.
x


THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON
COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY
By
DWIGHT LAMBERT
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980

Copyright 1980
by
Dwight Lambert

For My Parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Before finishing this study, I regarded acknowledgments as
necessary but usually gratuitous exercises, prompted more by polite
ness than by genuine appreciation. Five years and three states later,
I have changed my opinion. No one is more conscious of the errors in
this work than am I; no one is more aware than I of the errors it has
been spared by the advice and help of friends.
First, my thanks to friends in Texas, Charles Hansen and Mary
Fontenot, both of Lamar University, for their long suffering patience
in helping me overcome problems presented by the computer. I want also
to thank friends at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg:
Dr. Evan Krauter of the Department of Psychology for his willingness
to listen to me talk about the whole project and for his excellent
suggestions; Dr. Michael Dressman of the Department of English for
such superb editing it almost succeeds in transforming my social science
prose into standard English; Choong Lee of the Political Science
Department for his invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript
on the computer: a great expenditure of his time and a great saving
of mine; and Gretchen Worth, who put it all into final form; her
corrections were always better than my own.
From Florida, where it both began and ended, I must thank Dr.
Clubok for his fortitude in refusing to accept what was unacceptable
work, probably saving me future embarrassment, if causing me momentary
iv

distress. And, thanks to Dr. Conradt for his sense of humor, which
helped me keep mine at a time when I most needed it.
I owe a debt also to G.S.B., without the memory of whom the
research would never have been completed.
Last, I would like to thank all those who, from pure loving
kindness, never asked me how it was going.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
ONE THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND
THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY 1
TWO THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHAIRMEN 13
THREE THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL
PARTY ACTIVITY 30
The Dependent Variables 31
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Party Activity ..... 36
Demographic measures 36
Population and occupation 38
Attitudinal measures 41
Impact of the liberal-conservative
distinction 43
Population and the liberal-conservative
distinction 49
Population and party activity 52
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Frequency of Contacts 54
Demographic measures 54
Attitudinal measures 58
FOUR THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMEN 62
FIVE LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE AMATEUR
PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION 79
SIX THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES 99
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
REFERENCES 108
APPENDICES
A County Chairmen Questionnaire .... 112
B Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 118
C Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables . 121
D Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact 124
E Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact 130
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 136
vii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to
the Graduate Council of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN UPON
COUNTY PARTY ACTIVITY
By
Dwight Lambert
March 1980
Chairman: Dr. David P. Conradt
Major Department: Political Science
Despite the position of the county as the major political sub
division of party organization in the United States, little work has
been done on the impact of county party leadership upon the activities
of the local party organization. This study is based upon a question
naire administered to Democratic and Republican county chairmen from
across the country. Using these data, two models of local party
activity are examined.
The first model is developed from earlier research on county
party chairmen. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demo
graphic traits of the county leadership. These traits have been
assumed to be significant in explaining the activity of the local
party organization. This study examines this hypothesis by looking
viii

at two sets of characteristics of the chairmen: first, the demographic
characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time served in
office; and, second, the attitudinal characteristics of liberal-
conservative self-placement, attitudes toward the activity of the
federal government, the level of government about which the chairman
is most concerned, and the chairmans assessment of the most important
problem facing the state. Party activity is measured first as election
activity, those tasks designed to influence voters, and, second, as the
degree of interparty communication between the chairmen and various
public and party officials. Little connection is found between the
demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the chairmen and the
activities of the local party organization.
The second model examined links the political orientations of the
chairmen with local party activity. Orientations are defined according
to Wilson's division of party activists into amateur and professional
politicians. This division is made on the basis of the degree of the
chairman's party loyalty and the degree of commitment to issues. An
additional distinction is made between those amateurs who believe poli
ticians should make decisions based upon their own best judgment and
those who feel the politician should follow the wishes of the constitu
ency. The results indicate the amateurs are less likely than pro
fessionals to engage in campaign activity and less likely to participate
in communications on party business with other party and public offi
cials. On the other hand, those amateurs"majoritarians"who feel
the politician should rely upon the wishes of the constituency in
making policy decisions are less likely than both the remaining ama
teurs and the professionals to engage in campaign activity, but more
ix

likely than the other amateurs to contact the governor, congressmen,
and U.S. Senators on party business.
x

CHAPTER ONE
THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND
THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY
The county is the major unit of political party organization in
the United States. Many congressional and judicial districts are
drawn in accordance with county lines, and state statutes frequently
give legal sanction to the position of the county party apparatus.
For American parties many believe "... that in most states the
major locus of organization vitality, and thus of organizational
authority, is the county committee" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 8). This
research concentrates on the task performance of county party chair
men, focusing specifically upon the organization and activities of
the local party organization. The chairmen will be examined from the
perspective of two models of party organization activity. The first
model suggests the behavior of the party organization is associated
with the demographic and attitudinal structure of county chairmen;
the second model relies upon the orientations of the chairmen toward
politics. Previous studies have concentrated upon the demographic
characteristics of the chairmen; this research also includes their
political attitudes, motivations, and orientations. Such an approach
helps to fill a deficiency in the literature of local party
organizations.
1

2
Writing on the connection between public opinion and the mainten
ance of a Democratic political regime, V. 0. Key noted that "repeated
ly, as we have sought to explain particular distributions, movements,
and qualities of mass opinion, we have had to . make assumptions
and estimates about the role and behavior of that stratum of persons
referred to variously as the political elite, the political activists,
the leadership echelons or the influentials" (1961, p. 536). Key
laments the lack of "systemic knowledge" of the composition, social
structure, and behavioral patterns of this "thin stratum." Sorauf
attributes the lack of knowledge about this level of party leadership
to limited data and limited interest (1975); these seem unusual cir
cumstances given the important position of the county in American
politics.
The lack of information about the local party organization and
Key's suggestions, in particular, have spawned a number of examina
tions of local party leadership. A large part of the work dealing
with the county party has involved examinations of the county chair
men, emphasizing comparisons of their demographic characteristics.
Attitudinal and policy differences among the chairmen have been left
almost wholly unexplored, rarely involving more than categorization
as liberal or conservative. While these studies have sought to deter
mine if the local county party leadership constitutes a layer of the
thin stratum of political activists who might differ from the remain
der of the population, the studies are predicated on the assumption
that the chairmen have an impact upon the activities of their county
organization.

3
A review of the research on the county party chairmen makes one
fact apparent: there is little consensus among the case studies.
Consequently, no ready summary of the previous work is possible. While
the variables examined have been consistentage, education, income,
occupation, liberal or conservativefew of the findings coincide.
Flinn and Wirt, studying state party chairmen in Ohio, conclude that
there is very little difference with regard to age, education, occu
pation, and income (1965). Patterson's study of Oklahoma chairmen,
on the other hand, finds Democratic chairmen older than Republican
chairmen, but the Republicans more educated, with higher occupational
status and higher incomes (1963). Pomper's study of chairmen in New
Jersey reports few differences between Democratic and Republican
chairmen in terms of age and income; in terms of occupation, however,
Republicans rank above Democrats in status (1965). These differences
in demographic characteristics imply the potential for differences in
the actions and in the attitudes of the county chairmen.
The premise underlying the study of demographic and attitudinal
traits is that those characteristics influence the local party leader
ship which, in turn, influences the local party organization. This
model may be specified as follows:
leadership
The model implies that demographic characteristics of individuals in
a party organization are an indicator of different types of party
activity. If this is true, one would anticipate differing party
activities from organizations directed by individuals who differ in

4
regard to demographic and attitudinal characteristics. The reasoning
underpinning this assumption is readily understood. "The function of
leadership," Meyer says, is ". .to mediate between environmental
uncertainities and organizational structures" (1972, p. 516). The
perception of what constitutes an "uncertainity" and an appropriate
response for that uncertainty will be conditioned by the nature of the
leadership that confronts alterations in the environment. The model
implies that knowing the characteristics of the chairmen makes possible
a prediction of the activities of the organization. As Key says:
The traits and characteristics of political activists assume
importance in the light of a theory about why the leadership and
governing levels in any society behave as they do. That theory
amounts to the proposition that these political actors consti
tute in effect a subculture with its own peculiar set of norms
of behavior, motives, and approved standards. (1961, p. 537)
Patterson echoes this assessment, arguing that knowledge regarding
demographic composition, political experience, and the self-perceptions
of the chairmen is ", . suggestive of the nature and function of
party leadership at the county level" (1963, p. 334). Crotty maintains
that background characteristics of political leadership ". . shape
an individual's perceptions and consequently his interpretation of his
role while in office" (1967, p. 670). The implicit connection that
has been made in some of the literature on local party personnel
between the demographic variables of individuals and the activity of
party leadership seems to be an effort to duplicate the connection that
has been found between demographic variables and individual political
participation (Verba and Nie, 1972). However, there is no reason to
assume the traits that correlate with higher levels of participation
among individualseducation, age, income, for examplewill necessarily

5
translate into patterns of organizational activity. What is missing
is the causal mechanism. For example, the characteristics producing
higher levels of political participation can be linked to participation
because they equip the individual with skills valuable in political
life: higher levels of income and education produce greater resources
to finance political activity as well as greater articulateness. There
is no mechanism linking an individual's demographic traits and local
party activity, no reason to assume a "spill-over" that would asso
ciate high levels of personal participation with different types of
organizational activity. Age, education, and income may be highly
correlated with political involvement on the part of county chairmen,
but there is no theoretical reason to maintain these variables will be
associated with different local party activities.
There has been no effort to relate, in a systematic and rigorous
manner, either the demographic or the attitudinal characteristics of
the county chairmen to the activity of the county organizations.
While studies of the county chairmen imply that demographic differ
ences among the chairmen may make a difference in the behavior of the
county organization, this proposition has never been tested and the
answer remains a deficiency in our knowledge of the county organization.
An examination of the connection between the demographic and
attitudinal variables and their influence upon local party activity is
one objective of this research. I shall test the proposition that the
demographic and attitudinal structures of the county party chairmen
can be associated with the activities of the local party organization
by correlating measures of county party activity with measures of the
demographic and attitudinal attributes of the county chairmen.

Obviously, then, it is necessary to examine the demographic and atti-
tudinal traits of the chairmen. This analysis may help to clarify the
disjointed findings of earlier case studies as well as lay the
groundwork for a systematic examination of the chairmens demographic
and attitudinal characteristics and the impact of those characteristics
on party activity.
Examining the connection between the demographic and attitudinal
characteristics of the county leadership and local party activity is
only one side of the problem. It leaves unexplored the potential
impact upon the activity of the party organization of the chairmen's
orientations toward politics. Earlier studies stop short of any
detailed analysis of the political perceptions of the chairmen. This
failure is significant, for there is substantial evidence that the
county chairmen may also play an important role in shaping the local
partys activity through their political values and beliefs. The
county chairmen comprise a group for whom politics has a high degree
of salience. The chairmen fulfill a role in what Easton calls the
"political community": ". .a group of persons bound together by
a political division of labor," participating in ". .a common
structure and set of processes. . ." (1965, p. 177).
There is reason to believe both that the role of the county organ
ization in American politics has changed and that the performance of
the county party leadership has changed with it. As part of the politi
cal milieu, the chairmen are subject to the same forces that influence
American politics. Beginning in the 1950s and with increasing momentum
in the 1960s, American society, and, as a consequence, American politi
cal parties appear to have undergone a profound change. The dimensions

7
of this transformation are only now apparent. Distinctions between
party alignments based upon social and economic class have blurred,
modified by new alignments based upon issues and attitudes (Ladd and
Hadley, 1975; Sunquist, 1973). This emphasis upon issues and atti
tudes has produced a change in political leadership, a change amount
ing in some instances to a schism between "old" and "new" style
political activists. This development points directly to the county
party chairmen.
In control of the county party organization, the chairmen would
be expected to have an impact upon the operation of that organization.
The county chairmen may be unwilling to adopt strategies, espouse
political philosophies, or advocate governmental solutions to politi
cal questions that they feel are in conflict with their own political
outlook. As Walter Dean Burnham has observed, "no established poli
tical elite is prepared to incorporate demands the effective realiza
tion of which is incompatible with its fundamental interests or with
the existing rules of the game" (1976, p. 148). Different orientations
toward politics may result in different local party activity. From
these observations a second model of party activity emerges:
Political orientations -party activity
This model implies that county leadership holding different orienta
tions toward political activity may emphasize different aspects of
party activity in the interest of maximizing its own interests.
"Leadership incentives and orientation, as well as their stability and
change over time, are likely to have considerable impact on the style
of politics which prevails at the grassroots level of the party organi
zation" (Gluck, 1972, p. 760). Several examples serve to illustrate

8
this point. In his study of party workers in Detroit, Eldersveld con
cludes party activists differed both in the type and the salience of
their motivations for party activity (1964, p. 225). The consequence,
he says, may manifest itself as a change in the orientations of the
local party: .a consciousness of power as the goal of the party
is intimately related to the individual's own ambitions, interests,
and drives in political organizational life" (p. 243). Again, in
creased time in office may alter the motivational incentives of those
occupying the office, and, subsequently, influence the party organiza
tion. Huckshorne's study of state party chairmen substantiates this
view. He finds that with length of time in office "... changes in
performance often take place. Thus, at any given time, the role con
ception may differ when the actors remain the same" (1976, p. 70).
Concomitant with this finding is that "... the short tenure of party
chairmen may be the most serious detriment to building an effective
party organization" (Huckshorne, 1976, p. 70). As a result, tenure
in office may have an impact upon local party organization and its
activities because of the altered orientation even when the activists
have held local party office and worked for candidates in their own
party. This notable phenomenon is reported by Johnson and Gibson in
their study of party activists in Iowa (1974, pp. 72-73).
As these examples indicate, the orientations of the chairmen to
politics may have an impact upon the behavior of the individual and,
ultimately, the political organization. This phenomenon may be seen
most clearly in the increased participation in American politics of
persons oriented not toward the traditional rewards of political
parties such as patronage, but rather toward issues and policy. While

9
recent studies of American electoral behavior have indicated the emer
gence of this new figure (DeVries and Tarrance, 1972; Nie et al.,
1976), the harbingers of the change among political activists were
first described by James Q. Wilson in The Amateur Democrat Studying
the political clubs of New York and California, Wilson drew a distinc
tion between political amateurs and political professionals. The
amateur finds politics "intrinsically interesting" because it expresses
a conception of the public interest. "The amateur politician sees the
political world more in terms of ideas and principles than in terms of
persons" (1968, p. 3). The professional politician, on the other
hand, is ". . preoccupied with the outcome of politics in terms of
winning or losing; the professional's goal is to keep everybody happy
and thus to minimize the chance of electoral defeat" (p. 4).
A number of additional studies have confirmed the existence of
this activist group in American politics. In an urban setting,
Hirshfield, Swanson, and Blank have drawn attention to the "New Look"
among activists in Manhattan. "The contemporary politician," they
write, "considers his party organization an instrument for effectuating
policy rather than a haven of personal security. He tends to be more
interested in social reform than in catering to individual constitu
ents" (1962, p. 505). Salisbury finds the amateur activists in urban
areas concerned with policy issues, frowning on unquestioning party
loyalty, while the professional emphasizes organization, discipline,
rewards, and loyalty (1965). On the periphery of party officials, the
amateur syndrome has been observed among campaign workers by Johnson
and Gibson. Those workers who "bolted" the party following an unsuc
cessful primary campaign "... were more likely to be political

10
amateurs; 80 percent had less than five years of political experience,
75 percent were not strong party identifiers, and nearly all had no
previous campaign experience" (1974, p. 76).
The division between amateur and professional has also been ob
served within party leadership. Wildavsky explains the nomination of
Barry Goldwater by the Republican party in 1964 as the product of the
efforts of political "purists" (1971, pp. 248265). A study of the
Democratic counterpart of the Goldwater nomination, McGovern's presi
dential nomination in 1972, finds among the Democrats a similar divi
sion between amateurs and professionals in outlook (Sullivan _et_ al. ,
1976), a conclusion confirmed by Soule and Clarke in their study of
delegates to the Democratic conventions of 1968 and 1972 (1975).
The appearance of the amateur-professional syndrome in local party
activity has serious implications for the local party. The amateur-
professional model of party organization postulates a portion of the
party's activists for whom party electoral success and the rewards of
that success are no longer adequate to sustain party activity. In
creased emphasis among the amateurs upon policy goals results in
decreased emphasis upon the success of the party organization, thus
further weakening the organization. This fundamental difference
between amateurs and professionals over the party's goals may finally
result in disruption of the party organization and hostility between
the amateur and professionally oriented politicians. This was appar
ently the case in the selection of delegates from California to the
1972 Democratic National Convention (Cavala, 1974).
Thus, there is evidence to suggest that political orientations
and the view of politics brought by the individual to the post of

11
county chairman, may have an impact upon the county party organiza
tion. In addition, as discussed earlier, much previous research on
county chairmen implicitly postulates a connection between the demo
graphic traits of the chairmen and party activity. These are the
propositions examined in this study.
The research in the following pages is based upon a national
sample of county party chairmen done by the Institute of Public Admin
istration, Indiana University. The data themselves come from a mail
questionnaire sent in 1970 to 2,786 county chairmen across the United
States; 1,606 of the chairmen, or 57.6 percent, responded. The return
rate among Democrats was 55.6 percent and among Republicans 59.7 per
cent. The questions asked may be grouped into five broad categories:
(1) campaign activities of the county and precinct party organizations,
(2) organization of the county party, (3) the chairmen's opinions on a
variety of policy and government oriented issue areas at both the state
and national level, (4) the chairmen's perceptions of the job of county
chairman, and (5) demographic information on the chairmen. A copy of
the questionnaire may be found in Appendix A. This study makes possible
an exploration of the stratum of county party chairmen at the national
level and the county organizations they lead. In addition, it allows
for the analysis of the attitudes and political outlook of the chair
men, missing from earlier studies.
The balance of this research will examine local party organization
in the United States in light of the models described earlier: (1) that
the demographic and altitudinal characteristics of the chairmen are
associated with party activity; and (2) that the personnel orientations
of the chairmen toward political activity are related to differences in

12
their party activity. In short, I will look at the leadership of the
local party organization to assess its impact upon the activities and
organization of the local party.
In the remainder of this analysis, Chapter Two defines the demo
graphic and attitudinal independent variables to be used in Chapter
Three. Chapter Three first formulates the dependent variables of
party activity to be used throughout the analysis, and, second, com
pares the demographic and attitudinal variables with the measures of
party activity. Chapter Four begins the discussion of the political
orientations of the chairmen by defining in operational terms the
amateur-professional dimension; then the amateurs and professionals
among the chairmen are compared in demographic and attitudinal make
up. Chapter Five builds upon Four by examining the relationship
between the amateurs and professionals and the measures of party
activity.

CHAPTER TWO
THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITHDINAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHAIRMEN
Despite the emphasis analysts give to the importance of the county
organization in American politics, little empirical work has been done
on county party chairmen. The work that has been done is confined to
studies of one or two states and the studies themselves limited to the
analysis of socio-economic differences, only occasionally and only
peripherally touching upon differences in the attitudes or the activi
ties of the chairmen. This analysis is based upon a sample comprising
all fifty states; the sample includes information on the social charac
teristics of the chairmen as well as their attitudes on a variety of
policy positions. With these data it is possible to arrive, first, at
a national profile of county chairmen, and, second, to explore their
political attitudes and values. This chapter is divided into two sec
tions: first, an examination of the demographic characteristics of the
chairmen, and second, a comparison of the chairmen in terms of their
political attitudes.
I will compare the chairmen in terms of the demographic variables
of education, age, and occupation; in addition, length of time in the
office of county chairman is considered. These variables have been
selected to be consistent with earlier studies of county party chair
men. These characteristics are important in the context of political
13

14
life. As Bowman and Boynton say, ". . background characteristics
produce the competence to operate easily in the world of politics as
well as a set of attitudes which dispose the individual to take an
active part in the political world (1966, p. 670). Only those with
adequate resources, information, understanding, and sufficient politi
cal skills are able to fully participate in political life (Sorauf,
1976). Verba and Nie, for example, have demonstrated that political
activity for the general population gradually increases throughout the
life cycle, with only a "relatively minor decline" for those over age
65 after socio-economic status (education and income) and length of
residence in the community have been statistically controlled (1972,
p. 148). Key has argued that education contributes to a sense of
political obligation and develops a "lively awareness" of the rele
vance of political activity (1961, p. 325). Additionally, Campbell
has noted a high degree of association between education, political
participation, and a sense of political efficacy, on one hand, and
awareness of issues, on the other (Campbell et al., 1964).
The data presented in Table 2-1 indicate the demographic status
of the chairmen. Regarding education, 48 percent of the Democratic
and 58 percent of the Republican chairmen have a college education or
better. The figures indicate Republican chairmen are slightly better
educated than their Democratic counterparts9 percent more Republi
cans have at least a college degree. These findings are inconsistent
with the findings of other studies of county chairmen done at the
state level. For North Carolina, Crotty reports that Democratic
educational attainments are greater than those of Republicans, particu
larly at the post-graduate level, where 40 percent of the Democratic

15
Table 2-1
Demographic Variables by Party
(in percents)
Party
Education
Democrat
Republican
nonesome high school
6.3
3.9
high school
17.1
11.2
some college
28.2
27.2
college and post-grad.
48.4
57.7
X2 = 20.93a
N =
766
823
df = 3
Age
22 to 35
11.8
13.7
36 to 50
45.8
50.5
51 to 65
32.8
27.9
66 to 86
9.7
8.0
X2 = 7.34
N =
756
804
df = 3
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
46.0
39.9
Managers, officials
38.9
43.2
Farmers, farm workers
15.2
17.0
X2 = 4.94
N =
633
672
df = 2
Time in Office
2 years or less
37.8
45.5
3 or 4 years
26.6
23.2
5 years or more
35.6
31.3
X2 = 9.35b
N =
756
805
df = 2
Significant at .001
Significant at .01

16
chairmen have post-graduate experience but only 13 percent of the
Republican chairmen have had the same experience (1967). Similar
findings are reported by Patterson for Oklahoma chairmen: more Demo
crats than Republicans have college degrees or better; Conway and
Feigert reach similar conclusions for precinct committeemen in Illinois
and Maryland (Patterson, 1963; Conway and Feigert, 1968). Neverthe
less, the figures point toward high educational levels for the chairmen
of both parties.
Age is significant in calculations of political participation.
As Campbell has pointed out, the various changes in life style and
activity brought by changes in age mean that certain age groups will
have more interest and time to devote toward political activity; in
addition increased age appears associated not only with increased party
identification, but also with increased political awareness (Campbell
et al., 1964). This conclusion is reached by Verba and Nie who find
that participation, after controlling for social status and length of
residence in the community, increases throughout the life cycle, with
only a small downward trend among those sixty-five years of age or
older. They conclude, "the longer one is exposed to politics, the
more likely one is to participate" (1972, p. 148).
In their study of state party chairmen, Wiggins and Turk find
99.4 percent of the Republican state chairmen and 77.7 percent of
the Democratic state chairmen over the age of forty with the highest
percentage of chairmen between ages forty and forty-nine (1970). An
analysis of Indiana chairmen in 1972 found IS percent of the Democratic
chairmen and 36 percent of the Republican chairmen below the age of

17
thirty-five; 19 percent of the Democrats and 29 percent of the Repub
licans were between ages fifty-six and sixty-five (Yeric, 1973).
As Table 2-1 indicates, for the national sample of chairmen,
Republicans tend to be slightly younger than Democrats, an average age
of forty-eight and forty-nine years old, respectively. For both par
ties, most chairmen are between ages thirty-six and fifty: 46 percent
of the Democrats and 51 percent of the Republicans. An additional
33 percent of the Democrats and 28 percent of the Republicans are found
between ages fifty-one and sixty-five. Participation in the role of
county chairman declines rapidly after age sixty-five. Between ages
sixty-five and eighty-six are found only 10 percent of the Democrats
and 8 percent of the Republicans. Differences between the parties in
respect to age are minimal; the chairmen of both parties tend to be
middle and slightly above middle age.
Because of the wide range of occupations held by the county chair
men, only those occupational classifications that comprise 10 percent
or more of the whole sample (i.e., 160 chairmen or more) were included.
These classifications are those of (1) professional, technical, and
kindred workers, (2) managers, officials, and proprietors, and (3)
farmers and farm managers. These categories comprise 81 percent of the
whole sample (1,305 cases). The differences between the Democratic and
Republican chairmen are not statistically significant. The largest
differences are found between Democratic and Republican chairmen in
professional occupations; 6 percent more Democrats than Republicans
are found in that classification. Overall, the differences between
the chairmen are small.

18
Finally, the tenure of the chairmen in office seems brief. Almost
46 percent of the Democratic chairmen report they have been in office
two years or less. At the other extreme, nearly 36 percent of the
Democratic chairmen and slightly more than 31 percent of the Republican
chairmen have been in office five years or more. While, in both par
ties, there is a tendency for the numbers of chairmen to cluster at the
extremes (two years or less, five years or more), the figures indicate
that Democrats are slightly more likely to have served in office longer
than Republicans.
Southern chairmen* show few differences when compared with chair
men from other areas of the country, as shown in Table 2-2, Six and
one-tenth percent more Southern Chairmen than non-Southern chairmen
have a college education or better; educational differences at other
levels are even smaller. For age, differences are not statistically
significant.
Occupational differences are also small. Among non-Southern chair
men, 42 percent are found in professional occupations, compared to 45
percent among the Southern chairmen. Four percent more Southern chair
men are in managerial positions than are non-Southern chairmen. The
largest percentage difference between non-Southern and Southern chairmen
is found in the classification of farmers and farm workers, 18 percent
among the non-Southerners and 11 percent among the Southern chairmen.
Occupational differences between regions are not substantial.
*The Southern states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

19
Table 2-2
Demographic Variables by Region
(in percents)
Region
Education
non-
Southern
Southern
nonesome high school
5.1
4.8
high school
14.7
12.6
some college
28.9
25.2
college and post-grad.
51.3
57.4
X2 = 5.34
N =
1073
516
df = 3
Age
22 to 35
12.7
12.3
36 to 50
47.9
46.8
51 to 65
31.3
31.4
66 to 86
8.2
9.6
9
X = 1.93
N =
1076
505
df = 3
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
41.9
44.9
Managers, officials
39.8
43.7
Farmers, farm workers
18.3
11.4
X = 10.16
N =
884
421 .
df = 2
Time in Office
2 years or less
44.5
36.1
3 or 4 years
24.3
26.0
5 years or more
31.2
37.9
X2 = 7.935
N =
1066
495
df = 2
significant at .001
^significant at .01

20
Larger differences appear, however, in regard to length of time
in office. Southern chairmen serve in office longer than their non-
Southern counterparts. While 45 percent of the non-Southern chairmen
have been in office less than two years, only 36 percent of the
Southern chairmen fall into that category. Conversely, nearly 38 per
cent of the Southerners, but only 31 percent of the non-Southerners,
have been in office five years or more. With regard, then, to the
demographic variables of age, education, occupation, and time in
office, it may be said Democratic and Republican chairmen do not differ
greatly one from another. Differences are minor between Southern and
non-Southern chairmen, also, with the exception of tenure in office.
The second step in this analysis is to examine the opinion struc
ture of the county chairmen. Differences in policy preferences among
party leaders have been noted in several studies; McClosky's is probably
the best known (McClosky et al., 1960). He examined delegates to the
Democratic and Republican national party conventions, comparing their
issue preferences with the preferences of a national sample of adults.
The issues fell under five broad headings: Public Ownership, Government
Regulation of the Economy, Equalitarianism and Human Welfare, Tax
Policy, and Foreign Policy. McClosky found differences between Repub
licans and Democratic leaders "... conform with the popular image in
which the Democratic party is seen as the more 'progressive' or
'.radical,' the Republican as the more 'moderate' or 'conservative' of
the two" (p. 410). A similar division has been reported by Nie, Verba,
and Petrocik. They find that Democrats, especially the party activists,
tend to cluster heavily in the liberal end of an issue scale while
the Republicans are likely to be found at the conservative end of the

21
scale (1976). Among previous studies of county chairmen, there is
little consistency in the attitudes that have been examined. Flinn and
Wirt employed a "salience of issues" approach while Bowman reports only
the generalized categories "concern with issues" and "community obli
gation," as the prime incentives for participation in politics among
precinct chairmen in North Carolina and Massachusetts (Flinn and Wirt,
1965; Bowman et al., 1969). As these examples indicate, examination
of attitudinal preferences among the chairmen has been erratic and
ancillary to a concern with demographic traits. The question exam
ined in the next pages is whether or not the chairmen hold differing
attitudinal preferences and, if so, over what issues.
The chairmen's attitudes will be gauged from their responses to
several questions. They were asked to rank themselves on a five-place
continuum from very liberal to very conservative; to facilitate presen
tation, this continuum is collapsed to liberal, middle-of-the-road, and
conservative by combining the very liberal with the liberal responses
and the very conservative with the conservative responses. In addi
tion, the chairmen were asked their views on whether the activity of
the federal government should increase, remain the same, or decrease;
with what level of government, local, state, or national, they are most
concerned; and, last, an open-ended question regarding what they see as
the most important problem facing their state. Responses to this ques
tion were grouped under three major categories: social issues, econ
omic problems, and state government and political party responses.*
^Answers to the open-ended question regarding the major problem
facing the state were categorized as follows: (1) Social: racial
problems, corruption in government, welfare, education, urban problems,

22
These attitudes, erosstabulated by party, are reported in Table 2-3.
The greatest differences between Democratic and Republican chair
men are over the self-categorization as liberal, middle-of-the-road,
or conservative. The Democratic chairmen are far more likely to call
themselves liberal than are their Republican counterparts, 43 percent
to only 5 percent. While almost equal percentages of the chairmen
from each party classify themselves as middle-of-the-road, 38 percent
of the Democrats and 33 percent of the Republicans, only 19 percent
of the Democratic chairmen, but 62 percent of the Republican chairmen,
call themselves conservatives.
Substantial differences are also apparent over the question of
whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain
the same, or decrease. One-quarter of the Democrats, but only 5 per
cent of the Republicans, would like to see an increase in the activity
of the federal government; 20 percent of the Democrats would see
federal government activity remain the same, as opposed to 9 percent
of the Republicans. On the other hand, the figures show almost 31
percent more Republican chairmen than Democratic chairmen favor a
decrease in the activity of the federal government, 86.4 percent to
55.5 percent. A majority of the chairmen from both parties favor
decreasing federal government activity.
crime, law and order, drug problems, environmental problems, health
problems, transportation, highways, mass transit, federal government
interference, public alienation, too many liberals or conservatives,
consumer protection, Vietnam War, need for Christianity, church-state
relations; (2) Economic: tax reform, taxes, high cost of government,
the economy, high cost of living, unemployment, economic development,
labor-management relations; (3) Government-Political Party: party
problems, need for two-party system, public apathy, government reor
ganization, specific personalities or political groups, need for
patriotism, and improving the state's image.

