Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T19:54:05.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Stephen A. Borrelli
Stephen A. Borrelli
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For those who subscribe to the theory of ldquo;responsible parties,” party platforms should offer voters a basis for choosing between the parties and give politicians the basis for a mandate. As Krehbiel points out, U.S. platforms are routinely dismissed as “amorphous” and “hardly ever … (serving) effectively as constraints during the campaign or after the election.” Yet, for better or worse, party platforms are the only authoritative statement of national party positions available, so political scientists have frequently used them as a basis for studies of party policymaking. Contrary to expectations based on the stereotype of “irresponsible” U.S. parties, studies by Gerald Pomper, Jeff Fishel, and others show that U.S. parties make fairly specific policy promises and are able to carry most of them out, even under the adverse condition of divided government. Cross-national studies show that although U.S. parties are not as successful as parties in parliamentary regimes, they look surprisingly good in international comparisons.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 429 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2001

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. The classic formulation of the responsible parties model as a normative standard for the U.S. is American Political Science Association, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System (New York, 1950).Google Scholar

2. Krehbiel, Keith, Pivotal Politics (Chicago, 1998), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Pomper, Gerald and Lederman, Susan, Elections in America, 2d ed. (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Fishel, Jeff, Presidents and Promises (Washington, D.C., 1985)Google Scholar; Royed, Terry and Borrelli, Stephen, “Political Parties and Public Policy: Social Welfare Policy from Carter to Bush,” Polity 29 (Summer 1997): 539–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For international comparisons, see Royed, Terry, “Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras,” British Journal of Political Science 26 (1996): 45–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kleingemann, Hans-Dieter, Hofferbert, Richard, and Budge, Ian, Parties, Policies, and Democracy (Boulder, 1994).Google Scholar

4. See note 3 for research on platform pledge fulfillment; on the surprising productivity of U.S. government institutions, see Mayhew, David, Divided We Govern (New Haven, 1991)Google Scholar. For research on platform construction, see Malbin, Michael, “The Conventions, Platforms, and Issue Activists,” in Ranney, Austin, ed., The American Elections of 1980 (Washington, D.C.), 138–139Google Scholar; Maisel, L. Sandy, “The Platform-Writing Process: Candidate-Centered Platforms in 1992,” Political Science Quarterly 108, no. 4 (1993–1994): 671–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinberg, Martha, “Writing the Republican Platform,” Political Science Quarterly 92 (Winter 1977–1978): 655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Malbin, “The Conventions, Platforms, and Issue Acitivists,” 138–39.

6. Maisel, “The Platform-Writing Process,” 671–98.

7. Referring to the 1980 Democratic platform process, political scientist (and 1984 Hart delegate) Thomas Cronin said, “At this point in 1980, Senator Kennedy and President Carter were going at it tooth and nail. They viewed the platform process as the ultimate, the last primary.” Quoted in Granat, Diane, “Democratic Platform Writers Facing Conflicts,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 42 (16 06 1984): 1464.Google Scholar

8. The classic texts are Polsby, Nelson, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, and Shafer, Byron, The Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

9. Davis, James, National Conventions in an Age of Party Reform (Westport, Conn., 1983), 111.Google Scholar

10. Quoted in Malbin, “The Conventions, Platforms, and Issue Activists,” 135.

11. Al From, personal interview, Washington, D.C., 8 June 1999.

12. Malbin, “The Conventions, Platforms, and Issue Activists,” 124.

13. Diane Granat, “Democratic Platform Writers Facing Conflicts,” 1464.

14. Elving, Ronald, “Democratic Platform Debate: Is Brevity the Soul of Wins?” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (14 05 1988), 1321.Google Scholar

15. Merry, Robert, “Dukakis and the Search for a New Hurrah,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (16 07 1988), 145Google Scholar; Norman Mineta, personal interview, 17 June 1999.

