Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-23T02:41:45.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legacies of the 1960s: The American “Rights Revolution” in an Era of Divided Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Hugh Davis Graham
Hugh Davis Graham
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholarship on the political development of the United States since the 1960s is dominated, not surprisingly, by social scientists. Such recent events fall within the penumbra of “contemporary history,” the standard research domain of social scientists but treacherous terrain for historians. Social scientists studying American government and society generally enjoy prompt access to evidence of the policy-making process–documents from the elected and judicial branches of government, interviews with policy elites, voting returns, survey research. Historians of the recent past, on the other hand, generally lack two crucial ingredients–temporal perspective and archival evidence–that distinguish historical analysis from social science research. For these reasons, social scientists (and journalists) customarily define the initial terms of policy debate and shape the conventional wisdom. Historians weigh in later, when memories fade, archives open, and the clock adds a relentless and inherently revisionist accumulation of hindsight.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1998 , pp. 267 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1998

Access options

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

References

Notes

1. See Shafer, Byron E. and Claggett, William J. M., The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of Modem American Politics (Baltimore, 1995)Google Scholar; Shafer, Byron E., ed., Postwar Politics in the G-7: Orders and Eras in Comparative Perspective (Madison, Wis., 1996).Google Scholar

2. Ware, Alan J., The Breakdown of Democratic Party Organization, 1940–1980 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Radosh, Ronald, Divided They Fall: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964–1996 (New York, 1996)Google Scholar; Ray, Nicole C., The Rise and Fall of the Liberal Republicans (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; Mayhew, David R., Placing Parties in American Politics (Princeton, 1986).Google Scholar

3. Sunstein, Cass R., After the Rights Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar; Glendon, Mary Ann, Rights Talk (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Graham, Hugh Davis, “Since 1964: The Paradox of American Civil Rights Regulation,” in Taking Stock: American Government in the Twentieth Century, ed. Keller, Morton and Shep Melnick, R. (New York, forthcoming).Google Scholar

4. Graham, Hugh Davis, “Richard Nixon and Civil Rights: Explaining an Enigma,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 26 (Winter 1996): 93–106Google Scholar; idem, “Civil Rights Policy in the Carter Presidency,” in The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era, ed. Fink, Gary M. and Graham, Hugh Davis (Lawrence, Kan., 1998), 202–23Google Scholar; idem, “The Politics of Clientele Capture: Civil Rights Policy in the Reagan Administration,” in Redefining Equality, ed. Devins, Neal and Douglas, Davison M. (New York, 1998), 103–19.Google Scholar

5. Shafer and Claggett, The Two Majorities; Shafer, Postwar Politics, 12–46.

6. Epstein, Leon, Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison, Wis., 1986).Google Scholar

7. Jacobson, Gary C., The Electoral Origin of Divided Government (Boulder, Colo., 1990)Google Scholar; Cox, Gary W. and Kernell, Samuel, eds., The Politics of Divided Government (Boulder, Colo., 1991)Google Scholar; Thurber, James A., ed., Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations (Washington, D.C., 1996).Google Scholar

8. Garment, Suzanne, Scandal: The Crisis of Mistrust in American Politics (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Morgan, Peter W. and Reynolds, Glenn H., The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society (New York, 1997).Google Scholar

9. Following World War II, the academic establishment of American political science fostered a liberal-reformist credo that emphasized unified partisan government and presidential leadership in the tradition of Roosevelt and the New Deal. See Sundquist, James L., Dynamics of the Parry System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States (Washington, D.C., 1973)Google Scholar, especially chaps. 10–12. For a recent explication of this view, which emphasizes policy gridlock or stalemate under divided partisan government, see Sundquist, , “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly 103 (Winter 1988–89): 613–35.Google Scholar

10. Mayhew, David R., in Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990 (New Haven, 1991)Google Scholar, challenges the stalemate thesis by identifying 267 important enactments showing considerably less clustering under unified partisan governments than the stalemate thesis would predict. Congressional scholar Jones, Charles O., in The Presidency in a Separated System (Washington, D.C., 1994)Google Scholar, shares Mayhew's concern that system production should be the test of policymaking, not whether the president got what he wanted. See also Brady, David W. and Voldem, Craig, Revolving Gridlock (Boulder, Colo., 1998).Google Scholar

11. Landry, Marc K. and Levin, Martin A., eds., The New Politics of Public Policy (Baltimore, 1995).Google Scholar

12. At the close of World War II, the war crimes trials in Nuremberg and Japan were paralleled in the United States by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, wherein Congress authorized individuals to sue the federal government for specified claims of rights imfringement.