23
Table 2-3
Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Party
(in percents)
Party
Democratic Republican
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
43.1
5.3
Middle-of-th e-Ro ad
38.0
32.6
Conservative
18.9
62.1
N =
677
723
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
25.5
4.9
Remain the same
19.9
8.7
Decrease
55.5
86.4
N =
570
774
Most Concerned with:
Local
38.5
33.1
State
36.3
33.2
National
27.9
33.7
N =
570
635
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
27.1
26.4
Economic
64.4
59.6
State govt./pol. party
8.5
14.0
N =
621
715
adf for all Chi Squares = 2;
significant at
.001
significant at .01
not significant
X2 = 373.87a
X2 = 186.26a
X2 = 4.75C
X2 = 9.93b

24
Differences between the parties are minor over which level of
government, local, state, or national, the chairmen have the most con
cern. As Table 2-3 shows, the chairmen are divided almost evenly
across the three governmental levels, with the Democrats showing
slightly greater concern for local government: 39 percent of the
Democrats are most concerned with local government, as opposed to 33
percent of the Republicans. More substantial are the differences over
the most important problem facing the state. In both of the parties,
the chairmen regard economic concerns as the major problem confronting
their state, and almost even percentages, 27.1 percent of the Demo
crats and 26.4 percent of the Republicans, see social issues as para
mount. But the Democrats are less likely to view state government
problems as the most important of state concerns than are the Republi
cans; 8.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen say this is their states'
most important problem but only 14 percent of the Republicans make this
assessment.
While the differences between Southern and non-Southern chairmen
are minimal over the demographic characteristics discussed earlier,
the differences over political orientations are more pronounced, as
reported in Table 2-4. Almost one-half of the Southern chairmen call
themselves conservatives, only 16 percent say they are liberal. For
non-Southerners, 37 percent report being conservative with over one-
quarter maintaining they are liberal. Over three-quarters of the
Southern chairmen think the activities of the federal government should
decrease, as opposed to 69 percent of the non-Southern chairmen. The
Southern chairmen are also more concerned about local government than
are non-Southerners, 41 to 32 percent, and, while they are more

25
Table 2-4
Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Region
(in percents)
Region
non-
Southern Southern
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
27.1
16.4
Middle-of-the-Road
35.9
33.8
Conservative
37.0
49.8
N =
951
445
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
16.5
9.9
Remain the Same
14.7
12.3
Decrease
68.7
77.8
N =
985
473
Most Concerned with:
Local
31.5
40.6
State
40.0
23.3
National
28.6
36.1
N =
826
382
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
21.8
37.6
Economic
69.3
45.5
State govt./pol. party
00
0
17.0
N =
918
418
X2 = 27.44a
X2 = 14.75
X2 = 31.99
df for all Chi Squares
Chi Squares, .001
2; significance for all
X2 = 69.38

26
concerned about national politics than non-Southern chairmen, 36 to
29 percent, they fall far behind in their concern for state govern
mentsonly 23 percent of the Southerners are most concerned with state
government, compared to 40 percent of the non-Southern chairmen.
These figures tend to indicate that the chairmen do not share
similar political attitudes. The figures do not, however, gauge the
significance of issues for the chairmen. 4 means of assessing the
salient issues for the county chairmen are their responses as to why
they first became involved in local party activity. Following the
division by Clark and Wilson for organizational participation (1961),
responses to the closed-ended questions were grouped into three broad
categories: purposive (contact influentials, issue concerns, commun
ity obligation), solidarity (strong party loyalty, politics as a way
of life, social contact, personal friendships), and material (helpful
in business, seek office). Interest here is in examining potential
differences between the chairmen of the two parties and between
Southern and non-Southern chairmen. Earlier research has pointed to
the conclusion that local party activists become involved in politics
chiefly for purposive reasons. This is the conclusion reached by Conway
and Feigert in their examination of Knox County, Illinois, and Montgomery
County Maryland (1968). In Knox County, 18 percent of the Democratic
precinct captains and 16 percent of the Republican captains said they
became active in politics to influence politics; in Montgomery County,
the figures are more decisive: 30 percent of the Democrats and 42 per
cent of the Republican captains became active to influence policy.
Similar findings have been reported for Massachusetts and North Caro
lina precinct captains, with 92 percent of the Democrats and 89 percent

27
of the Republicans listing concern with public issues as the major
reason they became active in party affairs (Boxraian et al., 1969).
The figures for the national sample of county chairmen, reported
in Table 2-5, duplicate these findings. While 63 percent of the Repub
lican chairmen list purposive concerns as their most important reason
for becoming chairmen, a majority of the Democratic chairmen, almost
55 percent, also cite purposive incentives as the major reason for
becoming involved in local party politics. The Democratic chairmen,
however, are more likely to have solidarity incentives, 43.7 percent,
than are the Republicans, 35.1 percent. By far the least significant
factor in initial local party work is the material incentives. Only
2.5 percent of the Democratic chairmen and only 1.4 percent of the
Republican chairmen indicate material incentives were the major
stimulus to political party activity.
Table 2-5 also presents the figures for the regional breakdown.
Purposive incentives predominate for both non-Southern and for Southern
chairmen, both regions about 59 percent, followed by solidarity in
centives, both about 39 percent. Material incentives were, once more,
the least important factor.
These results coincide with those reported by Wiggins and Turk for
state party chairmen: "... the data indicate that they were moti
vated primarily by what might be termed idealistic, philosophical,
task-oriented, or impersonal motives" (1970, pp. 330-331). Personal
motivations or material gain in the Wiggins-Turk study, as in the
national sample, received less frequent mention.
There would appear to be, then, substantial differences between
the chairmen. They differ as to their attitudes toward the activity

28
Table 2-5
Incentives for Initial Local Party Activity
by Party and Region
(in percents)
Purposive
Party
Democratic 54.7
Republican 63.4
Region
Non-Southern 59.3
Southern 59.1
Incentive
Solidarity
Material
N
43.7
2.5
775
35.1
1.4
831
X =
12.72
39.3
1.4
1093
39.2
1.8
513
X =
.35
df = 2; significant at .01
^df = 2; not significant
of the federal government and they differ in their self-classification
as liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative. Moreover, the county
party chairmen are concerned about policy questions, most of them
indicating issue concerns as their chief reason for becoming county
chairmen. While a substantial degree of consensus exists as to the
major problem facing their states, the wide variety of responses as to
the government activity and political attitudes is tentative evidence
of major attitudinal differences among the chairmen. Differences
between Southern and non-Southern are muted; what differences exist
over attitudinal variables are small and differences over demographic

29
characteristics are negligible. Consequently, the following analysis
concentrates upon the chairmen without regional distinctions.
These results amount to a confirmation as well as an expansion of
earlier work on the county chairmen. Reaffirmed are the findings of
the chairmen's high social and educational status: they are well-
educated and tend to be found in professional and white-collar jobs.
They are also likely to be middle-aged, thirty-six to fifty years old.
These characteristics are those that enable political participation,
providing the necessary time, skill, and resources for participation.
In addition, the chairmen differ in their political attitudes. There
are appreciable differences between the parties on self-classifica
tion as liberal or conservative, the Democratic chairmen being more
liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Republican chairmen
are also more likely to favor a decrease in the activity of the
federal government than are Democrats.
Whether these differences in demographic and attitudinal profiles
among county chairmen appear as differences in local party activities
is an unexplored question. It is toward this question that attention
is turned in the following chapter.

CHAPTER THREE
THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON
LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY
Chapter Two examined the county chairmen from the perspective
of demographic and attitudinal variables considered in earlier re
search, variables indicated in the literature on county chairmen
to be of importance for their impact upon local party organization.
While it is possible for activity to affect the ideology of the
chairmen, most of the literature indicates that the chairmen affect
the activity of the local party organization and that demographic
and attitudinal characteristics are a key to the chairmen's influence.
For example, in his study of party workers in Detroit, Samuel Patterson
suggests that the nature and functions of party leadership at the
county level can be understood in terms of the characteristics of
party leaders (1963). My purpose in this chapter is to test this
assumption. I shall first test the proposition that the independent
variables of age, education, party, and time in office have an impact
upon the activity of the county party. Second, 1 will examine what
impact political orientations of the chairmen such as self-catagoriza-
tion as liberal or conservative, attitude toward federal government
activity, concern for local, state, or national government, and the
most important problem facing the state have upon party activity.
Initially, the dependent variable, party activity, must be defined
more precisely.
30

31
The Dependent Variables
Eldersveld identifies four task areas that appear to dominate the
concerns of county chairmen: the promotion of factional harmony, the
allocation of patronage, planning campaign strategy, and, finally, the
development of organizational policy (1964). He adds that . the
discussion and the development of strategy for the next campaign was
the major task for a large number of the leadership nucleus, directed
at immediate vote maximization" (1964, p. 342). Avery Leiserson enum
erates major party functions as organization and education of voters,
nomination of candidates, the conduct of elections, clarification of
alternatives, upward mobility, securing dispensations, privileges,
contracts and assistance for potential supporters (1958). Leiserson
adds: ". . all of these functions . were developed informally
as a by-product of the parties' factional efforts to secure control of
government power" (1958, p. 74). Perhaps, then, the "most important"
function of political parties in the United States is . the
recruitment and election of selected public officials" (Madron and
Chelf, 1974, p. 150). In Massachusetts and North Carolina, local party
officials (58.3 percent) ranked as their most important functions cam
paign related activities: contacting voters, raising money, voter
registration, campaigning, public relations, and finding new voters
(Bowman and Boynton, 1966). Eldersveld, who argues that ". . pre
cinct leaders by no means accept the doctrine that the primary task
was vote production," nonetheless reports 45 percent of both Democratic
and Republican leaders maintain their major activity was that of vote
mobilization (1964, pp. 253-254). Thus, while the American political
party performs a number of different functionsorganization, fund

32
raising, election activities, for exampleanalysts agree the most
outstanding endeavor is election or campaign activity, since from cam
paign activity and the desire to win elections springs the need for
the other activities. Epstein argues party organization always exists
for an electoral purpose. "It may have other purposes as well and
still be regarded as that of a party, provided the electoral purpose
is predominant, if not dominant" (1970, p. 98).
Despite the predominant position given to winning elections, in
each of these assessments of party function there is a second common
theme, party organization. The achievement of vote maximization is
contingent upon organizational activity, organization for the purposes
of formulating, coordinating, and implementing campaign strategy.
Campaign activity is a portion of the external leadership of the
chairmen, leadership which has as its primary focus the electorate.
Organizational activity is internally directed, focusing upon other
party officials or elected officials (Katz and Eldersveld, 1961).
Eldersveld identifies three theoretical roles of the party: first,
the party is a task group, competing for political power in elections;
second, the party is a communications subsystem, within which take
place interactions "between actors, between echelons, between coali
tions . third, the party is a decision group, dealing with
tactics and the means to exploit as fully as possible opportunities
to the party's advantage (1964, p. 333).
While I have no information applicable to the party as a decision
making group, the first of Eldersveld's categories, the party as a task
group, corresponds to campaign activity, while the second category, the
party as a communications subsystem, is related to the communications

33
network in which the county chairmen may take part. In this analysis,
then, the dependent variables will be the election activities of the
county organization and the communications network of the chairmen.
I shall develop both of these variables in turn, beginning with cam
paign activity.
Measures of party activity are based upon the observations made
by the county chairmen. A nationwide study leaves no alternative
except reliance upon the perceptions of the chairmen themselves for
information on county activity. The cost of hired observers and geo
graphic distances make impossible reliance upon more objective assess
ments of party activity. Indeed, most studies of the county party
organization have had to rely upon the observations of the local party
officials.
The chairmen were asked several questions relating to county cam
paign activity that are germane to my purpose. The questions seek the
chairman's assessments of the frequency ("often," "sometimes," or
"never") with which the county organization used the following activi
ties at the county level: movie ads, door-to-door canvassing, barbe
cues, radio ads, rallies, press releases, television, newspaper ads,
circulars, literature, telephoning registered voters, billboards, and
surveys or polls. These thirteen activities all deal with the elector
al activities of county party organizations. The object of this
chapter is to explore the possible connection between the performance
of these activities and the demographic and attitudinal variables out
lined in Chapter Two. My interest is in examining the proposition that
differences in campaign activities by local party organizations may be
associated with demographic and attitudinal differences among the county

34
chairmen. To examine this connection, and to facilitate presentation of
the data, it is useful to employ as dependent variables only those
campaign activities carried out by the party organizations that most
differentiate between county organizations.
The selection of these variables is achieved by an analysis of the
thirteen activity areas. First, each of the possible responses to the
activity is assigned a weight; "often" is assigned 3, "sometimes," 2 and
"never," 1. For each chairman, these values are summed over the entire
set of thirteen activities. Those chairmen with scores in the highest
25 percent and those with scores in the lowest 25 percent were then
subjected to a T-Test for each of the thirteen items. The results are
presented in Table 3-1. The larger the T-Score, the more efficiently
the activity distinguishes between the high and low scoring groups of
chairmen.* The activity that best differentiates between the two groups
is the use of surveys or polls, while the smallest distinction between
the chairmen is over the use of movie advertisements. The top five
variables have been selected as measures of county campaign activity;
these five are the frequency with which the county organization uses
surveys or polls, press releases, circulars, radio ads, and campaign
literature.
The second set of dependent variables is based upon the chairmen's
responses to questions regarding the frequency of their contacts with
various party and government officials. The chairmen were asked to rank
as "often," "sometimes," "hardly ever," and "never" their contacts with
*The procedure is described in Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of
Attitude Scale Construction (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 1957).

35
Table 3-1
T-Scores Between Most and Least Active Counties
by Campaign Activity Variables
Means
T-Score'
Campaign use of:
high
low
surveys/polls
2.14
.88
25.97
press releases
2.82
1.57
24.60
circulars
2.88
1.57
21.62
radio ads
2.67
1.30
21.35
literature
2.91
1.58
20.91
billboards
2.56
1.31
20.64
telephone
2.87
1.58
20.54
canvass
2.81
1.60
20.08
rallies
2.73
1.47
18.97
television
2.87
1.58
18.97
barbecues
2.35
1.27
16.71
newspapers
2.84
1.79
15.59
movie ads
1.05
.73
11.37
£
all scores significant at .001
the following: the state's governor, state legislators, other state
officials, county commission state officials, county commissioners, the
county prosecutor, congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and
other county party chairmen. From this list, I have eliminated contacts
with "other state officials" since the elective or appointive nature of
these other officers is unknown and this difference may alter the type
of the contact. In addition, both contacts with county commissioners
and county prosecutors have been excluded, since these positions may not
exist in the chairman's county. The elimination of these three poten
tial contacts leaves six remaining contacts at local, state, and na
tional levels, and includes both public and party offices. First, I
will examine the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables
upon party activity, deferring until the second half of this chapter

36
an examination of the second set of dependent variables, frequency of
contacts.
Characteristics of the Chairmen and Party Activity
Demographic measures. If the demographic and attitudinal differ
ences among the chairmen make a difference in the activities of the
different party organizations the chairmen lead, the distinctions
should be apparent in a crosstabulation between the demographic and
attitudinal variables and the measures of county campaign activity.
Table 3-2 presents the chi-square results for the demographic variables
of education, age, occupation, and length of time in office, previously
defined in Chapter Two.
Despite the large sample size, the chi-squares are all low and few
are statistically significant. Moreover, they do not vary greatly
across election activities. There are two exceptions to these general
izations. First, the chi-squares between age and the distribution of
literature, for both Democratic and Republican chairmen, are noticeably
higher than most of the other chi-squares, 16.22 for the Democrats and
21.00 for the Republicans, both results are statistically significant.
These relatively large chi-squares, however, exaggerate small percentage
differences between the Democratic and Republican chairmen. For the
Democrats, 6.8 percent between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-five
report "never" using literature; but that figure is only 10 percent
greater, 16.9 percent, among Democratic chairmen sixty-six to eighty-
one years old and there is little difference among the other age
categories. Similarly, for the Republican chairmen, the difference
is even smaller, 9.5 percent of those twenty-two to thirty-five report
"never" distributing literature compared to 4.1 percent of the

37
Table 3-2
Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables
Campaign Activity
Demographic
Trait
Surveys/
Polls
Press
Releases
Circulars
Radio
Literature
Education
Democratic
8.10
13.80
4.83
3.06
2.95
Republican
7.09
10.63
5.80
7.02
2.04
Democratic
8.92
20.61
11.06
6.90
16.2 2b
Republican
2.99
6.54
8.27
5.77
21.00b
Occupation
Democratic
13.41
21.6 7b
20.08b
'20.14b
18.04b
Republican
9.18
17.8 4b
17.70b
10.50
25.12b
Time in Office
Democratic
11.62
9.06
6.04
6.70
10.48
Republican
4.80
5.44
3.29
3.09
8.39
£
percentages are found in Appendix B
^significant at .001
(2
significant at .01
of the Republican chairmen sixty-six to eighty-one years old, with small
differences across other categories.
The second notable aspect of the chi-squares is that for both the
Democratic and Republican chairmen, the figures for occupational cate
gories are appreciably and consistently larger than those for any other
demographic variable. With the exception of the use of surveys or

38
polls by Democrats, statistically significant at .01, the remaining
chi-squares are significant at .001; only for surveys or polls and the
use of radio are the figures not significant at the .001 level for the
Republican chairmen. More specifically, both Democratic and Republican
chairmen who are farmers or farm workers are more likely to "never" use
surveys or polls than are chairmen in other occupations: 66 percent
among Democrats as compared with 43 percent among those employed as
managers and 54 percent among the professionals, 59 percent among
Republicans compared to about 45 and 42 percent, respectively, for
Republican chairmen employed in managerial or professional positions.
The percentage of Democratic chairmen employed as farmers or farm
workers who report "never using circulars, 19 percent, is almost three
times as large as those in managerial positions, 6 percent. Among
Democratic and Republican farmers or farm workers, only about one-half
as many report "often" using press releases as Democratic and Republi
can chairmen in professional occupations. Democratic chairmen who are
managers or officials are more likely, in terms of percentages, to
indicate that they "often" use radio in election campaigns, 42 percent,
compared to 28 percent among the farmers or farm workers. Fewer Demo
cratic and Republican chairmen in farming occupations are likely to
"often" use literature, 38 percent for the Democrats and 34 percent
for the Republicans, than are Democratic or Republican chairmen who
are managers or professional workers, about 56 percent in each instance.
Population and occupation. In short, chairmen of both parties
employed as farmers or farm workers are less likely to report frequent
use of any of the five types of campaign activity than are profession
als or managers. While there is no reason to assume the occupation of

39
the chairmen determines the activity of the county organization, occu
pation may be a key to differences between counties. Farmers and farm
workers are likely to be found in less populated counties, managers and
professionals may tend to be found in more heavily populated counties.
The data presented in Table 3-3 support this contention. The counties
have been divided according to population, from the lowest to the
highest 25 percent. While ,18 percent of the professionals, nationwide,
are found in counties with populations of 8,000 or less, that figure
rises steadily from 22 percent in counties of 8,001 to 23,999 in popu
lation, 27 percent in counties with a population of 24,000 to 72,999,
and finally, 32 percent in the most populated counties, those above
73,000 population. Farmers and farm workers dwindle in number as the
county population increases: 47 percent in the least populous counties
falling to only 6 percent in the most populated counties. Managers and
officials remain essentially unchanged across all levels of population,
an average of 25 percent, with the greatest deviation from that aver
age, only 4 percent, occurring in counties of 8,000 or less population.
The national figures are mirrored in those reported by party. The
percentage of professionally employed Democrats rises from 19 percent
in counties of 8,000 or less population to 36 percent in the most popu
lated counties, while Democratic farmers and farm workers fall from 47
percent to 4 percent. Among Republicans, professionals grow from 18 per
cent in counties of 8,000 or less to 28 percent in counties of 73,000 or
above. On the other hand, farmers decrease from 47 percent in the least
populated counties to 8 percent in the most populated. The implications
of population as a factor in local party activity will be discussed
further below in conjunction with the frequency of contacting.

40
Table 3-3
Chairmen's Occupational Classification by County Population
(in percents)
Population
Occupation (in thousands)
Nation
8 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
73 and
above
N
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
18.4
22.4
27.0
32.2
559
Managers,
officials
21,3
24.3
26.7
27.8
536
Farmers, farm
workers
46.7
31.4
15.7
6.2
210
X2
= 107.70a
Democrats
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
18.9
20.3
25.1
35.7
291
Managers,
officials
18.7
26.8
28.0
26.4
246
Farmers, farm
workers
46.9
35.4
13.5
4.2
96
X2
= 67.34a
Republicans
Professional,
technical,
kindred workers
17.9
24.6
29.1
28.4
268
Managers,
officials
23.4
22.1
25,5
29.0
290
Farmers, farm
workers
46.5
28.1
17.5
7.9
114
X2 = 48.29a
df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001

41
Attitudinal measures. For this portion of the analysis, the same
five dependent variables measuring local campaign activity are cross-
tabulated with the four attitudinal measures developed in Chapter Two.
These attitudinal measures are a liberal-conservative dimension, atti
tudes toward the activity of the federal government (increase, remain-
the-same, decrease), the level of government (local, state or national)
with which the chairman is most concerned, and the chairman's assess
ment of the most important problem facing the state. The chi-square
results are presented in Table 3-4.
As with the earlier results comparing demographic variables with
local party activity, the chi-squares between attitudinal variables
and party activity are low; excepting the differences between liberal
and conservative and Democrats, to be discussed in detail below, few
of the chi-squares are statistically significant. Differences between
reported campaign activities of Democrats and Republicans across all
activity areas are small. Indeed, the largest difference among Demo
cratic chairmen is found .in the group reporting "often" using radio
between those who are most concerned with local government, 45 percent,
and those most interested in the national government, 33 percent. For
the Republicans, the greatest gap lies in the group "often" using press
releases between those most concerned with local government, 59 percent,
and those most concerned with national government, 42 percent. The
remaining differences are small. Other than the liberal-conservative
dimension, the greatest percentage differences are found over the activ
ity of the federal government. Over 55 percent of those Democratic
chairmen wishing a decrease in federal government activity report
"never" using surveys or polls, opposed to 42 percent of those who would

42
Table 3-4
Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables
and Campaign Activity Variables
Campaign Activity3
Attitudinal
Trait
Surveys/
Polls
Press
Releases
Circulars
Radio
Literature
Liberal-
Conservative
Democratic
23.03b
26.34b
35.27b
8.01
46.78b
Republican
4.08
5.52
7.05
3.95
4.50
Activity of
Federal Govt.
Democratic
7.53
7.05
21.14b
1.78
24.67b
Republican
6.28
2.78
2.47
1.67
1.63
Level of Govt.
Most Concerned
With
Democratic
2.61
9.12
7.02
11.89
5.89
Republican
7.59
15.21
9.92
2.38
4.61
Most Important
Problem Facing
State
Democratic
11.29
29.39b
3.32
5.51
9.65C
Republican
2.78
7.37
3.02
5.00
.86
£
percentages are found in Appendix C
^significant at .001
significant at .05
see such activity increase. However, the differences between those in
favor of more federal activity who indicate they "often" use surveys or
polls, 13.9 percent, is only 4.2 percent greater than those who report

43
"often using surveys or polls but who desire a decrease in the activ
ity of the federal government. The 14 percent of the Republican chair
men who claim "often" to use surveys but who want a decrease in national
government activity exceeds by about 15 percent those Republicans who
"often" use surveys or polls and wish for more federal activity. The
differences within the category of federal government activity are con
sistent across all five campaign activities, but are greatest among
Democratic chairmen over the use of literature, as reflected in the chi-
square of 24.67 as well as in the percentage results that indicate 21
percent more Democrats who favor increased activity than Democrats
favoring lessened activity, 66.9 to 45.6 percent, report "often" using
literature.
These relatively large percentage differences probably reflect a
correspondence between ranking on the liberal-conservative continuum
and attitudes toward the activity of the federal government. This
expectation is borne out by the data in Table 3-5, which crosstabulates
the liberal-conservative dimension with attitudes toward federal gov
ernment activity. Regardless of rank on the liberal-conservative
dimension, large proportions of chairmen favor a decrease in federal
activity. However, more than twice as many conservatives as liberals
favor such a decrease, 88 percent to 40 percent. On the other hand,
the percentage of liberals favoring an increase in the activity of the
federal government is more than seven times the number of conservatives
favoring an increase.
Impact of the liberal-conservative distinction. Turning specifi
cally to the liberalconservative category, the chi-squares are con
sistently high and statistically significant across all activities,

44
Table 3-5
Liberal-Conservative Dimension by Attitude Toward
Activity of the Federal Government
(in percents)
Liberal-Conservative
Dimension Federal Government Activity
increase
remain
the same
decrease
N
Liberal
38.1
21.7
40.2
336
Middle-of-the-Road
9.5
18.5
72.0
465
Conservative
5.3
6.9
87.8
625
X2 = 287.90a
o.
df = 4; significant at .001
with the exception of the use of radio. Other than the campaign use of
the radio, the lowest chi-square among the Democrats in the liberal-
conservative category is 23.03, for surveys or polls; the highest
figure is for the use of literature, 46.78. Substantial percentage
differences exist between Democratic chairmen who classify themselves
as liberal and those calling themselves conservatives. For example,
liberal Democrats are three and one-half times more likely, in terms
of percentages, to report "often" using surveys or poll's than are con
servative Democrats, 13.3 percent to 3.8 percent. Democratic liberals
are 16.7 percent more likely to report "often" using press releases
than are their conservative counterparts, while Democratic conserva
tives are five times more likely, in terms of percentages, to report
"never" using circulars, 20 percent to 4 percent. Eleven percent more
conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats claim "never" to use the
radio in election campaigns, while 25 percent more liberals than

45
conservatives claim to "often" use literature while campaigning. On
the other hand, there are only small differences between Republican
chairmen who categorize themselves as liberal and those calling them
selves conservatives. Even the greatest differences are small. Only
6 percent more Republican liberals than Republican conservatives report
"often" using surveys or polls; there is almost no difference between
conservative and liberal Republicans who report that they "often" use
press releases. Only about 3 percent more conservatives say they
"often" use circulars; only 9 percent more conservative Republicans
say they "sometimes" use radio advertisements in campaigns. A varia
tion from this pattern exists in the use of literature. There, 16 per
cent more conservative than liberal Republicans report "sometimes"
using literature. However, only 12 percent more liberal Republican
chairmen than conservative Republican chairmen report "often" using
literature and only 4 percent more liberals say they "never" use liter
ature in campaigning.
That the distinction between Democratic liberals and Democratic
conservatives is the consequence of genuine differences between liber
als and conservatives and not solely the result of being a Democrat is
shown by the figures presented in Table 3-6. Large and statistically
significant differences exist between liberals and conservatives, re
gardless of party. These differences are larger than those between
the parties themselves. Almost 9 percent more conservatives than
liberals report "never" using surveys or polls; nearly 14 percent more
liberals than conservatives say they "often" use press releases, 59
percent to 45 percent; 10 percent more liberals than conservatives say
they "often" use circulars; 8 percent more conservatives than liberals

Table 3-6
46
Campaign Activity by Liberal-Conservative
Categorization and by Party
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Attitude
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
Liberal
14.0
43.6
42.4
328
Middle-of-Road
13.0
41.2
45.9
447
Conservative
12.2
36.5
51.3
556
df = 4 X2 = 7.14
Party
Democratic
11.0
39.2
49.8
653
Republican
14.5
41.0
44.6
725
df =
2
2
X = 5.
45
Attitude
Press
Releases
Liberal
58.8
35.1
6.1
345
Middle-of-Road
48.1
45.1
6.8
470
Conservative
45.1
45.6
9.3
592
df = 4 X2 = 18.67a
Party
Democratic
51.1
40.2
8.8
697
Republican
47.7
45.3
7.0
768
df = 4
X2 = 4.
50
Attitude
Circulars
Liberal
56.1
39.3
4.6
346
Middle-of-Road
50.6
42.2
7.2
474
Conservative
46.2
44.2
9.2
597
df = 4
2
X = 12
.69b
Party
Democratic
48.8
42.0
9.2
703
Republican
51.2
42.4
6.3
773
df
2
4.48

47
Table 3-6 (continued)
Radio
Attitude
Often
l Sometimes
Never
N
Liberal
36.3
44.5
19.2
344
Middle-of-Road
38.9
39.5
21.6
463
Conservative
32.4
40.8
26.7
595
df = 4
X2 = 10.44c
Party
Democratic
36.4
42.3
21.4
693
Republican
35.3
40.0
24.6
767
df = 2
X2 = 2.26b
Attitude
Literature
Liberal
62.6
32.8
4.6
348
Middle-of-Road
52.2
42.2
5.5
469
Conservative
49.2
43.3
7.6
594
df = 4
X2 = 17.90a
Party
Democratic
53.8
38.2
8.0
701
Republican
53.3
42.3
4.4
771
df = 2
X2 = 9.20b
significant at .001
^significant at .01
0
significant at .05
report "never" using the radio while campaigning; but 13.4 percent more
liberals than conservatives say they "often" use literature, 62.6 per
cent to 49.2 percent.
Between the parties themselves differences are small over each of
the dependent activity variables. In only two instances, the use of
radio and the use of literature in campaigning, does the chi-square

48
obtain statistical significance; even there, however, the greatest per
centage difference between the organizations of the Democratic and
Republican chairmen reporting they "never" use radio advertisements is
only 3.2 percent, 24.6 percent of the Republican chairmen reporting
they "never" use radio advertisements as opposed to 21.4 percent of
the Democratic chairmen. For the use of literature, the figures are
similar: only 4 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they
"never" use literature; almost identical percentages, 53.8 percent
among Democrats and 53.3 percent among Republicans, say they "often"
use it.
Why such wide differences should exist between liberal Democrats
and conservative Democrats merits consideration, particularly in light
of the muted differences between Republican liberals and Republican
conservatives. If political attitude itself were an adequate explana
tion for the activity differences, it would be anticipated that liber
als and conservatives would behave similarly, regardless of party. As
this is not the case, explanations must be sought elsewhere.
In examining the percentage differences between liberal and con
servative Democrats over each of the five party activity areas, the
liberal Democratic chairmen report greater campaign activity than do
the conservative Democratic chairmen. This is true if only the "often"
category is examined or if the "often" responses are combined with the
"sometimes" responses. As for the Republicans, while the differences
between the liberal Republican chairmen and the conservative chairmen
are very small, the liberal Republicans still exceed the conservative
Republican chairmen in the percentage of "often" responses in four of
the five activity areas. The one exception is the distribution of

49
circulars, where the conservatives surpass the liberals by less than
3 percent. Liberals of both parties are more active across the cate
gories of party campaign activity.
Population and the liberal-conservative distinction. An explana
tion as to why the liberals are more active is found in the five
activities themselves. Each of them, surveys or polls, press releases,
the distribution of circulars and literature, and the use of radio, is
most easily and efficiently employed in highly populated counties.
Press releases are most worthwhile in reaching large numbers of people
and in establishing candidate name recognition, neither of which may
be as necessary in a rural or less populated environment. The distribu
tion of circulars and literature is more easily accomplished in areas of
greater population density; distance between homes, offices, and, speci
fically, people, is smaller; less time is spent traveling between
potential voters, and more time is spent in contacting voters. The two
activity areas that may constitute exceptions to this generalization,
the use of surveys or polls and the use of radio, are also the two
activities that show the smallest differences between liberals and con
servatives, as already' reported in Table 3-6. The average difference
between liberals and conservatives over "often" using press releases,
circulars, or literature is 12.3 percent. For the use of surveys or
polls, there is a difference of 1.8 percent and for the use of radio
in campaigns the difference is 3.9 percent. These exceptions are prob
ably the result of the high cost of polling and radio advertisements,
especially in the case of radio, since costs are determined by the size
of the audiencea calculation that may prove particularly costly when
a county with a relatively low population borders a county with greater

50
population; thus, for a local contest, the party would pay to reach
large numbers of voters ineligible to vote in the county.
In light of the differing utilities involved for populated and
less populated counties in using the five campaign activities consid
ered here, and given the higher activity rates of the liberals vis-a-vis
the conservatives of both parties, it is reasonable to expect liberals
would be found in more populous counties and conservatives in less
populous counties. The data presented in Table 3-7 bear out this
expectation. Using the division of counties by population already
established, the figures indicate that a far greater percentage of
liberals are found in the more populated counties. While 25 percent
of the liberals are in counties of under 8,000 population, 33 percent
are in counties with a population of 73,000 or more. Those chairmen
calling themselves middle-of-the-road are evenly distributed across
all categories of population. Both parties mirror the national figures.
Among Democrats, 24 percent of the liberals are found in counties of
8,000 or less population, but almost 33 percent are found in counties
with populations in excess of 73,000. Conversely, the percentage of
Democratic conservatives falls from 27 percent in the least populous
counties to only 11 percent in the most populous. Republican liberals
show the smallest differences between the two population extremes, only
5 percent, but conservative Republicans decline from 27.1 percent to
19 percent over the population range.
To summarize the argument thus far: both the demographic variable
of occupation and the attitudinal variable of liberal-conservative
categorization are associated with differences in the activity of
local party organizations. However, both of these variables also

51
Table 3-7
Liberal-Conservative Categorization by Population
of County by Party and Region
(in percents)
Liberal-Conservative Population
Region/Party (in thousands)
8 and
73 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
above
N
Nation
Liberal
25.2
22.2
19.2
33.3
369
Middle-of-Road
22.3
22.1
28.0
27.6
493
Conservative
27.2
28.6
27.0
17.2
644
X2
= 43.65a
Democrats
Liberal
24.1
22.5
20.4
32.8
329
Middle-of-Road
22.2
24.5
28.8
24.5
257
Conservative
27.3
34.5
27.3
10.8
139
x2
= 30.05a
Republican
Liberal
32.5
20.0
10.0
37.5
40
Middle-of-Road
22.5
19.5
27.1
30.9
236
Conservative
27.1
26.9
26.9
19.0
505
X2
= 23.40a
adf for all chi-
squares = 6
; significant at .001
correspond to the pop
ulation of
the county,
farmers and
farm
workers
are found in less populous counties while managerial and professional
occupations are more heavily represented in more heavily populated
counties; conservatives are more apt to be found in counties with less
population, but liberals are more likely to be found in counties with

52
greater population. Moreover, while there is no apparent reason that
demographic and attitudinal variables should be associated with county
party activity, the population of the county can be connected to county
activity by considering the utility of the activities for the local
party organization; the activities considered here are more useful in
more populated counties.
Population and party activity. The final step in this section of
the analysis is to examine the relationship between the activity areas
and the county population. If, in fact, population makes a difference
in the kinds of activity carried out by the county organizations, these
differences should be evident across different levels of population.
As Table 3-8 indicates, the frequency of reported activity does
differ in counties with differing populations. The lowest chi-square,
for the use of press releases, is 57.16, while the highest, for the
use of radio in campaigns, is 206.35; all are statistically significant
at .001. The percent differences are persuasive. While only 16 per
cent of the chairmen in counties of 8,000 or fewer population report
"often" using surveys or polls, over 46 percent report "often" using
them in counties of 73,000 and above population, a difference of 36
percent. Thirty percent of those reporting no use of surveys or polls
are in the least populated counties. The frequent use of press re
leases expands from 22 percent in lightly populated counties to 34 per
cent in heavily populated counties; figures for the use of circulars
parallel those for press releases. In the least populous counties,
radio is used frequently by only 10 percent of the chairmen, while in
the same counties 51 percent report "never" using radio. The per
centage of those "often" using radio increases steadily across the

53
Table 3-8
Campaign Activity by County Population
(in percents)
Population
Activity (in thousands)
8 and 7 3 and
under
9 to 23
24 to 72
above
N
Survey/Polls
Often
16.4
14.7
22.0
46.9
177
Sometimes
19.9
19.5
25.7
34.9
533
Never
29.8
29.5
26.9
X2 = 118.92
13.9
,a
648
Press Releases
Often
21.6
20.5
24.1
33.8
722
Sometimes
24.8
26.4
29.0
19.7
628
Never
36.5
32.2
18.3
X2 = 57.16
13.0
115
Circulars
Often
22.6
18.4
25.3
33.7
739
Sometimes
25.8
28.7
25.5
19.9
623
Never
31.6
29.8
28.1
X2 = 57.49
10.5
114
Radio
Often
10.5
24.5
31.5
33.5
523
Sometimes
20.5
24.5
28.5
26.5
600
Never
Literature
51.0
22.3
13.1 13.6
X2 = 206.35
337
Often
23.0
18.1
24.1
34.8
788
Sometimes
25.3
30.5
26.8
17.5
594
Never
32.2
33.3
25.6
8.9
90
X2 = 78.34
3
df for all chi-squares = 6; all figures significant at .001

54
categories of population until, in those counties with the greatest
populations, almost 34 percent report "often" using radio in campaign
ing. On the other hand, the number "never" using radio declines from a
high of 51 percent to a low of less than 14 percent in the most heavily
populated counties. The percentage of those chairmen who say they
"often" use literature moves from 23 percent in the less populated
counties to 35 percent in the most populated counties, while the per
centage of those chairmen who "never" use literature declines from 32
percent to 9 percent.
Thus, while both self-ranking on a liberal-conservative scale
and occupation are associated with distinctions in the campaign activ
ity of local organizations, a more satisfactory explanation for the
differences lies in the population of the county, since population
mandates the selection of different kinds of campaign activitythe
activities considered here being more or less appropriate in counties
of greater or lesser population.
Characteristics of the Chairmen and Frequency of Contacts
Demographic measures. A last set of comparisons must be made
between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of
inter-party communication, contacts between the county chairmen and
public and party officials. As noted earlier, these contacts represent
the communications network that exists within the party organization,
distinct from the election activities that are the party's contacts
with the electorate. Table 3-9 presents the chi-square results com
paring the chairmen's demographic traits with the reported frequency
of contacts between the chairmen and the governor, state legislators,

55
Table 3-9
Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables
and Frequency of Contact
Contact with
Demographic
Trait
Education
Democratic
Republican
Democratic
Republican
State
Governor Legis,
9.17 15.27
17.56 5.62
24.98c 10.27
22.70c 7.00
Congress- U.S. Sen-
men ators
23.44 13.36
6.13 9.22
17.11 16.84
17.22 15.05
St./Pty. Other
Chairmen Chairmen
11.09 11.36
8.00 12.46
14.16 10.86
14.50 14.83
Occupation
Democratic 12.78
Republican 12.83
6.90 16.08
2.18 7.20
8.13 6.44 6.00
5.40 3.15 12.46
Time-in-Office
Democratic 4.86
Republican 11.25
2.64 7.58
5.59 9.73
6.57 8.98 12.32
2 7.5 6b 10.71 12.67
percentages are found in Appendix D
^significant at .001
c
significant at .01
congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party
chairmen on party business. Few of the chi-squares are statistically
significant, and no pattern appears in the figures. The chi-squares
obtain statistical significance in only three instances: for chairmen

56
of both parties over contacts with the states governors when the
chairmen are grouped by age; between Democratic chairmen and contacts
with congressmen, when broken down by education; and between Republican
chairmen and contacts with U.S, senators based on time-in-office of the
chairmen.
Regarding contacts with the state's governor, in both parties the
frequency of reported contacts increases with the chairman's age. Only
16 percent of the Democrats ages twenty-two to thirty-five report
"often" contacting the state's governor on party business, but that
figure rises to 25 percent among those Democratic chairmen sixty-six
years old or older. Among Republicans, 10 percent of those twenty-two
to thirty-five say they "often" contact the governor, but that figure
more than doubles, 21.4 percent, among those above sixty-five years
old. Similarly, for the chairmen of both parties, the incidence of
"never" responses decreases with the chairmen's age.
The frequency of "often" and "sometimes" responses by the chairmen
with regard to contacting the governor are generally lower in the two
highest age classifications, fifty-one to sixty-five and sixty-six to
eighty-six, than they are for any other office, public or private. In
all other offices, an average of nearly 78 percent of Democratic and
Republican chairmen above age fifty-one report "often" or "sometimes"
contacting public or party officers on party business; for governor,
the figure is less than 57 percent. Moreover, differences by age are
not as apparent in reported contacts for offices other than governor.
While, on the average, 71 percent of the chairmen from ages twentytwo
to fifty report "often" or "sometimes" contacting across all categories
except that of governor (7 percent fewer than those fifty-one years old

57
or older), the average for those chairmen below age fifty-one who
"often" or "sometimes" contact the governor is 40 percent, 17 percent
less than those above fifty-one years of age. The figures indicate
that contacting the governor is more clearly associated with age than
is contacting any other official.
High levels of contacts between the county chairmen and state
chairmen or the county chairmen and other county chairmen are not
remarkable, given the probable mutuality of interests; congressmen and
U.S. senators, because of distances both geographic and social, may
make special efforts to facilitate communication with the county chair
men as a source of political information and support; the high turnover
rate and low public visibility of state legislators would probably en
courage large numbers of contacts in an effort to build and solidify
support for campaign efforts. On the other hand, inability to succeed
themselves in office, limited influence upon state legislative elec
tions, and, in many states, dispersal and consequent dilution of execu
tive power among elected members of a state cabinet perhaps contribute
to the smaller incidence of reported contacts made between county chair
men and the governor.
Other differences are also apparent. Between Democratic chairmen
and contacts with congressmen when the chairmen are classified by edu
cation, almost twice as many Democratic chairmen, in terms of percen
tages, with less than a high school education report "often" contacting
congressmen than do Democratic chairmen with at least a college educa
tion, 43 percent to 22 percent. Similarly, relatively larger differ
ences exist between Republicans and contacts with U.S. senators when
the chairmen are divided by time-in-office. While just under 54 percent

58
of the Republican chairmen in office two years or less say they "often
or "sometimes" contact senators, almost 69 percent of them in office
five years or more make the same claims, a difference of nearly 15
percent.
Attitudinal measures. As Table 3-10 shows, attitudinal variables
make few distinctions in the frequency of contact. In the liberal-
conservative category and in attitudes toward the activity of the
federal government, the chi-squares between Democratic chairmen and
contacts with state party chairmen and other county chairmen are statis
tically significant and the percentage differences relatively large.
More liberal than conservative Democratic chairmen report "often" or
"sometimes" contacting state party chairmen, 86 to 74 percent, Simil
arly, 10 percent more Democrats who favor an increase in the activity
of the federal government than Democrats favoring a decrease report
"often" or "sometimes" contacting the state party chairmen. Figures
for contacts with other county chairmen reflect those for contacts
with state chairmen. Almost 79 percent of Democratic liberals report
"often" or "sometimes" contacting other county chairmen on party
business, but only 65 percent of the Democratic chairmen who call them
selves conservative report contacting with the same levels of frequency.
Again, 86 percent of the Democratic chairmen favoring an increase in
federal government activity say they "often" or "sometimes" contact
other party chairmen, but less than 74 percent of those who wish a
decrease in the activity of the national government, 12 percent fewer,
report contacting with the same frequency. These figures may represent
a greater willingness of liberal Democrats to participate in a party
that is skewed in the direction of liberals, as Table 2-3 reported,

59
Table 3-10
Chi-Square Statistics between Attitudinal Variables
and Frequency of Contact
Contact
with3
Variable
Governor
State
Legis.
Congress
men
- U.S. Sen
ators
St. Pty.
Chairmen
Other
Chairmen
Liberal-
Conservative
Democratic
Republican
10.06
13.03
11.40
20.06
6.04
7.45
12.20
7.96
16.25
5.69
16.38
1.90
Activity of
Federal Govt.
Democratic
Republican
4.08
9.92
10.58
5.72
7.51
5.30
2.57
10.12
16.24
6.09
23.79b
5.43
Level of Govt.
Most Concerned
Democratic
6.42
6.72
2.74
18.53
9.35
6.92
Republican
19.55c
35.72b
2.06
5.54
4.34
5.26
Most Important
Problem Facing
State
Democratic
8.45
4.55
5.20
6.83
10.84
8.95
Republican
24.65
9.03
8.52
6.40
7.53
2.66
p
percentages are found in Appendix E
^significant at .001
c
significant at .01
while at the same time reflecting a reluctance on the part of conserva
tives to participate as fully.
Among Republicans, the chi-squares indicate greater divisions within
the party over contacts with state government officials, the governor

60
and state legislators. When divided by the level of government with
which they are most concerned, the chi-squares for Republican chairmen
and contacting the governor is 19.55, for contacts with state legis
lators, 35.72; over the liberal-conservative dimension, the figure
between Republican chairmen and contacting of state legislators is
20.06. All of these figures are statistically significant; but in the
first two cases, contacts with the governor and with state legislators
by level of government with which the chairmen feel most concerned,
they tend to magnify smaller percentage differences. For instance,
while two times as many Republicans with local government as their
major concern indicate "often" contacting the governor as Republicans
concerned with national government, 14 percent to 7 percent, when the
categories of "often" and "sometimes" are combined, the difference
shrinks to a less substantial 7 percent. The figures do indicate,
however, a greater willingness among Republicans most concerned with
state government to contact the governor on party business.
In contacts with state legislators, 77 percent of the Republican
chairmen most concerned with local government maintain they "often" or
"sometimes" contact these state officials, compared to 73 percent of
those Republican chairmen most concerned with national government.
Once again, Republicans most concerned with state government, 83 per
cent, report "often" or "sometimes" contacting state legislators on
party business. Larger differences appear among Republicans when
divided along the liberal-conservative continuum over contacts with
state legislators. Over 62 percent of the liberals report "often" con
tacting state legislators compared to 41 percent of the conservatives;
when combined with the "sometimes" responses, the figures are 92 to

61
77 percent. Middle-of-the-road Republicans fall between the conserva
tives and the liberals with 86 percent contacting state legislators
"often" or "sometimes."
These figures, in conjunction with the figures comparing the im
pact of the demographic and attitudinal variables, have implications
for the understanding of local party activity. They do not tend to
substantiate the speculation made in the literature of county party
chairmen that the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the
chairmen will have an impact upon the activity of the county organiza
tion, at least as the activity of the local organizations has been
measured here: in terms of electorally oriented activity. The demo
graphic and attitudinal variables do appear to make a difference in
the organization's electoral activities in the case of occupation or
liberal-conservative attitudes; however, theoretical explanations as
well as the empirical evidence appear to indicate otherwisein the
case of occupation or liberal-conservative beliefs, the appropriate
ness of the activity in regard to the county's population seems to make
a larger difference. The next chapter establishes the framework for a
move away from demographic and attitudinal traits, toward an examina
tion of the chairmen's political orientations and the impact of those
orientations upon local party activity.

CHAPTER FOUR
THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMAN
The publication in 1968 of The Amateur Democrat by James Q.
Wilson sparked interest in a new development in American politics:
amateur political activists who participate in politics not in the
expectation of any direct material reward but because they find poli
tics intrinsically interesting. The amateur differs from the profes
sional who is more concerned with the politics of winning elections.
This chapter considers the amateur-professional division among
the county party chairmen. The chairmen will be divided along amateur-
professional lines, then examined by demographic characteristics and
political ambitions. This examination becomes the basis for exploring,
in Chapter Five, the connection between amateurs, professionals, and
party activity.
The evidence is mounting that citizens now participate in politics
by holding office and that they manage to retain an amateur point of
view despite office-holding (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977). It is possible
the amateur now participates in the party organization itself; recent
evidence is found in studies of national party convention delegates
(Hitlin and Jackson, 1977; Roback, 1975). Whether the amateur-
professional distinction exists among county party chairmen is the
aspect of local party organization this chapter examines.
62

63
Previous research takes as a starting point Wilsons definitions
of amateur and professional. Amateurs are more concerned with ideals
and principles than with power, while the professional is mainly inter
ested in winning elections and less concerned with issues or ideology.
The county chairmen were asked a series of questions that tap the
amateur-professional dimension by probing the chairmen's attitudes
toward the party hierarchy, their attitudes toward issues and ideology,
and their view of the role of issues and ideology in local party poli
tics. Specifically, the questions were whether the chairmen felt an
obligation (1) to follow party leaders, (2) to give patronage positions
to party supporters, (3) to weigh prior party service in selecting a
candidate, (4) to pick a candidate with issue commitments, (5) to keep
public officials accountable to the party, and (6) to hold personal
beliefs. Possible responses to each question ranged over a five-place
continuum from "strong obligation to do," "some obligation to do,"
"no obligation," "some obligation to avoid," to a "strong obligation
to avoid." These responses are assigned a value ranging from zero to
four with "strong obligation to do" assigned the upper value, four.
Following Richard Hofstetter (1971), I have factor analyzed the six
questions. The results of this factor analysis are presented in
Table 4-1.
Earlier analysis has indicated that amateurprofessionalism may
not fall upon a single dimension. Thomas Roback, for example, in exam
ining delegates to the 1972 Republican Convention finds, after factor
analysis, that two dimensions resulted: (1) a procedural-organization
dimension and (2) a principles-participation dimension (1975). Richard
Hofstetter earlier arrived at similar conclusions by factor analysis of

64
Table 4-1
Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of
Amateur-Professional Perceptions
Factor
Issue
Question
Procedural
Participation
Follow decisions of
party leaders
.46
.30
Give patronage help
to party workers
.64
.18
Weigh prior service in
selecting nominee
.74
.10
Select nominee with
issue commitments
.14
.76
Keep public officials
accountable to party
.68
.10
Hold personal beliefs
.18
.75
Percent total variance:
16.80
12.80
questions designed to tap the distinction between amateur and pro
fessional: he labeled the factors (1) procedural and (2) issue-
participation. The procedural dimension "taps norms about party
procedureaccountability to the organization, nomination of candi
dates, patronage, and discipline" (1971, p. 41). The second factor,
the issue-participation factor, "taps norms about commitment to issues,
intensity of personal belief, discussion of issues, participation and
the role of the formal party organization in nominations (juxtaposed
against the role of individuals or action groups) . ." (p. 41). The
figures in Table 4-1 mirror these results. Two of the questions, the
degree of obligation to select a nominee with issue commitments and
the degree of obligation to hold personal beliefs, load heavily upon
the second factor, issue-participation. Of the four remaining questions,

65
only one, the extent of obligation to follow decisions of party lead
ers, loads on the first factor, procedural, at less than .50. The
remaining three questions, the extent of a feeling of obligation to
give patronage help to party workers, weigh prior service in selecting
a nominee, and keep public officials accountable to the party, all
load on the procedural factor at more than .60. Because the question
tapping obligation to follow decisions of party leaders is only .04
less than the cutoff point for loading on the first factor, and because
it is theoretically justifiable in light of earlier research, I have
included the question in the procedural dimension. For clarity in
presentation, because of limitations in the county chairmen survey
(specifically, the lack of information on inter-party activities of
the chairmen), and for conformity with earlier research on amateurism,
subsequent analysis in this chapter will deal only with the procedural
dimension of the amateur character; this is the approach adopted by
Roback (1975). Responses to the four questions that fall in the pro
cedural dimension were summed to produce an additive index for each
chairman ranging from zero, indicating all responses were "obligation
to avoid," to a score of 16, indicating all responses to the four ques
tions were "strong obligation to do." Thus, the lower the score, the
more deeply rooted the amateur convictions, the higher the score, the
more professional the chairman's convictions.
The scores were trichotomized into amateur, semi-professional, and
professional. This division yields 133 amateurs (8.3 percent), 781
semiprofessionals (48.6 percent) and 598 professionals (37.2 percent).
While skewed in the direction of professionals, the results correspond
favorably with those of earlier studies (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977;

66
Soule and McGarth, 1975). The remainder of this chapter deals with an
analysis of the county chairmen divided along the amateur-professional
dimension.
The demographic variables for the first portion of this analysis
are those examined in earlier research: level of education, age,
time-in-office, and sex. Statistical research has confirmed Wilson's
observation that amateurs are, for the most part, ". . young, well-
educated professional people, including a large number of women"
(1968). Soule and McGarth reach similar conclusions in their examina
tion of delegates to the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Conventions, and
Roback reports a like profile of amateurs at the 1972 Republican Con
vention (Soule and McGarth, 1975; Roback, 1975). The data presented
in Table 4-2 reflect these findings for the county chairmen. Amateur
chairmen are better educated than semiprofessionals or professionals:
63 percent of the amateurs report having a college degree or having
done postgraduate work, compared to 54 percent of the semiprofessionals
and 51 percent of the professionals. Among delegates to the 1974 Demo
cratic Midterm Convention, Hitlin and Jackson report 76 percent of the
amateurs as college graduates or holding advanced degrees, compared to
54 percent of the professionals (1977). The figures also indicate
amateurs are more likely to be younger than the more professionally-
oriented chairmen. More than 25 percent of the amateurs, but two-
thirds fewer professionals, only 8 percent, are between ages twenty-two
and thirty-five. The semiprofessionals fall between the amateurs and
professionals; 14 percent are ages twenty-two to thirty-five. While
31 percent of the amateurs are fifty-one years old or older, 46 percent
of the professionally-oriented chairmen are above age fifty-one. Among

67
Table 4-2
Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional
by Demographic Traits
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Amateur
Semi-
Professional Professional
Education
None-some high school
5.3
3.5
6.4
High school
9.2
13.1
15.4
Some college
22.9
29.9
27.7
College and post-grad.
62.9
54.2
50.5
N =
131
778
596
df = 6
X2 = 14.26 .
22 to 35
25.6
14.4
8.2
36 to 50
43.4
50.3
46.1
51 to 65
23.3
30.3
33.0
66 to 86
7.8
5.0
12.6
N =
129
776
594
df = 6
X2 = 56.11a
Time in Office
2 years or less
43.4
46.5
35.4
3 or 4 years
27.1
24.4
25.4
5 years or more
29.5
29.0
39.2
N =
29
765
587
df = 4
X2 = 21.15a
Sex
Male
89.4
91.8
94.1
Female
10.6
8.2
5.9
N =
132
781
597
df = 2 X2 = 4.69
a
significant
at
.001

68
Republican delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention, Roback
found "organizational longevity . positively related to profession
alism" (1975, p. 450). The data for the county chairmen mirror the
results of Soule and Clarke's examination of delegates to the 1968
Democratic Convention. They found 24 percent of the amateurs had been
active two years or less and 75 percent of the professionals were active
ten years or more (1970). The amateurs have also served in the office
of chairmen fewer years than professionals; over 43 percent of the
amateurs have been in office two years or less, compared to 35 percent
of the professionals. On the other hand, while almost equal percentages
of amateurs and semiprofessionals have served five years or more, 25.5
percent of the amateurs and 29 percent of the semiprofessionals, over
39 percent of the professionals have been in office for five or more
years.
Finally, the data indicate women are found in slightly greater per
centages among the amateurs: about 11 percent of the amateurs are women,
compared to 6 percent of the professionals. The semiprofessionals fall
in between, with 8 percent women.
Age differences and differences in time served in office open the
door to another dimension of the attributes of the amateurism of the
chairmen, their political experience and ambitions. The chairmen were
asked (1) if they had ever held public office, (2) if they wished higher
party office and (3) if they wished to keep their present position. It
is expected that given the relative youth of the amateurs and their
comparative newness to the position of county chairmen, they would be
less likely to have held public office. Wishing higher party office
or the desire to keep their present position is more difficult to

69
predict. It may be that the amateur is willing to participate in poli
tical activityeven to the extent of becoming a county chairmanonly
insofar as policy goals, electoral or ideological, are perceived as
obtainable. There is some evidence for this argument. In their study
of county political activists in Iowa, Johnson and Gibson report that
despite activity as campaign workers in a primary election, 21 percent
of the activists intended to bolt their party in the general election.
This group included five precinct committeemen, three precinct chair
men, and one county party official: "... more than one-half of the
bolters were, or had been, delegates to county conventions" (1974,
p. 73). Of course, the amateurs may view political activity as socially
or personally beneficial, may have enjoyed their political experience
and have higher political aspirations. The results are presented in
Table 4-3.
As predicted, the amateurs are less likely to have held public
office than either the semiprofessionals or the professionals. Only
29 percent of the amateurs have held public office while 39 percent of
the semiprofessionals and 48 percent of the professionals have held
office. This pattern of office-holding coincides with that reported
by Hitlin and Jackson for delegates to the Democratic Mid-Term Conven
tion. They found 59 percent of the amateurs had held party office
while 81 percent of the professionals had held office (1977). The
difference between the chairmen and the delegates may be the conse
quence of delegates to the national convention having first served in
the county party.
The amateurs have less desire than professionals for both higher
party office or for keeping their own position. Less than 30 percent

70
Table 4-3
Chairmens Ambitions by Amateur,
Semiprofessional, and Professional
Degree of Professionalism
(percent answering "yes")
Semi-
Ambition
Amateur
Prof.
Prof.
Ever held public
office?
29.2
38.7
47.7
N =
38
300
282
X = 20,05a
Wish higher party office?
29.7
36.7
41.0
N =
38
274
235
X = 6.46a
Wish to keep present
position?
41.5
44.8
53.8
N =
51
335
302
X = 12.72a
£
df = 2; significant at .05
of them wish for higher party office, compared to 41 percent of the
professionals. Only 41 percent of the amateurs (opposed to 54 percent
of the professionals) want to keep their present positions. The semi
professionals fall between the amateurs and the professionals. The
lesser interest of amateurs in pursuing higher party office or in main
taining their current party office may be indicative of a dissatisfac
tion with party politics as was the case among the Iowa activists. A
final variable frequently mentioned in the literature of amateurs and
professionals is the liberalconservative dimension. While Wilson
reports that Democratic clubs in California tend overwhelmingly to be
liberal, he also maintains that ". . it is not his liberalism ...

71
that sets the new politician apart and makes him worth studying"
(1968, p. 2). Yet, the studies of amateurs have consistently linked
the amateur with liberal: "amateurs were much more likely to place
themselves in the 'liberal' category than were the professionals,"
write Hitliu and Jackson (1977, p. 792). Far from indicating a liberal
bent, data from the county chairmen place the amateur within the con
servative category. The chairmen were asked to rank themselves on a
liberal-conservative continuum ranging from very liberal to very con
servative. As in Chapter Two, these categories are collapsed to
liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative. The results are dis
played in Table 4-4. Of the amateurs, 48 percent classify themselves
as conservative. Forty-three percent of the professionals place them
selves in the conservative category. Only 22 percent of the amateurs
regard themselves as liberal, while 26 percent of the professionals
so classify themselves. While these data do not correspond to the
results of work done on convention delegates, they are more in line
with Wilson's observation that the amateur is not solely a product of
a liberal political outlook. Amateurism is a question of political
"style," and not a question of liberalness. As Wildavsky has pointed
out in regard to the conservative "purist" delegates to the 1964 Repub
lican National convention:
The ideal party of the purists is not merely a conservative
party; it is also a distinct and separate community of co
believers who differ with the opposition party all down the line.
To this extent, their style merges with that of the liberal party
reformers, described by James Wilson . who wish to see the
parties represent clear and opposed alternatives and gain votes
only through appeals on policy differences rather than on such
"irrational" criteria as personality, party identification, or
ethnic status. (1971, pp. 255-256)

Table 4-4
72
Amateur, Semiprofessional, and Professional by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Liberal-
Conservative
Amateur
Prof.
Prof
Liberal
22.3
23.6
26.3
Middle-of-the-Road
29.2
34.7
31.2
Conservative
48.5
41.8
42.5
N =
130
764
586
X = 4.24a
adf = 4; not significant
In their study of presidential elections, Polsby and Wildavsky reach
the same conclusion: .in the presence of these activists is a
phenomenon which is not best seen as a matter of right vs. left, or
orgnaization vs. anti-organization, but rather in terms of political
purists . vs. professional politicians" (1971, p. 36). In short,
it is "style" that distinguishes the amateur from the professional,
not liberalism. This distinction in style is seen in the attitude of
amateurs and professionals toward the representative function of the
legislator. The amateur, Wilson says, would control elected officials
not from "external threats" typified by the mobilization of electoral
majorities, but rather by "internalized convictions" that have as
their object the realization of ". . certain social policies rather
than of enhancing the party's prospects for retaining power in the
next election" (1968, pp. 18-19). It is anticipated, therefore, that
the amateur activist would see the duty of the representative as to
act in the best interest of the contituency and not, necessarily,

73
respond to the wishes of the constituency. The professional, concerned
with winning elections, is likely to be more sensitive to the constitu
ency's wishes.
The chairmen were asked: "In making most kinds of policy deci
sions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own best
judgment even if this means doing something unpopular, or that poli
ticians ought to do what a majority of their constituents want?" The
responses are reported in Table 4-5. The majority of the activists,
52 percent, believe politicans should rely upon their own judgment in
making policy decisions; 30 percent feel politicians should use a
combination of their own judgment and that of their constituents, while
18 percent believe majority opinion should provide the guide to politi
cal action. At the other extreme, while 38 percent of the profession
als think politicians should rely upon their own judgment exclusively,
only 5 percent fewer, 33 percent, believe policy decisions should be
made upon the preferences of the majority. The figures bear out the
expectation that professionals are more sensitive to the demands of
the constituency and, by implication, that most amateurs expect the
politician to pursue a "correct" policy solution, not necessarily
relying upon the attitudes of constituents for guidance.
Especially intriguing in these figures are the disparities among
the amateurs. While the semiprofessionals and professionals array
themselves evenly across the three categories, the amateurs cluster
heavilymore than one-halfupon reliance upon a politician's own
judgment. Yet almost 18 percent of the amateurs would rely exclusive
ly upon the majority opinion for making policy decisionsa surprising
response for the amateur activists, preoccupied with "correct" policy

74
Table 4-5
Attitude on Representation by Amateurism
(in percents)
Legislator should
rely on
Amateur
Semi
prof.
Prof.
Own judgment
52.3
41.6
38.2
Both equally
30.0
31.4
29.0
Majority opinion
17.7
24.4
32.9
N =
130
772
587
X2
= 21.72
adf = 4; significant at .001
choice. This 18 percent bears more extended analysis. The existence
of the schism within the amateur ranks is indicative of a "fundamental
problem" confronted by the amateurs: to abandon democracy for elitism
or to surrender policy decisions to popular input (Wilson, 1968,
pp. 344-346). The majority of the amateurs would appear to have come
down on the elite side of the issueover 50 percent maintaining
politicians should rely solely on their own judgment in making policy
decisions. Eighteen percent of the amateurs, however, argue the majority
opinion should govern political decisionsa "majoritarian" approach.
It appears, then, that amateurism is more complex than a liberal-
conservative division would indicate. An analysis of the majoritarian
amateurs vis-a-vis the remaining amateurs and the professionals may
clarify this phenomenon.
Table 4-6 presents comparisons by demographic traits among (1)
amateurs minus the majoritarians, (2) semiprofessionals, and (3) the
majoritarians. Since the number of majoritarians is small (N = 22),
the categories of education, age, and time-in-office have been collapsed.

75
Table 4-6
Amateur, Professional, Majoritarian
by Demographic Traits
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Amateur Professional Maj oritarian
Education
None-high school
11.3
21.8
31.8
Some college
20.8
27.7
31.8
College and post-grad.
67.9
50.5
36.4
N =
106
596
22
Age
df =
4
X2 = 14.36a
22 to 50
69.2
54.4
68.2
51 to 86
30.8
45.6
31.8
N =
104
594
22
df =
2
X2 = 9.13a
Time in Office
2 to 4 years
74.3
60.8
47.6
5 years or more
25.7
39.2
52.4
N =
105
587
21
df =
2
X2 = 8.90a
Sex
Male
89.7
94.1
86.4
Female
10.3
5.9
13.6
N ='
107
597
22
df = 2 X2 = 4.52
significant at
.01

76
Despite the loss of some variability, differences between the groups
are still apparent. For example, the majoritarians are three times as
likely, in terms of percentages, to have only a high school education
or less than are the remaining amateurs, 32 percent to 11 percent. The
amateurs are 17 percent more likely to have a college education or post
graduate work, 68 percent, than professionals, 51 percent, but far more
likely than the majoritarians, who report only 36 percent with a
college education or greater. Distinctions between amateurs and major
itarians over age are negligible, 69.2 percent of the amateurs are
below age fifty-one with 68.2 percent of the majoritarians in the same
category. Both of these groups, however, differ from the profession
als, where only 54 percent are under age fifty-one and nearly 46 per
cent are above age fifty.
Larger differences are noticeable when the chairmen are compared
over the time they have served in office. While 75 percent of the
amateurs and 61 percent of the professionals have served two to four
years, only 48 percent of the majoritarians have served five years or
less. Conversely, more than one-half the majoritarians, 52 percent,
have served five years or more, in contrast to 25 percent of the ama
teurs. There is little distinction between amateurs and majoritarians
regarding sex; only 3.6 percent more majoritarians are women.
To complete the comparisons among amateurs, professionals, and
majoritarians, Table 4-7 presents the distribution of amateurs by the
liberal-conservative dimension. While not statistically significant,
the figures indicate the greatest portion of the majoritarians classify
themselves as conservatives, over 69 percent, compared to 44 percent
among the remaining amateurs and 43 percent among professionals. In

Table 4-7
77
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)
Degree of professionalism
Liberal-
Conservative
Amateur
Prof.
Majori
tarian
Liberal
26.2
26.3
4.3
Middle-of-the-Road
29.9
31.2
26.1
Conservative
43.9
42.5
69.6
N =
107
586
23
X = 8.14a
df = 4; not significant
fact, only 4 percent of the majoritarians call themselves liberal,
opposed to about 26 percent of both amateurs and professionals.
A number of conclusions may be drawn from the preceding analysis.
Amateurs are not unidimensional: among the amateurs there are distinc
tions in attitudes over the function of the representative. Some believe
the politicians should use their best judgment in representing their
constituency, others that the politician should follow the dictates of
the constituency. This second group, the majoritarians, differ from
other amateurs in demographic as well as attitudinal characteristics,
as well as differing from professionals. This finding implies that
amateurs must be treated as a more complex phenomenon than they have
been in the past. In addition, the results indicate the amateur
oriented chairmen somewhat better educated, younger, and newer to the
job of chairman than their semiprofessional or professional counter
parts. The amateurs are also less likely to have held public office
than semiprofessionals or professionals, and less likely to want higher

78
public office. Contrary to the results reported by other studies of
amateurism, the amateur-oriented chairmen are not more likely than
professionals to classify themselves as liberals.
The differences in demographic and attitudinal traits, and, in
particular, the liberal-conservative classification and the existence
of a majoritarian subset among the amateurs, emphasize the differences
in style between amateurs and professionals. That difference is exam
ined in Chapter Five.

CHAPTER FIVE
LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE
AMATEUR-PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION
Chapter Four examined the amateur and professional chairmen by
looking at their demographic and attitudinal differences or similar
ities. This chapter continues the examination of the amateur-
professional phenomenon among the county chairmen by focusing upon
the connection between the amateur, semiprofessional, or professional
status of chairmen and their local party campaign activity and, second,
the frequency of contacts between chairmen and various government and
party officials.
The different orientations of amateurs and professionals may pro
duce different levels of campaign activity. Amateurs are concerned
primarily with issues and only secondarily with winning elections.
"The belief in compromise and bargaining; the sense that public policy
is made in small steps rather than in big leaps; the concern with
conciliating the opposition and broadening public appeal; and the
willingness to bend a little to capture public support are all charac
teristic of the traditional politics in the U.S." (Wildavsky, 1971,
p. 254). The amateur diverges from traditional politics: concerns
for compromise, cementing electoral coalitions, and placating the
opposition, give way to an emphasis upon issues to the exclusion of
traditional political values. Obtaining political power is not the
79

80
chief goal of the amateur. Eldersveld reports that 78 percent of the
precinct leaders who were involved in party activity for personal
reasonssuch as securing a jobwere poweroriented; 70 percent of the
precinct leaders who were involved for personal social rewards were
power-oriented; but, only 44 percent of the precinct leaders with
ideological concerns were motivated chiefly by hope of obtaining poli
tical power (1964). It is expected, then, that the amateurs would be
less energetic than the professionals in the use of campaign activity.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of amateurs, semiprofessionals,
and professionals across the reported frequency of using the five cam
paign activities developed in Chapter Three. All of the results are
statistically significant. Across all five activities, the percent of
professionals reporting "often" using any particular activity exceeds
the percent of amateurs, while the percent of semiprofessionals falls
between amateurs and professionals. Among professionals, 16 percent
say they "often" use surveys or polls in campaigning, but only 8 per
cent of the amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls. While 42
percent of the amateurs say they "often" use press releases, more than
half the professionals, 56 percent, report the same use; over half the
professionals, 57 percent, maintain they "often" use circulars, op
posed to 41 percent of the amateurs; 43 percent of the professionals
say they "often" use radio in campaigning, but only 29 percent of the
amateurs make the same estimate; finally, while 40 percent of the
amateurs claim to "often" use literature, over 60 percent of the pro
fessionals say they "often" distribute literature in campaigns. Indeed,
the reported frequency of campaign activity among the professional chair
men continues to exceed that of the amateurs when "often" responses are

Table 5-1
Amateur-
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Significant at
Significant at
Amateur, Semi-Professional
by Campaign Activity
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
7.7
35.9
56.4
117
11.2
40.4
48.4
698
16.3
40.7
43.0
528
df = 4
X2 = 13.67b
Press
Releases
42.3
46.3
11.4
123
45.6
46.7
7.7
741
55.5
37.2
7.4
557
df = 4
X2 = 16.8 3b
Circulars
41.0
45.9
13.1
122
46.4
44.3
9.3
742
56.8
38.8
4.4
570
df = 4
X2 = 27.35'
a
Radio
28.5
37.4
34.1
123
31.3
43.4
25.3
738
43.0
39.0
18.0
556
df = 4 X2
= 30.32a
Literature
39.7
47.1
13.2
121
50.1
43.5
6.3
744
60.8
34.9
4.3
558
X2 31.72a
.001
.01
df = 4

82
combined with the "sometimes" responses. The smallest difference after
combining categories is 4.1 percent in favor of the professionals. For
each activity, the amateurs are more likely to report "never" using the
activity in campaigning. These figures tend to bear out the expecta
tion that those chairmen at the amateur end of the spectrum would be
less active than those more professionally oriented. The professionals,
the figures seem to indicate, are "... preoccupied with the outcome
of politics in terms of winning or losing" (Wilson, 1968, p. 4).
The majoritarian subset of the amateurs compared to the remaining
amateurs and to professionals is displayed in Table 5-2. The majori-
tarians are less likely than the remaining amateurs or the profession
als to report "often" using any of the five campaign activities. The
smallest difference between amateurs and majoritarians is over the use
of circulars, with 2.4 percent more amateurs than majoritarians saying
they "often" use circulars in election campaigns. The differences
over other activities are small: almost 3 percent fewer majoritarians
than amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls, nearly 7 percent
fewer claim they "often" use press releases, about 8 percent fewer
"often" use radio, and 12 percent fewer report "often" using literature
while campaigning. The gap between majoritarians and professionals
is greater; 16 percent of the professionals "often" use polls, but only
6 percent of the majoritarians; 56 percent of the professionals say
they "often" use press releases, but only 37 percent of the majoritar
ians, figures which are nearly the same for the use of circulars, 57
percent to 39 percent; 8 percent more professionals than majoritarians
report "often" campaigning by using radio, and over 30 percent more
professionals than majoritarians report "often" using literature,

83
Table 5-2
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian
by Campaign Activity
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
Amateur
8.1
36.4
55.6
99
Professional
16.3
40.7
43.0
528
Maj oritarian
5.6
33.3
61.1
18
df =
4
X2 = 9.36b
Press Releases
Amateur
43.3
45.2
11.5
104
Professional
55.5
37.2
7.4
557
Maj oritarian
36.8
52.6
10.5
19
df =
4
X2 = 7.88
Circulars
Amateur
41.3
46.2
12.5
104
Professional
56.8
38.8
4.4
570
Maj oritarian
38.9
44.4
16.7
18
df =
4
X2 = 19.35a
Radio
Amateur
27.2
35.9
36.9
103
Professional
43.0
39.0
18.0
556
Majoritarian
35.0
45.0
20.0
20
df =
4
X2 = 20.81a
Literature
Amateur
41.6
45.5
12.9
101
Professional
60.8
34.9
4.3
558
Maj oritarian
30.0
55.0
15.0
20
df =
4
X2 = 26.08a
Significant at .001
Significant at .05

84
60.8 percent to 30 percent. The data indicate majoritarians less fre
quently report "often" engaging in any of the five types of campaign
activity considered. Since each of these activities is designed to
persuade the electorate, the majoritarians may view them as superfluous,
believing the electorate is less appropriately "persuaded" than "repre
sented." On the other hand, maximizing the chances of electoral vic
tory, the professional's concern, may produce an enthusiasm for
campaign activity.
The comparative figures for the amateurs, semiprofessionals and
professionals, as well as those for the amateurs, professionals, and
majoritarians seem to suggest that counties headed by amateur-oriented
chairmen are less active in the campaign techniques described here.
This finding coincides with the description of the amateur as less
interested in winning elections than the professional. The next sec
tion of this chapter examines internal party activity, specifically,
the frequency of contacts made by amateurs, semiprofessionals, and
majoritarians with other party and elected officials. Contacts on
matters of party business with party and elected officials demonstrate
a concern with the party as an organization. Such contacts may encour
age the party harmony necessary to mounting an effective campaign,
coordinating party activity with other party leaders, and exhorting
party members and party activists to greater levels of party activity
(Patterson, 1963). In short, maintaining and participating in the
communications network of the party are activities that would be more
expected of professionals than of amateurs. "The purist worries about
issues, while the professional worries about organization" (Sullivan
et al., 1976, p. 121).

85
The data presented in Table 5-3 point toward these expectations.
The table presents the reported frequency of contact by amateur, semi-
professional, and professional chairmen with various party and public
officials, officials defined in Chapter Three. All of the chi-squares
are statistically significant at .001. In each case, the professional
chairmen are far more likely than the amateurs and somewhat more likely
than the semiprofessionals to report frequent contacts with any of the
elected or party officials considered here. While 53 percent of the
amateurs say they "never" contact the state's governor on party
business, only 28 percent of the professionals and 39 percent of the
semiprofessionals say they "never" contact the governor. Fewer than
3 percent of the amateurs say they contact state legislators "often,"
but six times that figure, 20.8 percent, of the professionals say they
"often" contact state legislators. In terms of percentages, twice as
many professionals as amateurs report "often" contacting congressmen
on party business, 31.7 to 15.7 percent. By a margin of 15.5 percent,
more professional than amateur chairmen report "often" contacting U.S.
senators; almost 39 percent of the amateurs say they "never" contact
U.S. senators, compared to only 15 percent of the professionals. Look
ing at party officers, professionals are also more likely to contact
state chairmen or other county party chairmen than are the amateurs.
More than one-half the professionals, 54.4 percent, report "often"
contacting state chairmen, opposed to 43 percent among the amateurs.
In each case covered in Table 5-3, semiprofessionals are found between
the amateurs and the professionals in regard to "often" contacting.
Table 5-4 presents the figures for rates of contact for amateurs,
professionals, and majoritarians. All chi-squares are statistically

86
Table 5-3
Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional
by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
N
Governor
Amateur
7.8
21.7
17.4
53.0
115
Semi-Professional
13.3
31.2
16.3
39.2
693
Professional
21.2
34.0
16.4
x2
28.3
= 41.50a
523
State Legislators
Amateur
2.8
31.1
17.2
19.7
122
Semi-Professional
21.1
39.9
11.8
7.7
730
Professional
20.8
36.4
6.1
x2
4.7
= 64.54
555
Congressmen
Amateur
15.7
28.7
16.5
39.1
115
Semi-Professional
22.7
41.2
18.4
17.7
695
Professional
31.7
41.1
15.7
X2
11.4
= 63.14
542
U.S. Senators
Amateur
9.7
31.0
9.1
38.9
113
Semi-Professional
17.0
42.4
20.2
20.5
694
Professional
25.2
43.3
17.0
x2
14.5
= 50.23
524
State Chairmen
Amateur
42.9
31.7
11.1
14.3
126
Semi-Professional
45.3
39.3
10.9
4.6
746
Professional
54.4
34.7
8.5
x2
2.5
= 42.77
568
Other Chairmen
Amateur
25.0
35.8
20.0
19.2
120
Semi-Professional
29.5
44.2
18.1
8.2
719
Professional
37.4
43.4
13.4
x2
5.8
= 37.77
553
a
df
for all chi-squares
6; all figures significant at .001

87
Table 5-4
Amateur, Professional, and Majoritarian
by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
N
Governor
Amateur
6.4
22.3
16.0
55.3
94
Professional
21.2
34.0
16.4
28.3
523
Maj oritarian
16.7
11.1
27.8
x2
44.4
= 35.16a
13
State Legislators
Amateur
32.4
31.4
17.6
18.6
102
Professional
52.8
36.4
6.1
4.7
551
Majoritarian
30.0
30.0
15.0
x2
25.0
= 56.27
20
Congressmen
Amateur
14.4
30.9
15.5
35.5
97
Professional
31.7
41.1
15.7
11.4
542
Majoritarian
22.2
16.7
22.2
X2
38.9
= 58.52
18
U.S. Senators
Amateur
9.4
32.3
20.8
37.5
96
Professional
25.2
43.3
17.0
14.5
524
Maj oritarian
11.8
23.5
17.6
X2
47.1
= 44.49
17
State Chairmen
Amateur
44.2
30.8
10.6
14.4
104
Professional
54.4
34.7
8.5
2.5
568
Maj oritarian
36.4
36.4
13.6
x2
13.6
= 35.55
22
Other Chairmen
Amateur
26.3
38.4
19.2
16.2
99
Professional
37.4
43.4
13.4
5.8
553
Maj ority
19.0
23.8
23.8
X2
33.3
= 37.87
21
adf for all ch
i-squares
6; all figures significant at .001

88
significant at .001, and the percentage differences between groups are
large. In three instances, contacts with the governor, with congress
men, and with U.S. senators, the majoritarians exceed the remaining
amateurs. The governor is contacted "often" by 17 percent of the major
itarians, and by only 6 percent of the other amateur oriented chairmen;
21 percent of the professionals report "often" contacting the governor
on party business. Twenty-two percent of the majoritarians, but only
14 percent of the amateurs, report "often" contacting congressmen on
party business and 2.4 percent more majoritarians than amateurs report
"often" contacting U.S. senators. In all other contacts, the majori
tarians are surpassed by both amateurs and professionals. Contacting
state legislators is done "often" by 32 percent of the amateurs and
53 percent of the professionals, but by only 30 percent of the majori
tarians. While 44 percent of the amateurs and 54 percent of the pro
fessionals say they "often" contact state chairmen, 36 percent of the
majoritarians report the same frequency of contact and, in contacting
other chairmen, only 19 percent of the majoritarians report high levels
of contact, as opposed to 37 percent of the professionals and 26 per
cent of the amateurs.
These figures indicate that in contacts with the'offices of gover
nors, congressmen, and U.S. senators, majoritarians surpass the remain
ing amateurs. When the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are
collapsed, the balance of contacting shifts toward the amateurs for
each of these three offices, but only by a small edge: the greatest
difference between amateurs and majoritarians is in contacting U.S.
congressmen, where the amateurs exceed the majoritarians by 6 percent,
45.3 percent for the amateurs and 38.9 percent for the majoritarians;

89
for contacts with U.S. senators the difference is 6.4 percent; for con
tacts with the governor, the difference drops to .9 percent.
The lower contact rate among amateurs may be less the consequence
of amateurism than of relative newness to the position of county chair
man. The lack of contact may reflect not a disinterest or disdain for
contacting party or political officials within the party on party
business, but rather a lack of capacity to make such contacts due to
inexperience in the position. If this reasoning is valid, it is to
be anticipated that the frequency of contacting would increase as the
amateur chairmen become more comfortable in their role; a greater
feeling of comfort may be expected to occur with longer time in office.
To test this assumption, the chairmen were trichotimized by length of
time in officeless than one year to two years, three and four years,
and five years or more. This ranking is crosstabulated with the same
set of variables dealing with contacts of public and party officials
on party business. If time in office has an impact, it would be ex
pected that greater time in office would be associated with increased
contacts. The results are presented in Table 5-5.
The figures indicate that there is very little difference in fre
quency of contacts by amateurs as time in office increases. In fact,
in all but one of the six potential contacts the percentage of amateurs
who report "often" contacting and who have less than two years experi
ence in the position of county chairman is greater than those with
five or more years in the office. Only for contacts with congressmen
do those with five or more years in office exceed those with the least
tenure, and then by only 1.6 percent: 15.6 percent of the amateurs
in office longest report "often" contacting congressmen as opposed to

90
Table 5-5
Amateur
Contacting
by Length of
Time in
Office
(in percents)
Contact:
Hardly
Often
Sometimes
Ever
Never
Governor
2 years or less
11.8
17.6
19.6
51.0
3 or 4 years
6.1
27.3
15.2
51.5
5 years or more
3.3
23.3
13.3
60.0
x2
= 3.61'
State Legislators
2 years or less
37.0
25.9
14.8
22.2
3 or 4 years
23.5
38.2
20.6
17.6
5 years or more
33.3
33.3
18.2
2
X
15.2
= 3.26
Congressmen
2 years or less
14.0
28.0
16.0
42.0
3 or 4 years
16.1
25.8
19.4
38.7
5 years or more
15.6
34.4
15.6
34.4
x2
= .97
U.S. Senators
2 years or less
10.2
24.5
20.4
44.9
3 or 4 years
9.4
28.1
21.9
40.6
5 years or more
10.0
43.3
16.7
30.0
x2
= 3.54
State Chairman
2 years or less
53.7
24.1
9.3
13.0
3 or 4 years
44.1
32.4
8.8
14.7
5 years or more
25.0
44.4
16.7
13.9
x2
= 8.31
Other Chairmen
2 years or less
25.5
41.8
20.0
12.7
3 or 4 years
26.7
36.7
23.3
13.3
5 years or more
24.2
24.2
18.2
33.3
X2 = 7.36
adf for all chi-squares = 6
N
51
33
30
54
34
33
50
31
32
49
32
30
54
34
36
55
30
33

91
14 percent of the amateurs with less than two years experience. For
governors, almost three times as many amateurs with two years of exper
ience or less report "often" contacting as amateurs with five years of
experience or more, 11.8 percent to 3.3 percent. Of the amateurs
reporting that they "often" make contact with state legislators, 37 per
cent are relative newcomers to the office of county chairmen, while 33
percent have served in office five years or longer. The difference
between amateurs with the least experience in office and amateurs with
the most experience in office over contacts with U.S. senators is only
.2 percent. However, twice as many amateurs in office two years or
less say they "often" contact state chairmen as amateurs in office five
years or more, 54 to 25 percent. In contacting other chairmen, there
is little difference between the least and the most experienced chair
men, 25.5 percent of those with the briefest tenure report contacting
"often" as compared to 24.2 percent of those with longest tenure. At
the other end of the continuum the amateurs with the least experience
exceed those with the greatest experience in reporting "never" contact
ing in three of the six cases: state legislators, congressmen, and
U.S. senators; in "never" contacting state chairmen the difference is
less than 1 percent.
These figures seem to indicate that the lower contact rate among
amateurs relative to semiprofessionals and profesisonals is not the
result of less experience in office. There is little difference in
frequency of contacting between amateurs with less than two years ex
perience and those with more than five years experience. Unlike the
demographic and attitudinal variables of Chapter Three, division of
the chairmen into amateur, semiprofessional, and professional categories

92
corresponds to differences in both the types of campaign activity
carried out by the local party organization and the degree of contact
ing of state or party officials by the chairmen on party business.
From these results, it follows that chairmen with predominantly
amateur orientations would be less likely than chairmen with profes
sional orientations to emphasize party organization within the county
party, as the figures for contacting appear to indicate they are less
likely to be concerned with party business and organization outside
the county. Moreover, it would be anticipated the amateurs would be
less concerned with campaigning for the nominees of the party. The
selection of delegates from California to the 1972 Democratic National
Convention under rules changes mandated by the 1968 Convention de
signed to make the selection of delegates more broadly representative
of the public provides a graphic example of the differing perspectives
of amateurs and professionals toward political activity. Profession
als saw the new rules as a means of achieving electoral victory; the
rules "... would allow the professionals more freedom to choose the
best campaign personnel"; the amateur activists, however, were less
concerned with electoral success. They participated out of concern
for influencing both who would become the party's presidential nominee
and what would be the shape of the party's platform. For the amateur
activists, ". . political skills and resources became a minor con
sideration," even a liability (Cavala, 1974, pp. 36-37).
Whether the differences between amateurs and professionals can be
seen in an emphasis upon party organization and in the level of local
party campaign activity is approached in two ways: first, by examining
the degree to which the county apparatus was organized to conduct an ,

93
election campaign and, second, by looking at the degree to which the
local party actually did campaign for elective offices.
The degree to which the county was organized to campaign is mea
sured by the chairmen's assessment of the number of precincts in the
county that are organized. The results, presented in Table 5-6, indi
cate that the amateurs report fewer organized precincts than do the
professionals.
Table 5-6
Level of Precinct Organization by Amateurism
(in percents)
Percent of
organized
precincts
Amateur
Semi
prof .
"Prof.
none
28.1
19.4
11.8
1 to 25
17.4
15.7
13.1
26 to 50
11.6
12.1
12.2
51 to 75
15.7
17.1
16.3
76 to 100
27.3
35.7
46.6
N =
121
718
558
9
X = 35
.51a
Percent of
organized
precincts
Amateur
Semi-
prof.
Majori-
tarian
none
25.3
11.8
42.1
1 to 25
25.3
11.8
42.1
26 to 50
17.2
13.1
10.5
51 to 75
17.2
16.3
10.5
76 to 100
28.3
46.6
26.3
N =
99
558
19
X2 = 29.87a
df = 8; significant at .001

94
Twenty-eight percent of the amateurs report precincts in their
counties are without organization. For the semiprofessionals, the
figure is almost 10 percent less, 19 percent, and for professionals,
less than one-half the percentage of amateurs, 12 percent. The same
relative positions are kept for the categories of from 1 to 25 percent
of the precincts organized. Conversely, at the other end of the scale,
more than 35 percent of the semiprofessionals and more than 46 percent
of the professionals say that between 76 and 100 percent of their pre
cincts are organized, while only 27 percent of the amateurs classify
that percentage of precincts in their counties as organized. Degree of
organization seems clearly associated with increasing professional
orientation. A.s the table reports, the least organized counties are
found in those headed by the majoritarian chairmen. Forty-two percent
of the raajoritarians report no precincts organized. Only 26 percent of
the majoritarians say all precincts in their counties are organized, a
figure smaller than that of any other group. Thus, while the percentage
of organized precincts declines with increasing professional orientation
among all groups, the raajoritarians show the least precinct organiza
tion. That the counties headed by the amateur chairmen are less organ
ized is expected from the attitudes of amateurs toward party politics.
While organization is a goal in itself for the professional, the amateur
relies upon ideological conviction to maintain loyalty (Wilson, 1968).
A more fundamental question than the degree of organization is
whether the organization is put to use in election campaigns. To exam
ine the differences between professionals and amateurs in this regard,
two sets of questions asked of the chairmen are correlated. The first
series of questions asked the chairmen if an election for any of ten

95
different offices at the local, state, or national levels had taken
place within the last year; the offices are those of mayor, city coun
cilman, county commissioner, sheriff, prosecutor, legislator, judge,
congressman, governor, and senator. The second series of questions
inquired as to whether the county organization had actually campaigned
for these offices. If an election had taken place and if the county
party actively campaigned for the office, the county was assigned a
score of one; if no election was held or if the county did not cam
paign for the office, the score was zero. The scores were summed to
produce a scale ranging from zero (no elections or no party campaign
ing) to ten (elections for all ten offices with the party actively
campaigning in all ten). This score represents the number of instances
in which the party could and did actively campaign. However, since not
all counties may have held elections for all ten of the offices, it is
necessary to correct this total score by accounting for the number of
elections that actually took place. This was done by summing the num
ber of elections held and dividing into the number of instances where
the county could and did campaign. This figure was then multiplied by
100; the result is the percentage of offices for which there were
elections and in which the party campaigned. The percentages were
then divided into quartiles.
This measure, together with the percent of precincts organized
in the county, should be seen as two aspects of the same phenomenon.
Before the advent of political campaigns conducted by electronic media
when the candidate needed to rely more exclusively upon the party or
ganization for campaign support, the number of organized precincts
would have constituted an adequate measure of party effort for elective

96
office. Now, however, the reliance upon party assistance may be dimin
ished. When the electorate may easily be reached with electronic or
printed media, the need for party organization at the precinct level is
undercut. Admittedly, the candidate may bypass the party completely,
but to do so would be to isolate his campaign from a potential source
of election aid. Thus, despite lack of precinct organization, the
county organization may be neither moribund nor nonexistent, but,
rather, using new means to reach the electorate, means not requiring
organization at the precinct level.
The data presented in Table 5-7 indicate that party organizations
headed by amateur oriented chairmen are less likely to be active in
terms of the percent of offices for which the party actively campaigned.
While 20.9 percent of the amateurs reported campaigning for fewer than
25 percent of the offices for which there were elections, only 10 per
cent of the professionals fall into that category. Similarly, 31 per
cent of the amateurs actively campaigned for 26 to 50 percent of the
elective offices in the county, while only 18 percent of the profes
sionals are at that level. At the other end of the spectrum, nearly
50 percent of the professionals reported actively campaigning for 75
percent of the contests in the county, but only 28 percent of the ama
teurs are active in that percentage of elections. Only 17 percent of
the raajoritarians reported actively campaigning in 76 to 100 percent
of the election campaigns in their counties. At the other extreme,
only 56.6 percent of the majoritarians report mounting campaigns for
as many as 50 percent of the offices in the county. Semiprofessionals
show few differences when compared to. the professionals; the largest
difference between them is 7.2 percent, 49.5 percent of the

97
Table 5-7
Percent of Offices Actively Campaigned for
by County Party and Amateurism
(in percents)
Percent of
offices
Amateur
Semi-
prof.
Prof.
0 to 25
20.3
11.7
10.0
26 to 50
30.8
18.8
18.1
51 to 75
21.1
27.3
22.4
76 to 100
27.8
42.3
49.5
N =
133
781
598
X = 35.95a
Percent of
offices
Amateur
Prof.
Maj ori-
tarian
0 to 25
20.6
10.0
21.7
26 to 50
29.9
18.1
34.8
51 to 75
19.6
22.4
26.1
76 to 100
29.9
49.5
17.4
N =
107
598
23
X = 31.30a
df = 6; significant at .001
professionals maintain having campaigned for 76 to 100 percent of the
electoral contests in their county as opposed to 42.3 percent of the
semiprofessionals. These figures seem to indicate that counties with
professionally oriented chairmen campaign for a greater percentage of
offices than counties with amateur oriented chairmen.
The results presented in this chapter help to confirm Wilson's
description of the distinction between amateur and professional poli
tical activists. In each of the five kinds of campaign activity

98
considered, the professional chairmen report higher levels of activity
than the amateurs. Moreover, the professionals are more likely to say
they contact other party or state officials than are the amateurs. The
majoritarian chairmen are the least likely to report frequently using
any of the five campaign activities, but do exceed the remaining ama
teurs in the level of reported contacts with the state's governor, with
congressmen, and with U.S. senators. Despite the social connections
and security that accompany longer time in office, amateurs who have
served longest as county chairmen do not appear any more likely than
amateurs with less experience to contact party or state officials.
These differences remain apparent both when the amateurs and profes
sionals are compared over the percent of organized precincts in their
counties or when compared over the percent of elections in which the
party campaignsprofessionals are more likely to report organized pre
cincts and more likely to report campaigning.
While Chapter Four demonstrates that county chairmen can be arrayed
on a continuum from amateur to professional, this chapter points to the
importance of that distinction: local party organizations led by ama
teur chairmen appear to campaign less actively than those counties led
by professional chairmen. In addition, the amateur seems less concerned
with the organizational side of party work. The importance of these
differences will be examined in Chapter Six.

CHAPTER SIX
THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES
The preceding chapters have tested two models of local party
activity as it may be influenced by the county party leadership. The
first model tested emphasizes the connection between the demographic
characteristics of the county chairmen and local party activity. This
model is suggested in much of the literature on the local party. It
maintains that the demographic characteristics of the chairmen have an
impact upon the chairmen who, in turn, influence the activity of the
local party organization. Thus, differences in party activity may be
traced to demographic differences among the party leadership. The
second model of local party activity stresses the leaderships politi
cal orientations, specifically, the county chairman's amateur or profes
sional attitude toward politics. This model postulates that different
party activity will be associated with the chairmen's differing political
orientations. These models were suggested by earlier research on local
party organization but they had not been subjected to analysis that
attempted to link them directly to the county party chairmen. I will
first discuss the results of this analysis as they relate to both
models of party activity. Then, I will consider the wider implica
tions of the results for American political parties.
99

100
The concentration in previous studies upon the demographic traits
of the local party leadership assumed that these traits were signifi
cant in explaining the activity of the local party apparatus. The
connection between the socio-economic characteristics of individuals
and political participation has been freqeuntly noted (Campbell et
al., 1964; Verba and Nie, 1972). Since demographic characteristics
have been shown to be correlated with political activism and with
attitudinal patterns, the next logical step is to take the demographic
characteristics of political leaders and link them to political organi
zations and the activity of these organizations. Chapter Three exam
ines this hypothesized relationship by looking at two sets of personal
characteristics of the chairmen. The first set of attributes is the
demographic characteristics of education, age, occupation, and time
served in the office of county chairman. The second set of character
istics is designed to tap the chairman's political attitudes: self
placement on a liberal-conservative scale, attitudes toward the activity
of the federal government, the level of government for which the chair
man had greatest concern, and the chairman's assessment of the greatest
problem facing the state. These variables have been frequently used in
earlier research into county party leadership.
Party activity is also measured in two ways. First, it is viewed
as campaign activity: efforts to maximize votes through such activi
ties as passing out literature or circulars or by using press releases.
Second, party activity is considered as the communication network
within the party, specifically, contacts between the county chairmen
and a wide range of party and state officials. Stated another way,
these two aspects of the dependent variable reflect, first, externally

101
directed activity of political parties, actions designed to involve
those persons outside the party organization itself, and, second,
internally directed activity, interactions chiefly with other party
organization members.
When the relationship between the demographic and attitudinal
characteristics of the chairmen is tested against the measures of party
activity, little connection is apparent. The demographic and atti
tudinal traits measured here seem unrelated to differences in type of
party electoral activity pursued by the county party or the frequency
of interparty communications made by the chairmen.
The second model of party activity examined links the political
orientations of the chairmen to local party activity. Orientations
are defined here following John Q. Wilson's division of party activists
into amateurs and professionals. Chapter Four divides amateurs from
professionals on the basis of the chairman's perceived obligations to
the party in terms of following party leaders, offering patronage
positions to party supporters, considering party service before choos
ing party candidates, and keeping public officials accountable to the
party. The data presented in Chapter Four indicate, first, that the
county chairmen may be divided along amateur-professional lines, and,
second, that the amateurs and the professionals differ from each other
in regard to demographic characteristics. Over 8 percent of the chair
men are classified as amateurs, while over 30 percent are profession
als; the remaining 49 percent fall in between as semiprofessionals.
These groups differ in demographic makeup. The amateurs are better
educated, younger, and newer to the office of county chairman than
their more professional counterparts. In addition, the amateurs are

102
less likely than semiprofessionals or professionals to desire higher
party office or to remain as county chairmen, They are also less likely
to have held public office. Amateurs themselves are divided over the
question of whether or not politicians should rely upon their own judg
ment or the wishes of their constituents in making public policy deci
sions. The majoritarian subset of amateurs is less educated than the
remaining amateurs, but they tend to have served in office longer.
The raajoritarians are also more likely to call themselves conservative
than are the other amateur-oriented chairmen.
Chapter Five examines the significance of the amateur-professional
division among the chairmen in terms of party activity. The data pre
sented indicate amateurs are less likely than professionals to engage
in the five kinds of campaign-related activity considered in this
analysis. The amateurs were also less likely than the professionals
to report communicating with other party or public officials on matters
of party business. While the majoritarians are somewhat less likely to
report frequently using the five campaign activities considered in this
study, they are more likely to report contacts on party business with
the governor, congressmen, and U.S. senators.
The failure of the demographic model to indicate differences in
party activities would seem to have consequences for American political
parties. The success of the amateur-professional model in highlighting
differences between the chairmen serves to reinforce these conclusions.
An understanding of the significance of the findings of this research
requires an understanding of the developments within the American
electorate and, consequently, American political parties since the
1950s.

103
The character of the American electorate appears to have changed
over the last twenty-five years. In the 1950s, political party was,
for most Americans, the major guide to political activity: . party
affiliation served as an anchor point for the citizen" (Nie at al,,
1976, p. 22). Between the 1950s and the 1970s, however, major social
changes took place that greatly influenced and modified the relation
ship between individuals and political parties in the United States.
Increases in educational attainment and affluence, coupled with the
advent of electronic media and the mass dissemination of political
information, has enabled the electorate to depend less upon parties as
a source of political information and to rely more upon agents other
than partiesjournalists, for examplefor political intelligence.
Greater levels of education, as well as greater availability of informa
tion, have also enabled the electorate to rely more upon itself for
political information (Agranoff, 1972; Burnham, 1975; Sorauf, 1976).
What seems to have happened in the two decades between the 1950s and
the 1970s is the development of a politically active class capable of
scrutinizing issues, formulating opinions, and actively participating
in politics without the heavy reliance upon political parties that
characterized most political participants before the 1950s (Ladd and
Hadley, 1975; Nie et al., 1976). This is the antithesis of the en
vironment in which the traditional political machine thrives. The
traditional machine, perhaps the highest degree of political party
organization in the United States, flourished in conditions of low
levels of education and eocnomic distress (Scott, 1969).
The consequence of these developments in economics and in educa
tion has been to produce a "new style" in American politics, a style

104
in which the role of the party is considerably diminished. "As candi
dates have turned to new means of mobilizing their electorate, the
party organization, with its tradition of getting out the partisan vote
on a face-to-face basis, has become less important" (Agranoff, 1972,
p. 97). Burnham says, ". . functions once performed by the major
parties have lost their utility in recent years" (Burnham, 1975,
p. 349). These developments would appear to point to the demise
"decomposition," to use Burnham's wordof American political parties.
The party organization is easily bypassed by candidates and even more
easily by incumbents. In itself, this is not a recent development.
Political candidates, acting as "self-starters," have always discovered
ways to work around the party organization. What is new is the in
creased capacity for the electorate to bypass the party as a source of
information and political guidance. The major change has been in the
size of the affluent and educated class and its consequent position as
a source of political influence (Ladd and Hadley, 1975). "The long
term trends are surely irreversible," writes Sunquist, "the old-
fashioned closed political system is not going to be reestablished,
old-style bosses restored to power, media campaigning outlawed, or the
level of affluence and education that make for independent politics
reduced" (1973, p. 352).
Moreover, party membership is increasingly ideologically oriented,
concerned more with political issues and less with the potential
material gain that may result from political participation (Nie et al.,
1976). This study helps to confirm that the new emphasis upon issues
and ideology has intruded into the political party in the form of poli
tical amateurs. If the party membership in general and the county

105
chairmen, in particular, are now ideologically motivated, ideological
and issues concerns may detract from the concerns of party organization
Ideologically motivated party members may weaken the party organization
Epstein has pointed out that, in addition to purposeful, solidarity,
and material incentives for organizational activity, there may exist
a fourth incentive for participation in political party activity: a
hybrid of the purposeful and solidarity incentives: "The incentive
is simply to win as for ones team in a game" (1970, p. 102). As
Sorauf says, the party develops loyalties of its own: "... party
itself may even become a goal" (1975, p. 37). This goal apparently
is not shared by the amateur politician.
As the data from Chapter Five indicate, amateur-oriented chairmen
(defined, in part, as chairmen who feel an obligation to pick candi
dates with issue commitments and who feel the need to hold personal
beliefs) are less likely than professionally-oriented chairmen to con
tact elected officials in public or party offices on matters of party
business, less likely to report organized precincts in their counties,
and less likely to have county organizations that actively campaign
for elective offices. The amateurs appear indifferent to party organi
zation. As Ladd and Hadley say, the "purist" of both left and right
is . more sensitive to the integrity of program than to mainten
ance of the party organization" (1975, p. 305). The political conse
quences of emphasizing program above party have been seen in Iowa,
where some of the county party leadership bolted the party after the
failure of their candidate to win, and in California, where activist
emphasis upon party platform and the issue integrity of the candidates
disrupted the party organization (Johnson and Gibson, 1974; Cavala,

106
1974). Similar adverse effects upon party organization have been ob
served in the National Conventions of the Democratic party: "... the
amateur activist's urge to transform political discourse into a morality
play runs against the grain of the party regulars who have learned to
separate their own private moral convictions from the public positions
they take in the name of the party" (Sullivan et al., 1976, p. 39).
The abandonment of party ties and the ideological approach to
politics by an increasing number of the electorate, and as this study
indicates, by local party leadership, may lead to a diminution of the
importance of the party, the political party becoming one of many extra
governmental organizations concerned with influencing the government
policy-making process. "Its sole control of the mobilization of power
ends amid growing competition from other political organizations. The
party remains both a potent orgnaization and powerful reference symbol,
but it loses its monopoly of the. resources, skills, and information in
electoral politics" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 439).
Tammany boss George Washington Plunkitt wrote in 1905: "... a
reformer can't last in politics. He may make a show for a little while,
but he always comes down like a rocket. . The great business of
your life must be politics if you want to succeed in it" (1905, p. 1).
This analysis suggests that the reformers have not only lasted but
prospered in politics by moving into positions of party leadership.
Yet, Plunkitt's assessment points to a deficiency in this analysis:
the lack of longitudinal data. While this "snapshot" analysis of the
county chairmen may be accurate for 1970, it says nothing about how
they or those who filled their roles appeared before or after the
survey. Placing the chairmen in the context of other studies or other

107
politically active groups such as convention delegates, comparing a
national sample of chairmen with the samples done in individual states,
or finding corresponding developments within the electorate as a whole
help to mitigate timebound data, but more research needs to be done
to determine if the amateur syndrome in local party organization still
exists. The county chairmen are only one part of a much larger politi
cal phenomenon, but their position as leaders of the grassroots party
organization demands attention, as changes within the ranks of the
chairmen may portend changes in American political parties.

REFERENCES
Agranoff, Robert (1972). The New Style in Election Campaigns.
Boston: Holbrook Press.
Bowman, Lewis and Boynton, G. R. (1966). "Recruitment Patterns Among
Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in
Selected Locales." American Political Science Review 62:667-676.
; Ippolito, Dennis; and Donaldson, William (1969).
"Incentives and the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activ
ism." Midwest Journal of Political Science 13:126-139.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1975). "American Politics in the 1970s: Beyond
Party?" in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (eds.),
The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, 2nd
ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
(1976). "Revitalization and Decay: Looking Toward the
Third Century of Electoral Politics." Journal of Politics
38:146-172.
Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes,
Donald E. (1964). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
Cavala, William (1974). "Changing the Rules of the Game: Party Reform
and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Con
vention." American Political Science Review 68:27-42.
Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q. (1961). "Incentive Systems: A
Theory of Organization." Administration Science Quarterly 6:129-166.
Conway, M. Margaret and Feigert, Frank B. (1968). "Motivations, Incen
tive Systems, and the Political Party Organization." American
Political Science Review 18:1159-1173.
Crotty, William J. (1967). "The Social Attributes of Party Organiza
tional Activists in a Transitional Political System." Western
Political Quarterly 20:669-681.
DeVries, Walter and Tarrance, V. Lance (1972). The Ticketsolitter.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Edradmas.
Easton, David (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York:
John Wiley.
108

109
Edwards, Allen L. (1957), Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1964). Political Parties: A Behavioral
Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Epstein, Leon (1970). Political Parties in Western Democracies, New
York: Praeger.
Flinn, Thomas A. and Wirt, Frederick M. (1965). "Local Party Leaders:
Groups of Like Minded Men." Midwest Journal of Political Science
9:77-98.
Gluck, Peter (1972). "Research Note: Incentives and the Maintenance
of Political Styles in Different Locales." Western Political
Quarterly 25:753-760.
Hirschfield, R.; Swanson, Bert; and Blank, Blanche (1962). "A Profile
of Political Activist in Manhattan." Western Political Quarterly
20:489-506.
Hitlin, Robert A. and Jackson, John (1977). "On Amateur and Profes
sional Politicians." Journal of Politics 39:786-793.
Hofstetter, C. Richard (1971). "The Amateur Politician: A Problem in
Construct Validation." Midwest Journal of Political Science
15:31-56.
Huckshorne, Robert (1976). Party Leadership in the United States.
Amherst, Mass.: Univ. of Mass. Press.
Johnson, Donald Bruce and Gibson, James R. (1974). "The Divisive
Primary Revisited: Party Activists in Iowa." American Political
Science Review 68:6792.
Katz, Daniel and Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1961). "The Impact of Local
Party Activity Upon the Electorate." Public Opinion Quarterly
25:1-24. .
Key, V. 0. (1961). Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Ladd, Carll Everett and Hadley, Charles D. (1975). Transformations
of the American Party System. New York: W. W. Norton.
Leiserson, Avery (1958). Parties and Politics. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Madron, Thomas W. and Chelf, Carl P. (1974). Political Parties in
the United States. Boston: Holbrock Press.
McClosky, Herbert J.; Hoffmann, Paul J.; and O'Hara, Rosemary (I960).
"Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers."
American Political Science Review 44:406-427.

no
Meyer, Marshall W. (1972). "Leadership and Organizational Structure."
American Journal of Sociology 81:515-542.
Nie, Norman H.; Verba, Sidney; and Petrocik, John R. (1976). The
Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Patterson, Samuel C. (1963). "Characteristics of Party Leaders."
Western Political Quarterly 16:332-352.
Plunkitt, George Washington (1905). "Reformers Only Mornin' Glories."
As quoted in the New York Times, July 22, 1979, Sec. 4:1.
Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B. (1971). Presidential
Elections, 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner.
Pomper, Gerald (1965). "New Jersey County Chairmen." Western
Political Quarterly 16:186-197.
Roback, Thomas H. (1975). "Amateur and Professional: Delegates to
the Republican National Convention." Journal of Politics
37:501-517.
Salsbury, Robert H. (1965). "The Urban Party Organization Member."
Public Opinion Quarterly 20:555-561.
Scott, James C. (1969). "Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political
Change." American Political Science Review 63:1149-1150.
Sorauf, Frank J. (1975). "Political Parties and Political Analysis,"
in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (eds.), The
American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
(1976). Party Politics in America, 3rd ed. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Soule, John W. and Clarke, James W. (1970). "Amateurs and Profession
als: A Study of Delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Con
vention." American Political Science Review 64:888-898.
and McGarth, Wilma E. (1975). "A Comparative Study of
Presidential Nominating Conventions: The Democrats in 1968 and
1972." American Journal of Political Science 19:501-517.
Sullivan, Denis G.; Pressman, Jeffery L.; Arterton, Christopher F.
(1976). Explorations in Campaign Decision Making: The Democratic
Party in the 1970s. San Frnacisco: W. H. Freeman.
Sunquist, James (1973). Dynamics of the Party System. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America.
New York: Harper and Row.

Ill
Wiggins, Charles W. and Turk, William L. (1970). "State Party Chairmen:
A Profile." Western Political Quarterly 23:321-322.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1971). The Pvevolt Against the Masses. New York:
Basic Books.
Wilson, John Q. (1968). The Amateur Democrat. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Yeric, Jerry L. (1973). Indiana County Chairmen: A 1972 Profile.
Terre Haute, Ind.: Center for Governmental Studies.

APPENDIX A
County Chairmen Questionnaire
PARTY LEADERSHIP OPINION STUDY
1.What do you consider to be the most important problem facing your state today?
2. What is your opinion on tire following state issues:
Are you favorable or Very Very No
unfavorable toward: Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
a) the death penalty for persons
convicted of murder?
b) a law which would permit
a woman to go to a doctor
to end a pregnancy any
time during the first
three months?
c) having all new automobiles
equipped with an anti-
pollution device which would
add approximately $100 to
the price of an automobile?
d) a law which would require a
person to obtain a police
permit before he or she
could buy a gun?
e) permitting public school
teachers to join unions? -
f) permitting public school
teachers to strike?
g) permitting policemen and
firemen to join unions?
h) permitting policemen and
firemen to strike?
i) making the use of marijuana
legal?
j) a law requiring automobile
drivers suspected of having
consumed too much alcohol
to take a breath test or a
blood test?
k) the no fault plan dealing
with auto insurance?
l) state aid for education going
to Catholic and other
private schools?
3. Please rank the top three of the following reasons for why you wanted to become a county
chairman. Write 1 for the reason that was most important in your decision, 2 for the reason
that was next important, and 3 for tire reason that was next important.
Strong party loyalty Helpful in private business contacts
Politics is part of my way of life Want to seek other public or party offices
Social contacts and friends Enjoy campaigns
Contact with influential people Personal friendship with candidate
Concern with public issues Sense of community obligation
112

113
APPENDIX A (continued)
_o_
4. For which of the following offices were elections held in your state and county for the 1970
general election? Please check those offices for which elections were held.
Mayor or equivalent office _ State Legislator
City or Town Council City or County Judge
County Commissioner or County Council U.S. Congressman
County Sheriff Governor
County Prosecutor -U.S. Senator
5. Based upon your best estimate, what percentage of county offices did your party contest in the
1970 general election?
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
6. How difficult would you say it is to get people to run for county offices for your party?
Very difficult Not very difficult
Somewhat difficult No one ever runs for county offices from my party
7. Check those offices for which your county committee actively campaigned in the 1970 general
election.
Mayor or equivalent office State Legislator
City or Town Council City or County Judge
County Commissioner or County Council U.S. Congressman
County Sheriff Governor
County Prosecutor U.S. Senator
8.In the last year how often have you contacted the following on business for the party?
Often Sometimes Hardly ever Never
State legislators
Governor
County Commissioner
Other state officials
U.S. Congressmen
U.S. Senators
State Party Chairman
Other County Party Chairmen
9. Did any candidates for local or state office contact you
for support before the primary election?
10. Did you give any of these candidates your support
before tire primary election?
11. How likely is a candidate to win the primary
election in your county if the party organization
were to oppose him?
12. Do you feel you played an important part in the
success of primary election candidates for state
and local office?
13. Do you participate in planning and strategy meetings
of party leaders to discuss nominations and support
of candidates for state and local office before
primary elections?
Yes No
Yes No
Sure to win
Makes no difference
He would never win
Very important
No difference
Not important
Yes No

114
APPENDIX A (continued)
-3-
14. Please check the conditions that exist for your party committee.
Yes No
County committee is organized _
County staff is hired
County staff is volunteered
County records are maintained
County committee conducted a campaign
in the 1970 general election
15. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1970?
16. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1971?
17. How many precincts are there in your county?
18. Please give the percentage of precincts in your county in which the following conditions are met:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Precinct chairman or captain has been
appointed or elected
Precinct committees have been
organized
Precinct rolls are maintained
Precincts are meeting at county
meetings and conventions *
19. What do you think is the general opinion of the people in.your county on the following state
issues? Axe they favorable or unfavorable toward:
Very Very No
Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
a) the death penalty for persons
convicted of murder?
b) a law which would permit
a woman to go to a doctor
to end a pregnancy any
time during tire first
three months?
c) having all new automobiles
equipped with an anti
pollution device which would
add approximately $100 to
the price of an automobile?
d) a law which would require a
person to obtain a police
permit before he or she
could buy a gun?
e) permitting public school
teachers to join unions?
f) permitting public school
teachers to strike?
g) permitting policemen and
firemen to join unions?
h) permitting policemen and
firemen to strike?
i) making the use of marijuana
legal?
j) a law requiring automobile
drivers suspected of having
consumed too much alcohol
to take a breath test or a
blood test?

115
APPENDIX A (continued)
4
Very Very No
Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
k) Tire no fault plan dealing
with auto insurance?
l) state aid for education going
to Catholic and other private
schools?
20. In securing voting support, in which one of the following areas is the greatest amount of your
effort as chairman concentrated. Check one only.
Registrationincreasing tire number of registered voters favoring your party.
Party Moralethat is, keeping the party regulars aware and enthusiastic through public
appeals to them.
_ General Public Appealthat is, radio, TV, or newspaper appeals to the public, regardless
of party.
Personal contact with party members.
Other (please specify: .).
No effort to secure support is being made at the present time.
21. Listed below are campaign activities that have been employed by some county committees in
general elections. Please indicate whether your county committee often used, sometimes used,
or never used each activity in the most recent general election.
Did it: Often Sometimes Never
Use movie advertisements
Organize door to door canvassing
Arrange barbecues or chicken fries
Use radio time for county campaigns -
Organize rallies
Prepare press releases
Use television time for county campaigns
Buy newspaper space for county campaigns
Mail circulars or letters
Distribute literature or throw-aways
Organize telephone campaigns
Put up billboards or posters
Use surveys or polls in county campaigns
Emphasize personal campaigns, word of mouth campaigns
Other (Please specify .) '
County committee is essentially inactive
22. In approximately how many precincts, if any, were the following election day activities carried on
in the most recent general election? Please check the column closest to the percent of precincts
engaging in the activity. q% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Transporting voters to and from
the polls
Poll watchers
Providing baby sitters
Passing out literature or throw-aways
Using sound tracks
Phoning registered voters reminding
them to vote
Last minute newspaper, radio, or
TV advertising
Parades or motorcades
Other (Please specify .)

116
APPENDIX A (continued)
23.
Now, lets consider party work. Would you say that you feel a strong obligation or some obligation
to do each of the following, or, to avoid doing each of the following in the conduct of your affairs?
a) Follow decisions of party leaders
even when you disagree.
Strong
Obligation
To Do
Some
Obligation
To Do
No
Obligation
Either Way
Some
Obligation
To Do
Strong
Obligation
To Do
b) See to it that those who work
for the party get help in form
of jobs and other things if
they need it.
c) Weigh prior service to the party
very heavily in selecting candi
dates for nomination.
d) Select a nominee who is strongly
committed on a variety of
issue positions.
e) Keep elected public officials
strictly accountable to the
party organization.
f) Hold strong personal beliefs
about a number of
different issues.
24. In general do you consider yourself: Very Liberal Liberal Middle of Road
Conservative Very Conservative
25. Some say most people should be very active in politics while others feel that a division of labor
with only a few people being active is desirable. Do you feel that it would be better if all, most,
some, or just a few people became highly involved in politics most of the time?
All People Most People Some People A Few People
26. In making most kinds of policy decisions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own
best judgment even if this means doing some tiring unpopular, or that politicians ought to do what
a majority of their constituents want?
Use Own Best Judgment Do What Majority Wants Both About Equally
27. Would you say that you are more concerned with local, state, or national political problems?
Local State National
28. With which problems are you least concerned?
Local State National
29. In general, should the number of things the federal government does increase, remain the same,
or decrease?
Increase Remain the same Decrease
30.For each of the below issues, please check whether you think government support for the issue
should increase, decrease, or remain the same.
Increase Remain Same Decrease
a) Federal aid to education
b) Enforcement of integration
c) Defense spending _
d) Level of state services
e) Anti-riot measures
f) Law enforcement
g) Loyalty oaths for teachers
h) Increase old-age assistance

117
APPENDIX A (continued)
-6-
31. From what group would you say you get the most information about political problems in your
county? (Group)
32. What group most often asks you for information about political problems in your county?
(Group)
33. Have you ever held public office? Yes -No
34. At some time in the future, would you ever
want to hold some higher party office? Yes No
35. Do you want to keep your present position as
county chairman for the foreseeable future? Yes No
36. Would you like to run for a public
(non-party) office sometime in the future? __Yes No
37.a. _Male Female
b. What is your age?
c. What is your major occupation?
d. Check the highest level of formal education completed.
Some
Finished
Some
Graduated
Graduated
Post-
Grade
Grade
High
From High
Some
From
Graduate
None
School
School
School
School
College
College
Work
e. Race: White Negro -Other
f. From what country do you trace your ancestry?
g. How long have you held your present party office? _
h. List previous party offices and dates held. __
If you would like to have the results of this survey, check here.

APPENDIX B
Demographic Variables by Campaign Activity Variables
(in percents)
Democrats Republicans
Activity:
Use of Surveys or Polls
Often
Some
times
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
5.6
41.7
52.8
36
16.7
45.8
37.5
24
High school
16.0
29.2
54.7
106
18.4
28.9
12.5
76
Some college
9.9
43.4
46.7
182
12.0
46.4
41.7
192
College and post-grad.
10.8
39.4
49.8
325
24.9
40.5
44.7
430
Age
22 to 35
7.2
42.2
50.6
83
13.7
39.2
47.1
102
36 to 50
13.9
41.0
45.2
310
14.2
40.9
44.9
347
51 to 65
8.9
34.7
56.4
202
13.9
41.8
44.3
201
66 to 86
9.4
39.6
50.9
53
22.5
42.5
35.0
40
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
10.5
35.9
53.5
256
14.3
43.3
42.4
245
Managers, officials
12.6
44.7
42.7
206
16.1
39.2
44.7
255
Farmers, farm workers
6.3
27.8
65.8
79
7.4
34.0
58.5
94
Time in Office
2 years or less
12.5
42.7
44.7
255
15.7
41.1
43.2
331
3 or 4 years
11.7
42.7
45.6
171
12.5
46.4
41.1
168
5 years or more
9.1
32.0
58.9
219
13.9
36.5
49.5
208
Activity:
Use of Circulars
Education
None-some high school
52.5
40.0
7.5
40
46.4
53.6
0.0
28
High school
40.7
46.6
12.7
118
51.8
44.6
3.6
83
Some college
49.7
40.6
9.6
197
48.1
44.7
7.3
206
College and post-grad.
50.6
41.2
8.2
342
53.3
40.0
6.6
452
Age_
22 to 35
37.5
52.3
10.2
88
48.1
43.4
8.5
106
36 to 50
51.7
40.8
7.5
319
53.2
42.7
4.1
393
51 to 65
52.0
38.3
9.7
227
49.3
43.3
7.4
215
66 to 86
38.7
46.8
14.5
62
52.0
36.0
12.0
50
118

119
APPENDIX B (continued)
Democrats
Some
Often times Never N
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
Managers, officials
Farmers, farm workers
Time in Office
2 years or less
3 or 4 years
5 years or more
48.9
40.8
10.3
272
54.5
39.6
5.9
222
30.2
51.2
18.6
86
50.0
42.5
7.5
268
49.7
42.8
7.5
187
47.0
39.7
13.2
234
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
56.4
37.1
6.6
259
50.9
45.0
4.1
271
33.7
59.4
6.9
101
51.3
44.1
4.6
347
52.2
40.6
7.2
180
51.5
40.6
7.9
229
Activity:
Use of Press Releases
Education
None-some high school
36.8
42.1
High school
44.3
45.2
Some college
51.3
38.9
College and post-grad.
54.8
38.8
Ass.
22 to 35
50.0
44.3
36 to 50
58.8
35.0
51 to 65
44.8
43.0
66 to 86
36.7
48.3
Occupation
Professional, technical
9
kindred workers
57.0
36.3
Managers, officials
53.2
38.2
Farmers, farm workers
29.9
54.0
Time in Office
2 years or less
56.3
36.2
3 or 4 years
51.1
42.9
5 years or more
46.2
41.9
Activity:
Use of Radio
Education
None-some high school
30.8
38.5
High school
36.0
43.0
Some college
35.0
42.6
College and post-grad.
37.9
42.6
A££
22 to 35
29.1
45.3
36 to 50
41.1
39.4
51 to 65
33.3
45.5
66 to 86
32.1
42.9
21.1
38
16.7
45.8
37.5
24
10.4
115
18.4
28.9
12.5
76
9.8
193
12.0
46.4
41.7
192
6.4
345
14.9
40.5
44.7
430
5.7
88
13.7
39.2
47.1
102
6.3
320
14.2
40.9
44.9
347
12.2
221
13.9
41.8
44.3
201
15.0
60
22.5
42.5
35.0
40
6.7
270
52.9
42.0
5.1
257
kC

CO
220
47.8
44.9
7.4
272
16.1
87
29.0
64.0
7.0
100
7.5
268
15.7
41.1
43.2
331
6.0
184
12.5
46.4
41.1
168
12.0
234
13.9 '
36.5
49.5
208
30.8
39
42.9
28.6
28.6
28
21.1
114
28.0
43.9
28.0
82
22.3
197
36.6
43.9
19.5
205
19.5
338
35.5
38.6
25.9
448
25.6
86
41.5
34.0
24.5
106
29.6
322
35.4
40.1
24.5
387
21.2
222
31.3
44.9
23.8
214
25.0
56
42.3
32.7
25.0
52

120
APPENDIX B (continued)
Democrats
Some-
Often times Never N
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
Managers, officials
Farmers, farm workers
Time in Office
2 years or less
3 or 4 years
5 years or more
35.8
37.7
26.4
265
41.7
46.2
12.1
223
28.4
42.0
29.5
88
37.1
43.1
19.9
267
39.3
44.4
16.3
178
34.9
38.7
26.4
235
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
41.8
37.1
21.1
256
34.9
41.3
23.8
269
24.8
43.8
31.4
105
36.2
40.6
23.2
345
32.9
37.6
29.5
173
36.5
40.9
22.6
230
Activity:
Use of Literature
Education
None-some high school
51.2
36.6
High school
49.6
43.5
Some college
55.1
36.2
College and post-grad.
54.5
38.1
Age
22 to 35
48.9
44.3
36 to 50
59.6
35.1
51 to 65
50.0
40.3
66 to 86
42.4
40.7
Occupation
Professional, technical
S>
kindred workers
56.1
34.3
Managers, officials
54.8
41.6
Farmers, farm workers
37.9
48.3
Time in Office
2 years or less
55.6
39.6
3 or 4 years
51.6
41.4
5 years or more
53.9
34.1
12.2
41
50.0
46.2
3.8
26
7.0
115
56.1
40.2
3.7
82
8.7
196
53.8
42.3
3.8
208
7.3
341
53.0
42.1
4.9
451
6.8
88
55.2
35.2
9.5
105
5.3
317
54.9
42.1
3.1
390
9.7
226
47.7
47.7
4.6
218
16.9
59
61.2
34.7
4.1
47
9.6
271
56.7
36.6
6.7
254
3.6
221
54.1
44.1
1.9
270
13.8
87
34.0
57.5
8.5
106
4.9
268
55.8
39.0
5.2
346
7.0
186
48.6
48.0
3.4
177
12.1
232
54.6 '
41.0
4.4
229

APPENDIX C
Attitudinal Variables by Campaign Activity Variables
(in percents)
Activity:
Use of Surveys or Polls
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
Remain the same
Decrease
Most Concerned With:
Local
State
Nation
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
Activity:
Use of Circulars
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
Remain the same
Decrease
Most Concerned With:
Local
State
Nation
Democrats
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
13.3
44.0
42.7
293
11.8
37.1
51.1
229
3.8
27.4
68.9
106
13.9
43.7
42.4
151
10.0
41.7
48.3
120
9.7
35.1
55.2
319
10.0.
41.7
48.3
180
11.4
34.2
54.3
184
9.6
41.7
49.3
146
9.4
31.2
59.4
135
12.1
43.7
44.2
355
4.4
44.4
51.1
45
57.2
38.6
4.2
311
43.8
45.9
10.3
242
37.0
42.9
20.2
119
55.2
41.7
3.1
163
54.3
40.3
5.4
129
42.8
43.4
13.8
341
54.5
34.8
10.7
187
44.7
47.7
7.6
197
47.1
43.8
9.2
153
Republicans
Some
Often
times
Never
N
20.0
40.0
40.0
35
14.2
45.4
40.4
218
14.2
38.7
47.1
450
29.0
32.3
38.7
31
11.3
41.9
46.8
62
13.7
41.8
44.5
600
18.2
37.4
44.4
187
11.2
43.4
45.4
196
9.7
40.0
50.3
195
17.2
40.1
42.7
157
13.1
41.6
45.2
389
18.7
37.4
44.0
91
45.7
45.7
8.6
35
57.8
38.4
3.9
232
48.5
44.6
6.9
478
60.0
31.4
8.6
35
48.4
46.8
4.8
62
50.4
43.0
6.6
639
54.2
39.9
5.9
203
54.4
38.7
6.9
204
41.0
49.5
9.5
200
121

122
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
APPENDIX C (continued)
Democrats
Some
Often
times
Never
N
46.7
42.1
11.2
152
52.0
40.5
7.5
373
44.9
42.9
12.2
49
Republicans
Some-
Often
times
Never
N
46.7
46.2
7.1
169
54,1
39.3
6.6
407
49.0
44.7
6.3
96
Activity:
Use of Press Releases
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
60.4
33.1
Middle-of-the-Road
43.2
48.5
Conservative
43.7
40.3
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
55.4
35.5
Remain the same
54.0
41.9
Decrease
47.9
41.4
Most Concerned With:
Local
55.4
33.9
State
46.4
46.9
Nation
51.3
43.3
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
47.3
36.7
Economic
55.5
41.0
State Govt./Pol. Party
51.0
46.9
6.5
308
45.9
51.4
2.7
37
8.3
241
53.3
41.5
5.2
229
16.0
119
45.5
46.9
7.6
473
9.0
166
58.8
35.3
5.9
34
4.0
124
51.6
43.5
4.8
62
10.7
338
46.3
46.6
7.1
635
10.8
186
59.1
33.8
7.1
198
6.8
192
45.1
45.6
9.2
206
5.3
150
41.9
51.5
6.6
198
16.0
150
47.7
42.4
9.9
172
3.5
373
51.7
43.3
4.9
406
2.0
49
41.9
49.5
8.6
93
Activity:
Use of Radio
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
Activity of Federal
35.8
39.1
30.8
45.9
39.1
40.0
Government
Increase
38.3
40.1
Remain the same
40.8
37.5
Decrease
34.7
42.9
Most Concerned With:
Local
44.7
37.2
State
30.6
43.5
Nation
32.7
48.7
18.2
307
40.5
32.4
27.0
37
21.8
238
38.7
40.0
21.3
225
29.2
120
32.8
41.1
26.1
475
21.6
167
41.2
32.4
26.5
34
21.7
120
31.3
45.3
23.4
64
22.4
340
34.7
40.1
25.2
631
18.1
188
38.7
37.2
24.1
199
25.9
193
32.7
43.1
24.3
202
18.7
150
33.0
41.0
26.0
200

123
APPENDIX C (continued)
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
Economic
State Govt./Pol. Party
Democrats
Some
Often
times
Never
N
36.8
38.8
24.3
152
39.0
43.4
17.6
369
27.1
50.0
22.9
48
Republicans
Some
Often
times
Never
N
32.9
38.2
28.8
170
38.8
37.8
23.5
405
31.6
46.3
22.1
95
Activity:
Use of Literature
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
62.5
33.3
Middle-of-the-Road
50.0
43.3
Conservative
37.9
40.5
Activity of Federal
Government
Increase
66.9
30.1
Remain the same
54.0
40.5
Decrease
45.6
43.2
Most Concerned With:
Local
59.9
32.6
State
49.7
44.6
Nation
52.9
39.9
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social Issues
53.3
37.3
Economic
56.0
38.9
State Govt./Pol. Party
49.0
34.7
4.2
312
63.9
27.8
8.3
36
6.7
240
54.6
41.0
4.4
229
21.6
116
51.9
43.9
4.2
478
3.1
163
61.8
32.4
5.9
34
5.6
126
53.8
41.5
4.6
65
11.2
340
52.1
43.3
4.6
635
7.5
187
59.3
36.2
4.5
199
5.7
193
50.7
45.3
3.9
203
7.2
153
51.7
42.4
5.9
203
9.3
150
54.2
41.1
4.8
168
5.1
373
55.0
41.1
4.0
404
16.3
49
50.5
44.2
5.3
95

APPENDIX D
Demographic Variables by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact: Democrats
Governors on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Education
None-some high school
24.3
37.8
18.9
High school
17.5
38.6
13.2
Some college
19.1
38.2
16.9
College and post-grad.
17.3
31.4
16.4
Age
22
to
35
16.0
23.5
13.6
36
to
50
18.6
31.8
17.0
51
to
65
16.8
44.9
15.0
66
to
86
25.0
30.4
19.6
Republicans
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
18.9
37
18.2
36.4
13.6
31.8
22
30.7
114
15.4
43.6
10.3
30.8
78
25.8
178
16.7
26.3
17.2
39.9
198
34.9
341
11.9
25.5
17.1
45.4
427
46.9
81
10.1
20.2
20.2
49.5
99
32.7
318
13.2
25.4
14.9
46.5
370
23.4
214
14.4
33.5
18.7
33.5
209
25.0
56
21.4
40.5
7.1
31.0
42
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
16.9
29.5
17.2
Managers, officials
20.1
40.2
15.0
Farmers, farm workers
13.1
42.9
14.3
Time in Office
2 years or less
18.8
34.5
14.6
3 or 4 years
20.0
29.7
18.9
5 years or more
15.8
38.6
16.2
36.
,4
261
12.6
24.4
19.1
43.9
246
24.
,8
214
17.0
20.4
16.6
36.0
253
29.
.8
84
6.6
29.7
13.2
50.5
91
32.2
261
10.9
26.4
15.8
46.9
322
31.4
175
17.6
26.7
20.6
35.2
165
29.4
228
15.2
30.5
14.3
39.9
223

Contact:
State Legislators on Party Business
APPENDIX D (continued)
Republicans
Democrats
Of ten
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
55.3
26.3
7.9
10.5
38
48.0
32.0
4.0
16.0
25
High school
41.0
39.3
11.1
8.5
117
47.6
33.8
8.8
10.0
80
Some college
52.2
39.3
5.0
3.5
201
43.1
37.4
10.4
9.0
211
College and post-grad.
43.4
38.3
10.6
7.7
350
42.0
39.6
11.1
7.3
450
Age
22 to 35
44.0
34.5
14.3
7.1
84
41.0
37.1
8.6
13.3
105
36 to 50
46.0
37.5
9.8
6.7
328
45.2
36.4
10.9
7.5
385
51 to 65
49.8
38.4
6.1
5.7
229
39.4
41.2
11.3
8.1
221
66 to 86
38.1
44.4
6.3
11.1
63
47.1
39.2
7.8
5.9
51
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
44.1
37.1
11.0
7.7
272
42.4
39.3
10.1
8.2
257
Managers, officials
48.9
39.6
6.6
4.8
227
45.0
37.5
10.0
7.4
269
Farmers, farm workers
41.7
36.9
11.9
9.5
84
38.6
38.6
13.9
8.9
101
Time in Office
2 years or less
48.3
37.3
8.4
6.1
263
41.5
41.3
8.3
8.9
349
3 or 4 years
47.9
36.3
10.0
5.8
190
45.9
34.1
12.9
7.1
170
5 years or more
43.3
39.6
9.0
8.2
245
43.3
37.8
11.6
7.3
233

Contact:
Congressmen on Party Business
APPENDIX D (continued)
Republicans
Democrats
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
43.2
32.4
8.1
16.2
37
29.2
41.7
20.8
8.3
24
High school
25.5
47.3
9.1
18.2
110
28.6
44.2
16.7
10.4
77
Some college
33.5
40.1
6.2
10.2
197
24.0
40.1
18.2
17.7
192
College and post-grad.
22.7
39.7
19.1
18.5
335
24.1
38.3
17.8
19.8
439
Age
22 to 35
22.6
36.9
15.5
25.0
84
15.8
37.6
21.8
24.8
101
36 to 50
24.2
42.5
19.8
13.5
318
23.8
39.7
16.5
20.0
370
51 to 65
31.6
40.5
12.1
15.8
215
27.2
41.3
19.4
12.1
206
66 to 86
36.7
36.7
11.7
15.0
60
35.8
35.8
17.0
11.3
53
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
20.2
42.7
19.5
17.6
262
26.0
40.8
14.8
18.4
250
Managers, officials
34.3
40.3
12.5
13.0
216
25.9
39.2
19.2
15.7
255
Farmers, farm workers
29.1
44.2
10.5
16.3
86
17.2
39.4
19.2
24.2
99
Time in Office
2 years or less
28.1
38.7
19.1
14.1
256
21.1
41.4
18.7
18.7
331
3 or 4 years
26.9
41.9
17.2
14.0
186
22.4
38.2
20.6
18.8
165
5 years or more ,
26.7
41.4
12.1
19.8
232
31.7
38.0
15.8
14.5
221

APPENDIX D (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
U.S. Senators on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
33.3
47.2
8.3
11.1
36
18.2
50.0
22.7
9.1
22
High school
20.6
48.6
15.0
15.9
167
17.7
48.1
21.5
12.7
79
Some college
23.9
46.3
13.8
16.0
188
19.7
34.8
21.7
23.7
198
College and post-grad.
18.8
40.9
20.9
19.4
330
18.7
38.8
19.4
23.1
428
Age
22 to 35
18.3
39.0
18.3
24.4
82
16.8
30.7
20.8
31.7
101
36 to 50
21.2
39.7
21.2
17.9
307
17.2
39.1
21.6
22.1
366
51 to 65
23.1
50.9
10.8
15.1
212
19.8
43.5
19.3
17.4
207
66 to 86
20.7
48.3
19.0
12.1
58
30.0
38.0
16.0
16.0
50
Occupation
Professional, technical,
kindred workers
18.7
44.4
18.3
18.7
257
18.7
39.4
19.5
22.4
241
Managers, officials
25.1
41.2
17.1
16.6
211
19.8
39.5
22.1
18.6
263
Farmers, farm workers
13.8
53.8
12.5
20.0
80
11.3
44.3
19.6
24.7
97
Time in Office
2 years or less
18.4
45.2
18,4
18.0
250
17.4
36.4
18.7
27.5
327
3 or 4 years
25.8
40.4
19.1
14.6
178
16.5
35.4
30.5
17.7
164
5 years or more
20.5
45.4
14.4
19.7
229
22.0
46.6
14.8
16.6
223
127

Contact;
State Party Chairmen on
Party Business
Of ten
Education
Nonesome high school 43.9
High school 38.7
Some college 54.2
College and post-grad. 43.4
Age
22 to 35 51.7
36 to 50 47.6
59 to 65 40.5
66 to 86 46.8
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers 42.0
Managers, officials 45.9
Farmers, farm workers 42.4
Time in Office
2 years or less 49.1
3 or 4 years 50.3
5 years or more 39.1
APPENDIX D (continued)
Democrats
Republicans
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
41.5
7.3
7.3
42.0
11.8
7.6
34.0
8.4
3.4
38.9
10.9
6.7
39.1
5.7
3.4
34.0
10.8
7.5
44.7
9.3
5.5
33.9
16.1
3.2
Some-
N
Often
times
41
52.0
36.0
119
51.7
37.1
203
53.7
31.5
357
50.1
35.8
87
54.7
34.9
332
50.1
34.0
237
47.3
37.8
62
67.8
28.8
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
12.0
0.0
25
4.5
6.7
89
11.6
3.2
216
10.6
3.5
453
5.7
4.7
106
11.8
4.1
396
11.7
3.2
222
1.7
1.7
59
38.8
11.4
7.8
40.3
10.0
3.9
43.5
5.9
8.2
37.1
8.7
5.1
34.6
10.5
4.7
41.1
11.7
8.1
281
51.2
34.1
231
50.0
36.1
85
46.1
41.2
275
56.0
31.0
191
47.5
38.1
248
47.7
37.8
11.6
3.1
258
9.3
4.6
280
8.8
3.9
102
8.3
4.6
348
12.7
1.7
181
11.2
3.3
241
128

APPENDIX D (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
Other County Party Chairmen
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Education
None-some high school
35.1
45.9
10.8
8.1
37
34.6
45.2
15.4
3.8
26
High school
25.4
51.7
14.4
8.5
118
41.0
37.2
15.4
6.4
78
Some college
36.8
43.2
12.6
7.4
190
35.4
44.8
12.3
7.5
212
College and post-grad.
33.1
38.6
16.1
12.1
347
28.3
43.6
20.9
7.2
445
Age
22 to 35
39.3
39.3
13.1
8.3
84
32.7
35.6
20.2
11.5
104
36 to 50
33.5
38.5
17.7
10.2
322
30.1
44.6
19.7
5.7
386
51 to 65
31.6
47.1
11.1
10.2
225
31.5
47.9
14.6
6.1
213
65 to 86
25.4
52.5
11.9
10.2
59
42.6
33.3
13.0
11.1
54
Occupation
Professional, technical
kindred workers
31.3
39.6
17.0
12.2
270
29.8
42.0
22.4
5.9
255
Managers, officials
32.6
42.1
15.8
9.5
221
35.2
43.3
15.9
5.6
270
Farmers, farm workers
32.9
50.0
8.5
8.5
82
25.3
44.4
17.2
13.1
99
Time in Office
2 years or less
38.5
39.2
13.6
8.7
265
30.3
41.9
21.7
6.1
346
3 or 4 years
33.1
43.1
16.6
7.2
181
32.9
48.6
15.0
3.5
173
5 years or more
27.1
44.2
14.6
14.2
240
33.2
42.8
14.4
9.6
229

130
APPENDIX E
Attitudinal Variables by Frequency of Contact
(in percents)
Contact: Democrats
Governors on Party Business
Some-
Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
20.0
34.9
12.9
Middle-of-Road
17.9
33.2
21.1
Conservative
16.9
43.2
13.6
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
17.8
33.1
17.8
Remain the same
17.6
37.8
19.3
Decrease
19.5
35.9
13.6
Most Concerned With:
Local
16.6
28.6
20.0
State
18.0
37.6
16.9
Nation
16.6
38.6
13.8
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
21.2
30.8
15.8
Economic
18.6
36.6
16.6
State govt./pol. party
12.8
29.8
10.6
Republicans
Never
N
Some- Hardly
Often times Ever Never
N
32.
.2
295
25.7
34.3
11.4
28.6
35
27.
,8
223
13.1
33.2
18.2
35.5
214
26.
,3
118
13.3
25.2
16.5
45.1
437
31.
,2
157
21.
2
30.2
15.2
33.3
33
25.
.2
119
12.
1
43.1
15.5
29.3
58
31.
.0
323
13.
6
26.4
16.6
43.4
590
34.9
175
13.9
24.6
17.6
43.7
187
27.5
189
17.8
30.9
17.3
34.0
191
31.0
145
6.9
24.9
14.8
53.4
189
32.
.2
146
8.2
25.9
21.5
44.3
158
28.
,2
355
15.1
32.4
11.5
41.1
392
46.
,8
47
6.8
19.3
23.9
50.0
88

APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
State Legislators on Party Business
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
Often
times
Ever
Never
N
LiberalConservative
Liberal
50.0
36.0
9.4
4.5
308
62.2
29.7
8.1
0.0
37
Middle-of-Road
46.9
37.3
8.3
7.5
241
45.5
40.6
10.3
3.6
224
Conservative
36.1
42.0
10.1
11.8
119
40.6
36.7
11.4
11.4
466
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
50.3
37.3
8.1
4.3
161
32.4
44.1
8.8
14.7
34
Remain the same
39.2
38.5
15.4
6.9
130
46.0
31.7
15.9
6.3
63
Decrease
45.6
37.9
8.0
8.6
338
43.9
37.5
10.4
8.2
624
Most Concerned With:
Local
51.6
31.7
9.7
7.0
186
45.8
31.3
16.1
6.8
192
State
39.5
42.5
11.0
7.0
200
49.0
38.7
6.4
5.9
204
Nation
45.3
39.2
10.1
5.4
148
27.9
44.8
12.9
14.4
201
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
42.7
42.7
9.3
5.3
150
37.6
39.4
11.8
11.2
170
Economic
49.2
34.0
11.0
5.9
374
45.7
38.1
9.8
6.4
409
State govt./pol. party
54.0
34.0
8.0
4.0
50
34.7
43.2
10.5
11.6
95

APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats
Congressmen on Party Business
Some-
Hardly
Of ten
times
Ever
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
30.2
39.6
16.1
Middle-of-Road
24.7
42.9
17.7
Conservative
26.3
39.8
12.7
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
28.6
46.6
11.8
Remain the same
25.8
34.7
19.4
Decrease
26.6
42.4
15.2
Most Concerned With:
Local
22.7
41.5
18.8
State
27.7
46.9
16.8
Nation
29.0
40.7
15.2
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
29.5
39.0
15.8
Economic
27.5
39.6
18.1
State govt./pol. party
27.7
51.1
6.4
Republicans
Never
W
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
14.1
298
25.7
48.6
11.4
14.3
35
14.7
231
24.6
37.4
23.2
14.7
211
21.2
118
24.2
38.9
17.0
19.9
447
13.0
161
18.2
36.4
15.2
30.3
33
20.2
124
25.4
40.7
22.0
11.9
59
15.8
323
24.2
39.8
18.1
17.9
518
17.0
176
23.8
38.9
20.5
16.8
185
13.6
191
22.8
40.4
17.6
19.2
193
15.2
145
19.9
42.4
17.8
19.9
191
15.8
146
22.1
41.7
23.3
12.9
163
14.8
364
24.6
39.4
17.4
18.7
391
14.9
47
25.6
32.2
17.8
24.4
90

APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
U.S. Senators on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
23.5
45.6
17.0
13.9
294
31.4
37.1
17.1
14.3
35
Middle-of-Road
18.8
43.8
20.1
17.4
224
19.2
35.6
24.0
21.2
208
Conservative
17.1
42.3
13.5
27.0
111
17.7
41.0
18.4
22.9
446
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
20.1
47.4
16.2
16.2
154
12.5
34.4
25.0
28.1
32
Remain the same
22.3
41.3
18.2
18.2
121
17.5
38.6
33.3
10.5
57
Decrease
19.0
41.9
19.0
20.0
315
18.6
39.8
19.3
22.3
596
Most Concerned With:
Local
16.8
35.3
27.5
20.4
167
14.8
37.9
23.6
23.6
182
State
22.6
49.5
13.2
14.7
190
18.3
43.5
18.8
19.4
191
Nation
21.5
47.2
17.4
13.9
144
20.0
35.8
19.5
24.7
190
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
26.0
36.3
17.8
19.9
146
18.0
42.2
22.4
17.4
161
Economic
22.5
43.7
18.6
15.2
355
16.8
40.6
21.2
21.4
387
State govt./pol. party
11.9
50.0
16.7
21.4
42
14.6
31.5
24.7
29.2
89
oj
u>

Contact:
State Party Chairmen
Often
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal 49.8
Middle-ofRoad 45.9
Conservative 34.1
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase 53.0
Remain the same 44.8
Decrease 40.2
Most Concerned With:
Local 50.8
State 47.3
Nation 36.9
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues 37.8
Economic 49.0
State govt./pol. party 56.3
APPENDIX E (continued)
Democrats
Republicans
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
36.3
8.4
5.5
41.4
8.2
4.5
40.3
16.3
9.3
39.2
6.0
1.8
34.3
12.7
8.2
41.0
11.6
7.2
35,1
9,4
4.7
34.8
10.0
8.0
45.2
12.1
5.7
Some
N
Often
times
311
60.0
20.0
244
53.9
33.2
129
49.9
36.5
166
48.5
36.4
134
47.6
31.7
346
52.4
35.1
191
53.3
33.2
201
52.9
33.7
157
44.3
39.3
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
17.1
2.9
35
9.5
3.4
232
9.9
3.8
477
15.2
0.0
33
15.9
4.8
63
8.7
3.7
641
10.1
3.5
199
9.6
3.8
208
12.4
4.0
201
42.3
13.5
6.4
156
55.6
31.5
11.8
1.1
178
39.1
8.1
3.9
384
49.0
36.8
9.3
4.9
410
31.3
6.3
6.3
48
51.0
34.4
10.4
4.2
96
134

APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
Other Party Chairmen
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often times Ever Never N Often times Ever Never N
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
34.1
44.4
Middle-of-Road
33,6
43.5
Conservative
24.8
39.7
Activity of Federal Govt,
Increase
38.4
47.8
Remain the same
24.4
41.7
Decrease
31.9
41.6
Most Concerned With:
Local
32.3
45.2
State
33.5
41.0
Nation
28.2
42.3
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
35.1
37.2
Economic
30.7
45.9
State govt./pol. party
38.3
42.6
14.2
7.3
302
36.1
41.7
16.7
5.6
36
14.7
8.2
232
34.5
42.2
17.0
6.3
223
16.5
19.0
121
30.1
44.3
18.1
7.5
465
11.9
1.9
159
40.6
40.6
6.3
12.5
32
21,3
12.6
127
32.8
40.6
20.3
6.3
64
13.9
12.7
332
31.4
43.7
18.5
6.4
622
16.
,1
6.5
186
33.2
40.9
19.7
6.2
193
13.
,3
12.2
188
33.3
43.3
15.4
8.0
201
20.
.1
9.4
149
25.8
44.9
21.2
8.1
198
14.2
13.5
148
30.1
42.8
20.8
6.4
173
16.3
7.1
368
33.2
42.3
16.9
7.6
397
12.8
6.4
47
30.9
39.2
20.6
9.3
97
135

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Born May 25, 1949, Dwight Lambert attended Hialeah High School
in Hialeah, Florida. He completed undergraduate work at the Univer
sity of Florida, earning a Master of Arts degree there in 1974. He
has taught political science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas,
and now teaches at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg.
136

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
5avid P. Conradt, Chairman,
Professor of Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree o£_
Doctor of Philosophy.
AlfreSiB.Clubok, Professord£
Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy. \
:essor of Political Science
I certify that I have read this study and that-Jui my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of^_s<¡:holarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as'a dissertation''-for jthe degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
fiichael A. Maggiotto,/'Assistant
Professor of Political" Science
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the,degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Beniamin I/. Gorman, Professor
of Sociology

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial ful
fillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
March 1980
Dean, Graduate School



31
The Dependent Variables
Eldersveld identifies four task areas that appear to dominate the
concerns of county chairmen: the promotion of factional harmony, the
allocation of patronage, planning campaign strategy, and, finally, the
development of organizational policy (1964). He adds that . the
discussion and the development of strategy for the next campaign was
the major task for a large number of the leadership nucleus, directed
at immediate vote maximization" (1964, p. 342). Avery Leiserson enum
erates major party functions as organization and education of voters,
nomination of candidates, the conduct of elections, clarification of
alternatives, upward mobility, securing dispensations, privileges,
contracts and assistance for potential supporters (1958). Leiserson
adds: ". . all of these functions . were developed informally
as a by-product of the parties' factional efforts to secure control of
government power" (1958, p. 74). Perhaps, then, the "most important"
function of political parties in the United States is . the
recruitment and election of selected public officials" (Madron and
Chelf, 1974, p. 150). In Massachusetts and North Carolina, local party
officials (58.3 percent) ranked as their most important functions cam
paign related activities: contacting voters, raising money, voter
registration, campaigning, public relations, and finding new voters
(Bowman and Boynton, 1966). Eldersveld, who argues that ". . pre
cinct leaders by no means accept the doctrine that the primary task
was vote production," nonetheless reports 45 percent of both Democratic
and Republican leaders maintain their major activity was that of vote
mobilization (1964, pp. 253-254). Thus, while the American political
party performs a number of different functionsorganization, fund


34
chairmen. To examine this connection, and to facilitate presentation of
the data, it is useful to employ as dependent variables only those
campaign activities carried out by the party organizations that most
differentiate between county organizations.
The selection of these variables is achieved by an analysis of the
thirteen activity areas. First, each of the possible responses to the
activity is assigned a weight; "often" is assigned 3, "sometimes," 2 and
"never," 1. For each chairman, these values are summed over the entire
set of thirteen activities. Those chairmen with scores in the highest
25 percent and those with scores in the lowest 25 percent were then
subjected to a T-Test for each of the thirteen items. The results are
presented in Table 3-1. The larger the T-Score, the more efficiently
the activity distinguishes between the high and low scoring groups of
chairmen.* The activity that best differentiates between the two groups
is the use of surveys or polls, while the smallest distinction between
the chairmen is over the use of movie advertisements. The top five
variables have been selected as measures of county campaign activity;
these five are the frequency with which the county organization uses
surveys or polls, press releases, circulars, radio ads, and campaign
literature.
The second set of dependent variables is based upon the chairmen's
responses to questions regarding the frequency of their contacts with
various party and government officials. The chairmen were asked to rank
as "often," "sometimes," "hardly ever," and "never" their contacts with
*The procedure is described in Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of
Attitude Scale Construction (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 1957).


Table 4-4
72
Amateur, Semiprofessional, and Professional by
Liberal-Conservative Dimension
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Liberal-
Conservative
Amateur
Prof.
Prof
Liberal
22.3
23.6
26.3
Middle-of-the-Road
29.2
34.7
31.2
Conservative
48.5
41.8
42.5
N =
130
764
586
X = 4.24a
adf = 4; not significant
In their study of presidential elections, Polsby and Wildavsky reach
the same conclusion: .in the presence of these activists is a
phenomenon which is not best seen as a matter of right vs. left, or
orgnaization vs. anti-organization, but rather in terms of political
purists . vs. professional politicians" (1971, p. 36). In short,
it is "style" that distinguishes the amateur from the professional,
not liberalism. This distinction in style is seen in the attitude of
amateurs and professionals toward the representative function of the
legislator. The amateur, Wilson says, would control elected officials
not from "external threats" typified by the mobilization of electoral
majorities, but rather by "internalized convictions" that have as
their object the realization of ". . certain social policies rather
than of enhancing the party's prospects for retaining power in the
next election" (1968, pp. 18-19). It is anticipated, therefore, that
the amateur activist would see the duty of the representative as to
act in the best interest of the contituency and not, necessarily,


23
Table 2-3
Political Attitudes of Chairmen by Party
(in percents)
Party
Democratic Republican
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
43.1
5.3
Middle-of-th e-Ro ad
38.0
32.6
Conservative
18.9
62.1
N =
677
723
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
25.5
4.9
Remain the same
19.9
8.7
Decrease
55.5
86.4
N =
570
774
Most Concerned with:
Local
38.5
33.1
State
36.3
33.2
National
27.9
33.7
N =
570
635
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
27.1
26.4
Economic
64.4
59.6
State govt./pol. party
8.5
14.0
N =
621
715
adf for all Chi Squares = 2;
significant at
.001
significant at .01
not significant
X2 = 373.87a
X2 = 186.26a
X2 = 4.75C
X2 = 9.93b


114
APPENDIX A (continued)
-3-
14. Please check the conditions that exist for your party committee.
Yes No
County committee is organized _
County staff is hired
County staff is volunteered
County records are maintained
County committee conducted a campaign
in the 1970 general election
15. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1970?
16. Approximately how many county committee meetings were held in 1971?
17. How many precincts are there in your county?
18. Please give the percentage of precincts in your county in which the following conditions are met:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Precinct chairman or captain has been
appointed or elected
Precinct committees have been
organized
Precinct rolls are maintained
Precincts are meeting at county
meetings and conventions *
19. What do you think is the general opinion of the people in.your county on the following state
issues? Axe they favorable or unfavorable toward:
Very Very No
Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
a) the death penalty for persons
convicted of murder?
b) a law which would permit
a woman to go to a doctor
to end a pregnancy any
time during tire first
three months?
c) having all new automobiles
equipped with an anti
pollution device which would
add approximately $100 to
the price of an automobile?
d) a law which would require a
person to obtain a police
permit before he or she
could buy a gun?
e) permitting public school
teachers to join unions?
f) permitting public school
teachers to strike?
g) permitting policemen and
firemen to join unions?
h) permitting policemen and
firemen to strike?
i) making the use of marijuana
legal?
j) a law requiring automobile
drivers suspected of having
consumed too much alcohol
to take a breath test or a
blood test?


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
ONE THE STUDY OF COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN AND
THE LOCAL POLITICAL PARTY 1
TWO THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE
OF THE CHAIRMEN 13
THREE THE IMPACT OF THE CHAIRMEN'S DEMOGRAPHIC
AND ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS UPON LOCAL
PARTY ACTIVITY 30
The Dependent Variables 31
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Party Activity ..... 36
Demographic measures 36
Population and occupation 38
Attitudinal measures 41
Impact of the liberal-conservative
distinction 43
Population and the liberal-conservative
distinction 49
Population and party activity 52
Characteristics of the Chairmen and
Frequency of Contacts 54
Demographic measures 54
Attitudinal measures 58
FOUR THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMEN 62
FIVE LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITY AND THE AMATEUR
PROFESSIONAL DIMENSION 79
SIX THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN IN THE CONTEXT
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES 99
vi


63
Previous research takes as a starting point Wilsons definitions
of amateur and professional. Amateurs are more concerned with ideals
and principles than with power, while the professional is mainly inter
ested in winning elections and less concerned with issues or ideology.
The county chairmen were asked a series of questions that tap the
amateur-professional dimension by probing the chairmen's attitudes
toward the party hierarchy, their attitudes toward issues and ideology,
and their view of the role of issues and ideology in local party poli
tics. Specifically, the questions were whether the chairmen felt an
obligation (1) to follow party leaders, (2) to give patronage positions
to party supporters, (3) to weigh prior party service in selecting a
candidate, (4) to pick a candidate with issue commitments, (5) to keep
public officials accountable to the party, and (6) to hold personal
beliefs. Possible responses to each question ranged over a five-place
continuum from "strong obligation to do," "some obligation to do,"
"no obligation," "some obligation to avoid," to a "strong obligation
to avoid." These responses are assigned a value ranging from zero to
four with "strong obligation to do" assigned the upper value, four.
Following Richard Hofstetter (1971), I have factor analyzed the six
questions. The results of this factor analysis are presented in
Table 4-1.
Earlier analysis has indicated that amateurprofessionalism may
not fall upon a single dimension. Thomas Roback, for example, in exam
ining delegates to the 1972 Republican Convention finds, after factor
analysis, that two dimensions resulted: (1) a procedural-organization
dimension and (2) a principles-participation dimension (1975). Richard
Hofstetter earlier arrived at similar conclusions by factor analysis of


22
These attitudes, erosstabulated by party, are reported in Table 2-3.
The greatest differences between Democratic and Republican chair
men are over the self-categorization as liberal, middle-of-the-road,
or conservative. The Democratic chairmen are far more likely to call
themselves liberal than are their Republican counterparts, 43 percent
to only 5 percent. While almost equal percentages of the chairmen
from each party classify themselves as middle-of-the-road, 38 percent
of the Democrats and 33 percent of the Republicans, only 19 percent
of the Democratic chairmen, but 62 percent of the Republican chairmen,
call themselves conservatives.
Substantial differences are also apparent over the question of
whether the activity of the federal government should increase, remain
the same, or decrease. One-quarter of the Democrats, but only 5 per
cent of the Republicans, would like to see an increase in the activity
of the federal government; 20 percent of the Democrats would see
federal government activity remain the same, as opposed to 9 percent
of the Republicans. On the other hand, the figures show almost 31
percent more Republican chairmen than Democratic chairmen favor a
decrease in the activity of the federal government, 86.4 percent to
55.5 percent. A majority of the chairmen from both parties favor
decreasing federal government activity.
crime, law and order, drug problems, environmental problems, health
problems, transportation, highways, mass transit, federal government
interference, public alienation, too many liberals or conservatives,
consumer protection, Vietnam War, need for Christianity, church-state
relations; (2) Economic: tax reform, taxes, high cost of government,
the economy, high cost of living, unemployment, economic development,
labor-management relations; (3) Government-Political Party: party
problems, need for two-party system, public apathy, government reor
ganization, specific personalities or political groups, need for
patriotism, and improving the state's image.


54
categories of population until, in those counties with the greatest
populations, almost 34 percent report "often" using radio in campaign
ing. On the other hand, the number "never" using radio declines from a
high of 51 percent to a low of less than 14 percent in the most heavily
populated counties. The percentage of those chairmen who say they
"often" use literature moves from 23 percent in the less populated
counties to 35 percent in the most populated counties, while the per
centage of those chairmen who "never" use literature declines from 32
percent to 9 percent.
Thus, while both self-ranking on a liberal-conservative scale
and occupation are associated with distinctions in the campaign activ
ity of local organizations, a more satisfactory explanation for the
differences lies in the population of the county, since population
mandates the selection of different kinds of campaign activitythe
activities considered here being more or less appropriate in counties
of greater or lesser population.
Characteristics of the Chairmen and Frequency of Contacts
Demographic measures. A last set of comparisons must be made
between the demographic and attitudinal variables and the measures of
inter-party communication, contacts between the county chairmen and
public and party officials. As noted earlier, these contacts represent
the communications network that exists within the party organization,
distinct from the election activities that are the party's contacts
with the electorate. Table 3-9 presents the chi-square results com
paring the chairmen's demographic traits with the reported frequency
of contacts between the chairmen and the governor, state legislators,


64
Table 4-1
Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of
Amateur-Professional Perceptions
Factor
Issue
Question
Procedural
Participation
Follow decisions of
party leaders
.46
.30
Give patronage help
to party workers
.64
.18
Weigh prior service in
selecting nominee
.74
.10
Select nominee with
issue commitments
.14
.76
Keep public officials
accountable to party
.68
.10
Hold personal beliefs
.18
.75
Percent total variance:
16.80
12.80
questions designed to tap the distinction between amateur and pro
fessional: he labeled the factors (1) procedural and (2) issue-
participation. The procedural dimension "taps norms about party
procedureaccountability to the organization, nomination of candi
dates, patronage, and discipline" (1971, p. 41). The second factor,
the issue-participation factor, "taps norms about commitment to issues,
intensity of personal belief, discussion of issues, participation and
the role of the formal party organization in nominations (juxtaposed
against the role of individuals or action groups) . ." (p. 41). The
figures in Table 4-1 mirror these results. Two of the questions, the
degree of obligation to select a nominee with issue commitments and
the degree of obligation to hold personal beliefs, load heavily upon
the second factor, issue-participation. Of the four remaining questions,


33
network in which the county chairmen may take part. In this analysis,
then, the dependent variables will be the election activities of the
county organization and the communications network of the chairmen.
I shall develop both of these variables in turn, beginning with cam
paign activity.
Measures of party activity are based upon the observations made
by the county chairmen. A nationwide study leaves no alternative
except reliance upon the perceptions of the chairmen themselves for
information on county activity. The cost of hired observers and geo
graphic distances make impossible reliance upon more objective assess
ments of party activity. Indeed, most studies of the county party
organization have had to rely upon the observations of the local party
officials.
The chairmen were asked several questions relating to county cam
paign activity that are germane to my purpose. The questions seek the
chairman's assessments of the frequency ("often," "sometimes," or
"never") with which the county organization used the following activi
ties at the county level: movie ads, door-to-door canvassing, barbe
cues, radio ads, rallies, press releases, television, newspaper ads,
circulars, literature, telephoning registered voters, billboards, and
surveys or polls. These thirteen activities all deal with the elector
al activities of county party organizations. The object of this
chapter is to explore the possible connection between the performance
of these activities and the demographic and attitudinal variables out
lined in Chapter Two. My interest is in examining the proposition that
differences in campaign activities by local party organizations may be
associated with demographic and attitudinal differences among the county


no
Meyer, Marshall W. (1972). "Leadership and Organizational Structure."
American Journal of Sociology 81:515-542.
Nie, Norman H.; Verba, Sidney; and Petrocik, John R. (1976). The
Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Patterson, Samuel C. (1963). "Characteristics of Party Leaders."
Western Political Quarterly 16:332-352.
Plunkitt, George Washington (1905). "Reformers Only Mornin' Glories."
As quoted in the New York Times, July 22, 1979, Sec. 4:1.
Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B. (1971). Presidential
Elections, 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner.
Pomper, Gerald (1965). "New Jersey County Chairmen." Western
Political Quarterly 16:186-197.
Roback, Thomas H. (1975). "Amateur and Professional: Delegates to
the Republican National Convention." Journal of Politics
37:501-517.
Salsbury, Robert H. (1965). "The Urban Party Organization Member."
Public Opinion Quarterly 20:555-561.
Scott, James C. (1969). "Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political
Change." American Political Science Review 63:1149-1150.
Sorauf, Frank J. (1975). "Political Parties and Political Analysis,"
in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (eds.), The
American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
(1976). Party Politics in America, 3rd ed. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Soule, John W. and Clarke, James W. (1970). "Amateurs and Profession
als: A Study of Delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Con
vention." American Political Science Review 64:888-898.
and McGarth, Wilma E. (1975). "A Comparative Study of
Presidential Nominating Conventions: The Democrats in 1968 and
1972." American Journal of Political Science 19:501-517.
Sullivan, Denis G.; Pressman, Jeffery L.; Arterton, Christopher F.
(1976). Explorations in Campaign Decision Making: The Democratic
Party in the 1970s. San Frnacisco: W. H. Freeman.
Sunquist, James (1973). Dynamics of the Party System. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America.
New York: Harper and Row.


80
chief goal of the amateur. Eldersveld reports that 78 percent of the
precinct leaders who were involved in party activity for personal
reasonssuch as securing a jobwere poweroriented; 70 percent of the
precinct leaders who were involved for personal social rewards were
power-oriented; but, only 44 percent of the precinct leaders with
ideological concerns were motivated chiefly by hope of obtaining poli
tical power (1964). It is expected, then, that the amateurs would be
less energetic than the professionals in the use of campaign activity.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of amateurs, semiprofessionals,
and professionals across the reported frequency of using the five cam
paign activities developed in Chapter Three. All of the results are
statistically significant. Across all five activities, the percent of
professionals reporting "often" using any particular activity exceeds
the percent of amateurs, while the percent of semiprofessionals falls
between amateurs and professionals. Among professionals, 16 percent
say they "often" use surveys or polls in campaigning, but only 8 per
cent of the amateurs report "often" using surveys or polls. While 42
percent of the amateurs say they "often" use press releases, more than
half the professionals, 56 percent, report the same use; over half the
professionals, 57 percent, maintain they "often" use circulars, op
posed to 41 percent of the amateurs; 43 percent of the professionals
say they "often" use radio in campaigning, but only 29 percent of the
amateurs make the same estimate; finally, while 40 percent of the
amateurs claim to "often" use literature, over 60 percent of the pro
fessionals say they "often" distribute literature in campaigns. Indeed,
the reported frequency of campaign activity among the professional chair
men continues to exceed that of the amateurs when "often" responses are


71
that sets the new politician apart and makes him worth studying"
(1968, p. 2). Yet, the studies of amateurs have consistently linked
the amateur with liberal: "amateurs were much more likely to place
themselves in the 'liberal' category than were the professionals,"
write Hitliu and Jackson (1977, p. 792). Far from indicating a liberal
bent, data from the county chairmen place the amateur within the con
servative category. The chairmen were asked to rank themselves on a
liberal-conservative continuum ranging from very liberal to very con
servative. As in Chapter Two, these categories are collapsed to
liberal, middle-of-the-road, and conservative. The results are dis
played in Table 4-4. Of the amateurs, 48 percent classify themselves
as conservative. Forty-three percent of the professionals place them
selves in the conservative category. Only 22 percent of the amateurs
regard themselves as liberal, while 26 percent of the professionals
so classify themselves. While these data do not correspond to the
results of work done on convention delegates, they are more in line
with Wilson's observation that the amateur is not solely a product of
a liberal political outlook. Amateurism is a question of political
"style," and not a question of liberalness. As Wildavsky has pointed
out in regard to the conservative "purist" delegates to the 1964 Repub
lican National convention:
The ideal party of the purists is not merely a conservative
party; it is also a distinct and separate community of co
believers who differ with the opposition party all down the line.
To this extent, their style merges with that of the liberal party
reformers, described by James Wilson . who wish to see the
parties represent clear and opposed alternatives and gain votes
only through appeals on policy differences rather than on such
"irrational" criteria as personality, party identification, or
ethnic status. (1971, pp. 255-256)


67
Table 4-2
Amateur, Semi-Professional, and Professional
by Demographic Traits
(in percents)
Degree of Professionalism
Amateur
Semi-
Professional Professional
Education
None-some high school
5.3
3.5
6.4
High school
9.2
13.1
15.4
Some college
22.9
29.9
27.7
College and post-grad.
62.9
54.2
50.5
N =
131
778
596
df = 6
X2 = 14.26 .
22 to 35
25.6
14.4
8.2
36 to 50
43.4
50.3
46.1
51 to 65
23.3
30.3
33.0
66 to 86
7.8
5.0
12.6
N =
129
776
594
df = 6
X2 = 56.11a
Time in Office
2 years or less
43.4
46.5
35.4
3 or 4 years
27.1
24.4
25.4
5 years or more
29.5
29.0
39.2
N =
29
765
587
df = 4
X2 = 21.15a
Sex
Male
89.4
91.8
94.1
Female
10.6
8.2
5.9
N =
132
781
597
df = 2 X2 = 4.69
a
significant
at
.001


26
concerned about national politics than non-Southern chairmen, 36 to
29 percent, they fall far behind in their concern for state govern
mentsonly 23 percent of the Southerners are most concerned with state
government, compared to 40 percent of the non-Southern chairmen.
These figures tend to indicate that the chairmen do not share
similar political attitudes. The figures do not, however, gauge the
significance of issues for the chairmen. 4 means of assessing the
salient issues for the county chairmen are their responses as to why
they first became involved in local party activity. Following the
division by Clark and Wilson for organizational participation (1961),
responses to the closed-ended questions were grouped into three broad
categories: purposive (contact influentials, issue concerns, commun
ity obligation), solidarity (strong party loyalty, politics as a way
of life, social contact, personal friendships), and material (helpful
in business, seek office). Interest here is in examining potential
differences between the chairmen of the two parties and between
Southern and non-Southern chairmen. Earlier research has pointed to
the conclusion that local party activists become involved in politics
chiefly for purposive reasons. This is the conclusion reached by Conway
and Feigert in their examination of Knox County, Illinois, and Montgomery
County Maryland (1968). In Knox County, 18 percent of the Democratic
precinct captains and 16 percent of the Republican captains said they
became active in politics to influence politics; in Montgomery County,
the figures are more decisive: 30 percent of the Democrats and 42 per
cent of the Republican captains became active to influence policy.
Similar findings have been reported for Massachusetts and North Caro
lina precinct captains, with 92 percent of the Democrats and 89 percent


78
public office. Contrary to the results reported by other studies of
amateurism, the amateur-oriented chairmen are not more likely than
professionals to classify themselves as liberals.
The differences in demographic and attitudinal traits, and, in
particular, the liberal-conservative classification and the existence
of a majoritarian subset among the amateurs, emphasize the differences
in style between amateurs and professionals. That difference is exam
ined in Chapter Five.