16. Elving, Ronald, “Democratic Platform: Bridging a Political Gulf,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (18 06 1988), 1655.Google Scholar

17. Elving, Ronald, “Democrats Attempt to Carry Mackinac Mood to Denver,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (25 06 1988), 1738.Google Scholar

18. Elving, Ronald, “Hoping to Attract More Votes, Democrats Offer Fewer Words,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (2 07 1988), 1797.Google Scholar

19. Quoted in Hale, Jon, “The Making of the New Democrats,” Political Science Quarterly 110 (Summer 1995): 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. This account of the DLC's history draws heavily on Hale, , “The Making of the New Democrats.” For the DLC's role in the 1988 campaign, see Robert Kuttner, “What's the Beef? The Once and Future DLC,” The New Republic, 202 (2 04 1990), 18.Google Scholar

21. Hale, “The Making of the New Democrats,” 219.

22. Hale, “The Making of the New Democrats,” 221; Al From, Personal Interview.

23. Democratic Leadership Council, The New Orleans Declaration: A Democratic Agenda for the 1990s (Washington, D.C., 1990).Google Scholar

24. Democratic Leadership Council, The New American Choice: Opportunity, Responsibility, Community (Washington, D.C., 1991).Google Scholar

25. Maisel, “The Platform-Writing Process,” 675–76.

26. Dionne, E. J., “Democrats' Draft Platform Attacks Bureaucracies,” Washington Post, 13 06 1992, A12Google Scholar; Katz, Jeffrey, “Party Reaches for ‘Third Way’ in Reshaping Its Policy,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 50 (18 07 1992), 2087.Google Scholar

27. John Holum, telephone interview, 19 July 1999.

28. Ibid.

29. U.S. House Democratic Caucus, Taking Charge of America's Future: A Report of the Issues Task Forces, Draft 5/28/92 (Washington, D.C., 1992)Google Scholar. Found in Democratic National Committee Box Platform #2, National Archives.

30. Borrelli, Stephen, “Finding the Third Way Without Getting Lost: The Story of the 1992 Democratic Platform,” unpublished manuscript, University of AlabamaGoogle Scholar. Pledge data were collected by Terry Royed.

31. The source for all citations and quotations of the Santa Fe meeting is Democratic National Committee Standing Committee on the Platform, “Democratic National Committee Drafting Committee Meeting (transcript),” 12 and 13 June, Picacho Plaza Hotel, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Democratic National Committee Box Platform #4, National Archives.

32. Vick, Kathleen, ed., Democratic National Convention 1992, Official Proceedings (Washington, D.C., 1992), 16.Google Scholar

33. Jim Brady, telephone interview, 6 July 1999.

34. The source for 1992 DLC membership was Democratic Leadership Council, 1992 Annual Conference Program: The New Choice in American Politics(Washington, D.C.,1992), 7–32.Google Scholar

35. Sandra Freedman, telephone interview, 27 May 1999.

36. Democratic National Committee Standing Committee on the Platform, “First Working Draft 1992,” 11 June 1992, Democratic National Committee Box Platform #4, National Archives, 4.

37. Ibid., 6.

38. Ibid., 10.

39. Democratic National Committee Standing Committee on the Platform, “Democratic National Committee Drafting Committee Meeting (transcript),” 46–48.

40. Ibid, 37–38.

41. Ibid., 26–32.

42. Ibid., 191.

43. Ibid., 29.

44. Ibid., 69–72.

45. Ibid., 107.

46. Ibid., 125 (Achtenberg), 112 (Pelosi).

47. Ibid., 242–43 (Berry), 110–11 (Pelosi).

48. Ibid. 123, 125.

49. Ibid., 126–27.

50. Ibid., 123–24. Achtenberg also asked for a more explicit commitment to gay rights. Interestingly, she argued that such language was especially necessary in order to end discrimination in the military, an issue that became quite volatile shortly after Clinton took office (126).

51. Ibid., 249–50; 94–95.

52. Ibid., 97, 54, 95.

53. Ibid., 291.

54. Ibid., 287–88.

55. Ibid., 292–93.

56. Dionne, E. J., “Road Map for a Party in Transition: Candidate's Views Define Platform,” Washington Post, 14 07 1992, A-12.Google Scholar

57. Holum, telephone interview, 9 July 1999.

58. Samples of the ideological coding of proposed changes are available from the author upon request.

59. Samples of the coding of success at influencing the draft are available from the author upon request.

60. Kathy Karpan, personal interview, Washington, D.C., 25 June 1999.

61. Holum, telephone interview, 9 July 1999.

62. See discussion of errata on page 48 and discussion of technical amendments on pages 264–67 of Democratic Standing Committee on the Platform, “Democratic National Convention 1992 Platform Committee Meeting (transcript),” 27 June 1992, Stouffer Mayflower Hotel, Washington D.C., printed from floppy disks in Democratic National Committee Box Platform #4, National Archives.

63. The general discussion of rules is found on pages 39–44 of Ibid. The discussion of the procedure for lengthy amendments is on pages 49–50; Romer's announcement on the energy efficiency amdendment is on page 120; and the delegate's complaint is on page 129.

64. Ibid., 222.

65. Ibid., 155–56.

66. Ibid., 185.

67. Ibid., 145.

68. Ibid., 93–102.

69. Ibid., 178–80.

70. Berry's revised amendment is in Ibid., 173–75; the compromise amendment can be found on pages 282–83.

71. The amendment and Brady's objection to it are in Ibid., 200–202. The compromise language can be found on page 284.

72. Ibid., 120–25 and 186–87.

73. The “laundry list” comment is on page 125; the Brady substitute environmental amendment can be found on pages 316–17. Although the compromise included some of Fredsti's language, she did not officially sign onto it: she said “We can't support it … but it's a step in the right direction” (317).

74. The original amendment is on pages 300–305; the compromise space language is on page 335.

75. This rule is cited in Ibid., 41.

76. Dionne, E. J., “Democratic Platform Reflects Clinton Goals,” Washington Post, 28 06 1992, A21Google Scholar. See also Maisel, “The Platform-Writing Process,” 680–81.

77. On the 1976 Republican platform, see Weinberg, “Writing the Republican Platform.” Her conclusion is ambiguous; although she says neither Ford nor Reagan forces tried to “control” the process and that members of the platform committee were not “divided neatly into candidate camps” (659), she concludes that “the platform was essentially a consistent document, more conservative than the Ford supporters would have written, but basically acceptable to the party as a whole … (as such) it helped unify the party by providing the Reagan delegates and other conservatives a consolation prize” (661, emphasis mine). On the fractious 1980 Democratic platform process, see Malbin, “The Conventions, Platforms, and Issue Activists.”

78. The amendment that includes some of Brown's environmental language can be found in Democratic Standing Committee on the Platform, “Democratic National Convention 1992 Platform Committee Meeting (transcript),” 27 June 1992, 316–17. Platform Committee Chairman Roy Romer's discussion of Brown's influence on the NAFTA position is on page 277: “There was a great deal attention to the advocacy of the Brown position in the drafting of this.”

79. Ibid., 47.

80. Steve Grossman, telephone interview, 31 May 1999.

81. Karpan, personal interview, 25 June 1999.

82. Maisel, “The Platform-Writing Process,” 682 (emphasis mine). Maisel ends up concluding that the 1992 platform was as conservative as the Bush-Quayle campaign wanted it to be, and that the media exaggerated the degree to which right-wing activists took over the platform committee (687). However, given Maisel's statement about the candidate's lack of control over his or her own delegates in the GOP, such a takeover was clearly a possibility.

83. Usher, Douglas, “Rules, Strategy, and Participation: Issue Activists in Republican National Conventions, 1976–1996” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1999), 113.Google Scholar

84. William Gribbin, personal interview, Washington, D.C, 18 June 1999.

85. From, personal interview, 8 June 1999.

86. Greenblatt, Alan, “Conservatives Hear Hollow Ring in Platform Victory,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 54 (17 08 1996), 2298–2299.Google Scholar

87. Jim Cicconi, telephone interview, 24 August 1999.