13. In 1961 the Supreme Court in Monroe v. Pape broadened the interpretation of section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, enacted in 1871 to make federal remedies available to anyone deprived of a constitutional or statutory right by a person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.” The Court in Monroe enabled plaintiffs to seek damages in a federal court as a first resort, rather than as a backstop available only after state-level remedies had been exhausted. See Derthick, Martha, “Crossing the Thresholds: Federalism in the 1960s,” Journal of Policy History 8:1 (1996): 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Horowitz, Donald L., The Courts and Social Policy (Washington, D.C., 1977)Google Scholar; Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution.

15. Chayes, Abram, “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,” 89 Harvard Law Review 1281 (1976).Google Scholar

16. Criticism of judicial activism, developed by liberals in the Progressive and New Deal eras to protest the conservative activism of the Lochner court, was voiced by conservatives in the wake of the Warren Court See Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch (New Haven, 1962)Google Scholar; Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy; Harvie Wilkinson, J. III, From Brown to Bakke (New York, 1979).Google Scholar

17. Blumstein, James F., “Constitutional Perspectives on Government Decisions Affecting Human Life and Health,” 40 Law and Contemporary Problems 231 (1976)Google Scholar; Rabkin, Jeremy A. and Devins, Neal E., “Averting Government by Consent Decree: Constitutional Limitations in the Enforcement of Settlements with the Federal Government,” 40 Stanford Law Review 203 (1987).Google Scholar

18. Halpern, Stephen C., On the Limits of the Law: The Ironic Legacy of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Baltimore, 1995).Google Scholar

19. Graham, Hugh Davis, “The Civil Rights Act and the American Regulatory State,” in Controversies in Civil Rights, ed. Grofman, Bernard (Charlottesville, Va., forthcoming).Google Scholar

20. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Categorical Grants: Their Role and Design (Washington, D.C., 1978).Google Scholar

21. Affirmative-action programs have been notoriously difficult to define because they range across a spectrum of incentives from exhortation to coercion. “Soft” affirmative-action programs, reflecting the original Kennedy-Johnson model, emphasize nondiscrimination plus special recruitment and outreach, including, in some cases, litigation. This category, which has found wide support in public opinion surveys, includes programs serving groups facing historic discrimination but generally successful in merit competition (especially women, the physically handicapped, Asians). Soft affirmative action predominates in employment fields requiring advanced education (medicine, engineering, science, academic faculty). “Hard” affirmative-action programs emphasizing minority preferences, group rights, and numerical criteria, include school busing for racial balance, contract set-asides for minorities and women, employment requirements based on proportional representation of designated minority groups in the workforce, bilingual education requirements, race-normed employment testing, minority preferences in college and university admissions. This controversial category, strongly opposed in opinion surveys, has come under increasing attack in the 1990s.

22. Women, excluded from the original, race-oriented set-aside program in 1977, much as they had been excluded from Title VI in 1964, again pursued a parallel, catch-up strategy. In 1979 President Carter issued Executive Order 12138 to include women-owned businesses in federal assistance programs. The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 authorized the federal promotion of women business enterprises (WBEs), which received $1.75 billion in federal contracts that year. See LaNoue, George R. and Sullivan, John C., “Presumptions for Preferences: The Small Business Administration's Decisions on Groups Entitled to Affirmative Action,” Journal of Policy History 6:4 (1994): 439–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Section 103 (f) (2) of 91 Stat. 116, 42 U.S. @6705 (f); Rep. Mitchell quoted in 123 Congressional Record, Pt. 4, 23 February 1977, 5098.