CHAPTER FOUR
THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL STRUCTURE OF
AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL CHAIRMAN
The publication in 1968 of The Amateur Democrat by James Q.
Wilson sparked interest in a new development in American politics:
amateur political activists who participate in politics not in the
expectation of any direct material reward but because they find poli
tics intrinsically interesting. The amateur differs from the profes
sional who is more concerned with the politics of winning elections.
This chapter considers the amateur-professional division among
the county party chairmen. The chairmen will be divided along amateur-
professional lines, then examined by demographic characteristics and
political ambitions. This examination becomes the basis for exploring,
in Chapter Five, the connection between amateurs, professionals, and
party activity.
The evidence is mounting that citizens now participate in politics
by holding office and that they manage to retain an amateur point of
view despite office-holding (Hitlin and Jackson, 1977). It is possible
the amateur now participates in the party organization itself; recent
evidence is found in studies of national party convention delegates
(Hitlin and Jackson, 1977; Roback, 1975). Whether the amateur-
professional distinction exists among county party chairmen is the
aspect of local party organization this chapter examines.
62


8
this point. In his study of party workers in Detroit, Eldersveld con
cludes party activists differed both in the type and the salience of
their motivations for party activity (1964, p. 225). The consequence,
he says, may manifest itself as a change in the orientations of the
local party: .a consciousness of power as the goal of the party
is intimately related to the individual's own ambitions, interests,
and drives in political organizational life" (p. 243). Again, in
creased time in office may alter the motivational incentives of those
occupying the office, and, subsequently, influence the party organiza
tion. Huckshorne's study of state party chairmen substantiates this
view. He finds that with length of time in office "... changes in
performance often take place. Thus, at any given time, the role con
ception may differ when the actors remain the same" (1976, p. 70).
Concomitant with this finding is that "... the short tenure of party
chairmen may be the most serious detriment to building an effective
party organization" (Huckshorne, 1976, p. 70). As a result, tenure
in office may have an impact upon local party organization and its
activities because of the altered orientation even when the activists
have held local party office and worked for candidates in their own
party. This notable phenomenon is reported by Johnson and Gibson in
their study of party activists in Iowa (1974, pp. 72-73).
As these examples indicate, the orientations of the chairmen to
politics may have an impact upon the behavior of the individual and,
ultimately, the political organization. This phenomenon may be seen
most clearly in the increased participation in American politics of
persons oriented not toward the traditional rewards of political
parties such as patronage, but rather toward issues and policy. While


115
APPENDIX A (continued)
4
Very Very No
Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Opinion
k) Tire no fault plan dealing
with auto insurance?
l) state aid for education going
to Catholic and other private
schools?
20. In securing voting support, in which one of the following areas is the greatest amount of your
effort as chairman concentrated. Check one only.
Registrationincreasing tire number of registered voters favoring your party.
Party Moralethat is, keeping the party regulars aware and enthusiastic through public
appeals to them.
_ General Public Appealthat is, radio, TV, or newspaper appeals to the public, regardless
of party.
Personal contact with party members.
Other (please specify: .).
No effort to secure support is being made at the present time.
21. Listed below are campaign activities that have been employed by some county committees in
general elections. Please indicate whether your county committee often used, sometimes used,
or never used each activity in the most recent general election.
Did it: Often Sometimes Never
Use movie advertisements
Organize door to door canvassing
Arrange barbecues or chicken fries
Use radio time for county campaigns -
Organize rallies
Prepare press releases
Use television time for county campaigns
Buy newspaper space for county campaigns
Mail circulars or letters
Distribute literature or throw-aways
Organize telephone campaigns
Put up billboards or posters
Use surveys or polls in county campaigns
Emphasize personal campaigns, word of mouth campaigns
Other (Please specify .) '
County committee is essentially inactive
22. In approximately how many precincts, if any, were the following election day activities carried on
in the most recent general election? Please check the column closest to the percent of precincts
engaging in the activity. q% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Transporting voters to and from
the polls
Poll watchers
Providing baby sitters
Passing out literature or throw-aways
Using sound tracks
Phoning registered voters reminding
them to vote
Last minute newspaper, radio, or
TV advertising
Parades or motorcades
Other (Please specify .)


2
Writing on the connection between public opinion and the mainten
ance of a Democratic political regime, V. 0. Key noted that "repeated
ly, as we have sought to explain particular distributions, movements,
and qualities of mass opinion, we have had to . make assumptions
and estimates about the role and behavior of that stratum of persons
referred to variously as the political elite, the political activists,
the leadership echelons or the influentials" (1961, p. 536). Key
laments the lack of "systemic knowledge" of the composition, social
structure, and behavioral patterns of this "thin stratum." Sorauf
attributes the lack of knowledge about this level of party leadership
to limited data and limited interest (1975); these seem unusual cir
cumstances given the important position of the county in American
politics.
The lack of information about the local party organization and
Key's suggestions, in particular, have spawned a number of examina
tions of local party leadership. A large part of the work dealing
with the county party has involved examinations of the county chair
men, emphasizing comparisons of their demographic characteristics.
Attitudinal and policy differences among the chairmen have been left
almost wholly unexplored, rarely involving more than categorization
as liberal or conservative. While these studies have sought to deter
mine if the local county party leadership constitutes a layer of the
thin stratum of political activists who might differ from the remain
der of the population, the studies are predicated on the assumption
that the chairmen have an impact upon the activities of their county
organization.


Table 5-1
Amateur-
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Amateur
Semi-Professional
Professional
Significant at
Significant at
Amateur, Semi-Professional
by Campaign Activity
(in percents)
Surveys/Polls
Often
Sometimes
Never
N
7.7
35.9
56.4
117
11.2
40.4
48.4
698
16.3
40.7
43.0
528
df = 4
X2 = 13.67b
Press
Releases
42.3
46.3
11.4
123
45.6
46.7
7.7
741
55.5
37.2
7.4
557
df = 4
X2 = 16.8 3b
Circulars
41.0
45.9
13.1
122
46.4
44.3
9.3
742
56.8
38.8
4.4
570
df = 4
X2 = 27.35'
a
Radio
28.5
37.4
34.1
123
31.3
43.4
25.3
738
43.0
39.0
18.0
556
df = 4 X2
= 30.32a
Literature
39.7
47.1
13.2
121
50.1
43.5
6.3
744
60.8
34.9
4.3
558
X2 31.72a
.001
.01
df = 4


116
APPENDIX A (continued)
23.
Now, lets consider party work. Would you say that you feel a strong obligation or some obligation
to do each of the following, or, to avoid doing each of the following in the conduct of your affairs?
a) Follow decisions of party leaders
even when you disagree.
Strong
Obligation
To Do
Some
Obligation
To Do
No
Obligation
Either Way
Some
Obligation
To Do
Strong
Obligation
To Do
b) See to it that those who work
for the party get help in form
of jobs and other things if
they need it.
c) Weigh prior service to the party
very heavily in selecting candi
dates for nomination.
d) Select a nominee who is strongly
committed on a variety of
issue positions.
e) Keep elected public officials
strictly accountable to the
party organization.
f) Hold strong personal beliefs
about a number of
different issues.
24. In general do you consider yourself: Very Liberal Liberal Middle of Road
Conservative Very Conservative
25. Some say most people should be very active in politics while others feel that a division of labor
with only a few people being active is desirable. Do you feel that it would be better if all, most,
some, or just a few people became highly involved in politics most of the time?
All People Most People Some People A Few People
26. In making most kinds of policy decisions, would you say that politicians ought to use their own
best judgment even if this means doing some tiring unpopular, or that politicians ought to do what
a majority of their constituents want?
Use Own Best Judgment Do What Majority Wants Both About Equally
27. Would you say that you are more concerned with local, state, or national political problems?
Local State National
28. With which problems are you least concerned?
Local State National
29. In general, should the number of things the federal government does increase, remain the same,
or decrease?
Increase Remain the same Decrease
30.For each of the below issues, please check whether you think government support for the issue
should increase, decrease, or remain the same.
Increase Remain Same Decrease
a) Federal aid to education
b) Enforcement of integration
c) Defense spending _
d) Level of state services
e) Anti-riot measures
f) Law enforcement
g) Loyalty oaths for teachers
h) Increase old-age assistance


97
Table 5-7
Percent of Offices Actively Campaigned for
by County Party and Amateurism
(in percents)
Percent of
offices
Amateur
Semi-
prof.
Prof.
0 to 25
20.3
11.7
10.0
26 to 50
30.8
18.8
18.1
51 to 75
21.1
27.3
22.4
76 to 100
27.8
42.3
49.5
N =
133
781
598
X = 35.95a
Percent of
offices
Amateur
Prof.
Maj ori-
tarian
0 to 25
20.6
10.0
21.7
26 to 50
29.9
18.1
34.8
51 to 75
19.6
22.4
26.1
76 to 100
29.9
49.5
17.4
N =
107
598
23
X = 31.30a
df = 6; significant at .001
professionals maintain having campaigned for 76 to 100 percent of the
electoral contests in their county as opposed to 42.3 percent of the
semiprofessionals. These figures seem to indicate that counties with
professionally oriented chairmen campaign for a greater percentage of
offices than counties with amateur oriented chairmen.
The results presented in this chapter help to confirm Wilson's
description of the distinction between amateur and professional poli
tical activists. In each of the five kinds of campaign activity


58
of the Republican chairmen in office two years or less say they "often
or "sometimes" contact senators, almost 69 percent of them in office
five years or more make the same claims, a difference of nearly 15
percent.
Attitudinal measures. As Table 3-10 shows, attitudinal variables
make few distinctions in the frequency of contact. In the liberal-
conservative category and in attitudes toward the activity of the
federal government, the chi-squares between Democratic chairmen and
contacts with state party chairmen and other county chairmen are statis
tically significant and the percentage differences relatively large.
More liberal than conservative Democratic chairmen report "often" or
"sometimes" contacting state party chairmen, 86 to 74 percent, Simil
arly, 10 percent more Democrats who favor an increase in the activity
of the federal government than Democrats favoring a decrease report
"often" or "sometimes" contacting the state party chairmen. Figures
for contacts with other county chairmen reflect those for contacts
with state chairmen. Almost 79 percent of Democratic liberals report
"often" or "sometimes" contacting other county chairmen on party
business, but only 65 percent of the Democratic chairmen who call them
selves conservative report contacting with the same levels of frequency.
Again, 86 percent of the Democratic chairmen favoring an increase in
federal government activity say they "often" or "sometimes" contact
other party chairmen, but less than 74 percent of those who wish a
decrease in the activity of the national government, 12 percent fewer,
report contacting with the same frequency. These figures may represent
a greater willingness of liberal Democrats to participate in a party
that is skewed in the direction of liberals, as Table 2-3 reported,


106
1974). Similar adverse effects upon party organization have been ob
served in the National Conventions of the Democratic party: "... the
amateur activist's urge to transform political discourse into a morality
play runs against the grain of the party regulars who have learned to
separate their own private moral convictions from the public positions
they take in the name of the party" (Sullivan et al., 1976, p. 39).
The abandonment of party ties and the ideological approach to
politics by an increasing number of the electorate, and as this study
indicates, by local party leadership, may lead to a diminution of the
importance of the party, the political party becoming one of many extra
governmental organizations concerned with influencing the government
policy-making process. "Its sole control of the mobilization of power
ends amid growing competition from other political organizations. The
party remains both a potent orgnaization and powerful reference symbol,
but it loses its monopoly of the. resources, skills, and information in
electoral politics" (Sorauf, 1976, p. 439).
Tammany boss George Washington Plunkitt wrote in 1905: "... a
reformer can't last in politics. He may make a show for a little while,
but he always comes down like a rocket. . The great business of
your life must be politics if you want to succeed in it" (1905, p. 1).
This analysis suggests that the reformers have not only lasted but
prospered in politics by moving into positions of party leadership.
Yet, Plunkitt's assessment points to a deficiency in this analysis:
the lack of longitudinal data. While this "snapshot" analysis of the
county chairmen may be accurate for 1970, it says nothing about how
they or those who filled their roles appeared before or after the
survey. Placing the chairmen in the context of other studies or other


55
Table 3-9
Chi-Square Statistics between Demographic Variables
and Frequency of Contact
Contact with
Demographic
Trait
Education
Democratic
Republican
Democratic
Republican
State
Governor Legis,
9.17 15.27
17.56 5.62
24.98c 10.27
22.70c 7.00
Congress- U.S. Sen-
men ators
23.44 13.36
6.13 9.22
17.11 16.84
17.22 15.05
St./Pty. Other
Chairmen Chairmen
11.09 11.36
8.00 12.46
14.16 10.86
14.50 14.83
Occupation
Democratic 12.78
Republican 12.83
6.90 16.08
2.18 7.20
8.13 6.44 6.00
5.40 3.15 12.46
Time-in-Office
Democratic 4.86
Republican 11.25
2.64 7.58
5.59 9.73
6.57 8.98 12.32
2 7.5 6b 10.71 12.67
percentages are found in Appendix D
^significant at .001
c
significant at .01
congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and other county party
chairmen on party business. Few of the chi-squares are statistically
significant, and no pattern appears in the figures. The chi-squares
obtain statistical significance in only three instances: for chairmen


Obviously, then, it is necessary to examine the demographic and atti-
tudinal traits of the chairmen. This analysis may help to clarify the
disjointed findings of earlier case studies as well as lay the
groundwork for a systematic examination of the chairmens demographic
and attitudinal characteristics and the impact of those characteristics
on party activity.
Examining the connection between the demographic and attitudinal
characteristics of the county leadership and local party activity is
only one side of the problem. It leaves unexplored the potential
impact upon the activity of the party organization of the chairmen's
orientations toward politics. Earlier studies stop short of any
detailed analysis of the political perceptions of the chairmen. This
failure is significant, for there is substantial evidence that the
county chairmen may also play an important role in shaping the local
partys activity through their political values and beliefs. The
county chairmen comprise a group for whom politics has a high degree
of salience. The chairmen fulfill a role in what Easton calls the
"political community": ". .a group of persons bound together by
a political division of labor," participating in ". .a common
structure and set of processes. . ." (1965, p. 177).
There is reason to believe both that the role of the county organ
ization in American politics has changed and that the performance of
the county party leadership has changed with it. As part of the politi
cal milieu, the chairmen are subject to the same forces that influence
American politics. Beginning in the 1950s and with increasing momentum
in the 1960s, American society, and, as a consequence, American politi
cal parties appear to have undergone a profound change. The dimensions


50
population; thus, for a local contest, the party would pay to reach
large numbers of voters ineligible to vote in the county.
In light of the differing utilities involved for populated and
less populated counties in using the five campaign activities consid
ered here, and given the higher activity rates of the liberals vis-a-vis
the conservatives of both parties, it is reasonable to expect liberals
would be found in more populous counties and conservatives in less
populous counties. The data presented in Table 3-7 bear out this
expectation. Using the division of counties by population already
established, the figures indicate that a far greater percentage of
liberals are found in the more populated counties. While 25 percent
of the liberals are in counties of under 8,000 population, 33 percent
are in counties with a population of 73,000 or more. Those chairmen
calling themselves middle-of-the-road are evenly distributed across
all categories of population. Both parties mirror the national figures.
Among Democrats, 24 percent of the liberals are found in counties of
8,000 or less population, but almost 33 percent are found in counties
with populations in excess of 73,000. Conversely, the percentage of
Democratic conservatives falls from 27 percent in the least populous
counties to only 11 percent in the most populous. Republican liberals
show the smallest differences between the two population extremes, only
5 percent, but conservative Republicans decline from 27.1 percent to
19 percent over the population range.
To summarize the argument thus far: both the demographic variable
of occupation and the attitudinal variable of liberal-conservative
categorization are associated with differences in the activity of
local party organizations. However, both of these variables also


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Born May 25, 1949, Dwight Lambert attended Hialeah High School
in Hialeah, Florida. He completed undergraduate work at the Univer
sity of Florida, earning a Master of Arts degree there in 1974. He
has taught political science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas,
and now teaches at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg.
136


14
life. As Bowman and Boynton say, ". . background characteristics
produce the competence to operate easily in the world of politics as
well as a set of attitudes which dispose the individual to take an
active part in the political world (1966, p. 670). Only those with
adequate resources, information, understanding, and sufficient politi
cal skills are able to fully participate in political life (Sorauf,
1976). Verba and Nie, for example, have demonstrated that political
activity for the general population gradually increases throughout the
life cycle, with only a "relatively minor decline" for those over age
65 after socio-economic status (education and income) and length of
residence in the community have been statistically controlled (1972,
p. 148). Key has argued that education contributes to a sense of
political obligation and develops a "lively awareness" of the rele
vance of political activity (1961, p. 325). Additionally, Campbell
has noted a high degree of association between education, political
participation, and a sense of political efficacy, on one hand, and
awareness of issues, on the other (Campbell et al., 1964).
The data presented in Table 2-1 indicate the demographic status
of the chairmen. Regarding education, 48 percent of the Democratic
and 58 percent of the Republican chairmen have a college education or
better. The figures indicate Republican chairmen are slightly better
educated than their Democratic counterparts9 percent more Republi
cans have at least a college degree. These findings are inconsistent
with the findings of other studies of county chairmen done at the
state level. For North Carolina, Crotty reports that Democratic
educational attainments are greater than those of Republicans, particu
larly at the post-graduate level, where 40 percent of the Democratic


APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
Other Party Chairmen
Some- Hardly Some- Hardly
Often times Ever Never N Often times Ever Never N
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
34.1
44.4
Middle-of-Road
33,6
43.5
Conservative
24.8
39.7
Activity of Federal Govt,
Increase
38.4
47.8
Remain the same
24.4
41.7
Decrease
31.9
41.6
Most Concerned With:
Local
32.3
45.2
State
33.5
41.0
Nation
28.2
42.3
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
35.1
37.2
Economic
30.7
45.9
State govt./pol. party
38.3
42.6
14.2
7.3
302
36.1
41.7
16.7
5.6
36
14.7
8.2
232
34.5
42.2
17.0
6.3
223
16.5
19.0
121
30.1
44.3
18.1
7.5
465
11.9
1.9
159
40.6
40.6
6.3
12.5
32
21,3
12.6
127
32.8
40.6
20.3
6.3
64
13.9
12.7
332
31.4
43.7
18.5
6.4
622
16.
,1
6.5
186
33.2
40.9
19.7
6.2
193
13.
,3
12.2
188
33.3
43.3
15.4
8.0
201
20.
.1
9.4
149
25.8
44.9
21.2
8.1
198
14.2
13.5
148
30.1
42.8
20.8
6.4
173
16.3
7.1
368
33.2
42.3
16.9
7.6
397
12.8
6.4
47
30.9
39.2
20.6
9.3
97
135


102
less likely than semiprofessionals or professionals to desire higher
party office or to remain as county chairmen, They are also less likely
to have held public office. Amateurs themselves are divided over the
question of whether or not politicians should rely upon their own judg
ment or the wishes of their constituents in making public policy deci
sions. The majoritarian subset of amateurs is less educated than the
remaining amateurs, but they tend to have served in office longer.
The raajoritarians are also more likely to call themselves conservative
than are the other amateur-oriented chairmen.
Chapter Five examines the significance of the amateur-professional
division among the chairmen in terms of party activity. The data pre
sented indicate amateurs are less likely than professionals to engage
in the five kinds of campaign-related activity considered in this
analysis. The amateurs were also less likely than the professionals
to report communicating with other party or public officials on matters
of party business. While the majoritarians are somewhat less likely to
report frequently using the five campaign activities considered in this
study, they are more likely to report contacts on party business with
the governor, congressmen, and U.S. senators.
The failure of the demographic model to indicate differences in
party activities would seem to have consequences for American political
parties. The success of the amateur-professional model in highlighting
differences between the chairmen serves to reinforce these conclusions.
An understanding of the significance of the findings of this research
requires an understanding of the developments within the American
electorate and, consequently, American political parties since the
1950s.


88
significant at .001, and the percentage differences between groups are
large. In three instances, contacts with the governor, with congress
men, and with U.S. senators, the majoritarians exceed the remaining
amateurs. The governor is contacted "often" by 17 percent of the major
itarians, and by only 6 percent of the other amateur oriented chairmen;
21 percent of the professionals report "often" contacting the governor
on party business. Twenty-two percent of the majoritarians, but only
14 percent of the amateurs, report "often" contacting congressmen on
party business and 2.4 percent more majoritarians than amateurs report
"often" contacting U.S. senators. In all other contacts, the majori
tarians are surpassed by both amateurs and professionals. Contacting
state legislators is done "often" by 32 percent of the amateurs and
53 percent of the professionals, but by only 30 percent of the majori
tarians. While 44 percent of the amateurs and 54 percent of the pro
fessionals say they "often" contact state chairmen, 36 percent of the
majoritarians report the same frequency of contact and, in contacting
other chairmen, only 19 percent of the majoritarians report high levels
of contact, as opposed to 37 percent of the professionals and 26 per
cent of the amateurs.
These figures indicate that in contacts with the'offices of gover
nors, congressmen, and U.S. senators, majoritarians surpass the remain
ing amateurs. When the categories of "often" and "sometimes" are
collapsed, the balance of contacting shifts toward the amateurs for
each of these three offices, but only by a small edge: the greatest
difference between amateurs and majoritarians is in contacting U.S.
congressmen, where the amateurs exceed the majoritarians by 6 percent,
45.3 percent for the amateurs and 38.9 percent for the majoritarians;


distress. And, thanks to Dr. Conradt for his sense of humor, which
helped me keep mine at a time when I most needed it.
I owe a debt also to G.S.B., without the memory of whom the
research would never have been completed.
Last, I would like to thank all those who, from pure loving
kindness, never asked me how it was going.
v


35
Table 3-1
T-Scores Between Most and Least Active Counties
by Campaign Activity Variables
Means
T-Score'
Campaign use of:
high
low
surveys/polls
2.14
.88
25.97
press releases
2.82
1.57
24.60
circulars
2.88
1.57
21.62
radio ads
2.67
1.30
21.35
literature
2.91
1.58
20.91
billboards
2.56
1.31
20.64
telephone
2.87
1.58
20.54
canvass
2.81
1.60
20.08
rallies
2.73
1.47
18.97
television
2.87
1.58
18.97
barbecues
2.35
1.27
16.71
newspapers
2.84
1.79
15.59
movie ads
1.05
.73
11.37
£
all scores significant at .001
the following: the state's governor, state legislators, other state
officials, county commission state officials, county commissioners, the
county prosecutor, congressmen, U.S. senators, state party chairmen, and
other county party chairmen. From this list, I have eliminated contacts
with "other state officials" since the elective or appointive nature of
these other officers is unknown and this difference may alter the type
of the contact. In addition, both contacts with county commissioners
and county prosecutors have been excluded, since these positions may not
exist in the chairman's county. The elimination of these three poten
tial contacts leaves six remaining contacts at local, state, and na
tional levels, and includes both public and party offices. First, I
will examine the impact of the demographic and attitudinal variables
upon party activity, deferring until the second half of this chapter


APPENDIX E (continued)
Contact: Democrats Republicans
U.S. Senators on Party Business
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Often
Some
times
Hardly
Ever
Never
N
Liberal-Conservative
Liberal
23.5
45.6
17.0
13.9
294
31.4
37.1
17.1
14.3
35
Middle-of-Road
18.8
43.8
20.1
17.4
224
19.2
35.6
24.0
21.2
208
Conservative
17.1
42.3
13.5
27.0
111
17.7
41.0
18.4
22.9
446
Activity of Federal Govt.
Increase
20.1
47.4
16.2
16.2
154
12.5
34.4
25.0
28.1
32
Remain the same
22.3
41.3
18.2
18.2
121
17.5
38.6
33.3
10.5
57
Decrease
19.0
41.9
19.0
20.0
315
18.6
39.8
19.3
22.3
596
Most Concerned With:
Local
16.8
35.3
27.5
20.4
167
14.8
37.9
23.6
23.6
182
State
22.6
49.5
13.2
14.7
190
18.3
43.5
18.8
19.4
191
Nation
21.5
47.2
17.4
13.9
144
20.0
35.8
19.5
24.7
190
Most Important Problem
Facing State
Social issues
26.0
36.3
17.8
19.9
146
18.0
42.2
22.4
17.4
161
Economic
22.5
43.7
18.6
15.2
355
16.8
40.6
21.2
21.4
387
State govt./pol. party
11.9
50.0
16.7
21.4
42
14.6
31.5
24.7
29.2
89
oj
u>


47
Table 3-6 (continued)
Radio
Attitude
Often
l Sometimes
Never
N
Liberal
36.3
44.5
19.2
344
Middle-of-Road
38.9
39.5
21.6
463
Conservative
32.4
40.8
26.7
595
df = 4
X2 = 10.44c
Party
Democratic
36.4
42.3
21.4
693
Republican
35.3
40.0
24.6
767
df = 2
X2 = 2.26b
Attitude
Literature
Liberal
62.6
32.8
4.6
348
Middle-of-Road
52.2
42.2
5.5
469
Conservative
49.2
43.3
7.6
594
df = 4
X2 = 17.90a
Party
Democratic
53.8
38.2
8.0
701
Republican
53.3
42.3
4.4
771
df = 2
X2 = 9.20b
significant at .001
^significant at .01
0
significant at .05
report "never" using the radio while campaigning; but 13.4 percent more
liberals than conservatives say they "often" use literature, 62.6 per
cent to 49.2 percent.
Between the parties themselves differences are small over each of
the dependent activity variables. In only two instances, the use of
radio and the use of literature in campaigning, does the chi-square