24. Fulliloue v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).

25. In 1989, when Republican-appointed conservatives achieved a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, the Richmond MBE set-aside was held unconstitutional in Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). In Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), the Supreme Court overturned Fulliloue, applying strict judicial scrutiny to racial classifications by government, as in Croson (and Brown).

26. Wilson, James Q., ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York, 1980), 357–94Google Scholar; Wilson, , Bureaucracy (New York, 1989), 72–89Google Scholar; Reagan, Michael, Regulation: The Politics of Policy (Boston, 1987).Google Scholar

27. In a few celebrated instances (school desegregation guidelines for Mayor Daley's Chicago, school dress codes and hair-length codes, school-busing requirements for racial balance), OCR regulations were repudiated even by Democratic-controlled Congresses. In others (banning boys' choirs and father-daughter school dinners), public ridicule forced bureaucratic retreat. See, for example, Califano, Joseph A., Governing America (New York, 1981), 219–26.Google Scholar

28. City of Mobile, Alabama v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984); Ward's Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).

29. Reimers, David, Still the Open Door (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C., 1997).Google Scholar

30. Krikorian, Mark, “Affirmative Action and Immigration,” in Debating Affirmative Action, ed. Mills, Nicholas (New York, 1994), 300–304.Google Scholar

31. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

32. Schuck, Peter, “The Politics of Rapid Legal Change: Immigration Policy in the 1980s,” Studies in American Political Deielopment 6 (1992): 37–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Borjas, Georges, “The Economics of Immigration,” Journal of Economic literature 32 (1994): 1667–1717Google Scholar; National Research Council, The New Americans.

34. McCarthy, Kevin F. and Vernez, Georges, Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience (Santa Monica, Calif, 1997)Google Scholar; Borjas, George J. and Hilton, Lynette, “Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigration Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement Programs,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 3 (1995): 575–604.Google Scholar

35. Wilson Carey McWilliams, “Two-Tier Politics and the Problem of Public Policy,” in The New Politic of Public Policy, 268–76.

36. Danzinger, Sheldon and Gottschalk, Peter, eds., Uneven Tides: Rising Inequality in America (New York, 1993), 6–9.Google Scholar

37. Hacker, Andrew, Money: Who Has How Much and Why? (New York, 1997), 46–56Google Scholar; Walzer, Michael, “Hard Questions: The Big Shrug,” The New Republic, 2 February 1998, 9–10.Google Scholar

38. Hollinger, David A., Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York, 1995), 8.Google Scholar

39. Gitlin, Todd, The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; Fuchs, Lawrence H., The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity, and the Civic Culture (Hanover, Conn., 1990)Google Scholar; Lind, Michael, The Next American Nation (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; Pollitt, Katha, Reasonable Creatures: Essays on Women and Feminism (New York, 1994)Google Scholar; Hollinger, Postethnic America.

40. Gitlin, The Twilight of Common Dreams, 148–49, 230.

41. Tamir, Yael, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar; Miller, David, On Nationality (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar: Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar; Hardin, Russell, One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernest, Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress (Ithaca, N.Y., 1997)Google Scholar; Marty, Martin E., The One and the Many: America's Struggle for the Common Good (Cambridge, Mass., 1997)Google Scholar; Hollinger, David A., “National Solidarity at the End of the Twentieth Century: Reflections on the United States and Liberal Nationalism,” Journal of American History 84 (September 1997): 559–69.Google Scholar

42. Miller, On Nationality, 187.

43. Sniderman, Paul M. and Piazza, Thomas, The Scar of Race (Cambridge, Mass., 1993)Google Scholar; Sniderman, Paul M. and Carmines, Edward G., Reaching Beyond Race (Cambridge, Mass., 1997).Google Scholar

44. Ladd, Carll Everett, “1996 Vote: The ‘No Majority’ Realignment Continues,” Political Science Quarterly 112 (1997): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar