This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.
September 2015
·
35 Reads
·
1 Citation
Juncture
US academic Daniel Schlozman traces the difficult history of American radicalism, where social movements and mainstream politics come together. The rules of engagement are neither clear nor fair, he argues, but each side needs the other in order to build support and drive change.
January 2015
·
138 Reads
·
28 Citations
Throughout American history, some social movements, such as organized labor and the Christian Right, have forged influential alliances with political parties, while others, such as the antiwar movement, have not. When Movements Anchor Parties provides a bold new interpretation of American electoral history by examining five prominent movements and their relationships with political parties. Taking readers from the Civil War to today, Daniel Schlozman shows how two powerful alliances-those of organized labor and Democrats in the New Deal, and the Christian Right and Republicans since the 1970s-have defined the basic priorities of parties and shaped the available alternatives in national politics. He traces how they diverged sharply from three other major social movements that failed to establish a place inside political parties-the abolitionists following the Civil War, the Populists in the 1890s, and the antiwar movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Moving beyond a view of political parties simply as collections of groups vying for preeminence, Schlozman explores how would-be influencers gain influence-or do not. He reveals how movements join with parties only when the alliance is beneficial to parties, and how alliance exacts a high price from movements. Their sweeping visions give way to compromise and partial victories. Yet as Schlozman demonstrates, it is well worth paying the price as movements reorient parties' priorities. Timely and compelling, When Movements Anchor Parties demonstrates how alliances have transformed American political parties.
... While in the short term, these new service parties effectively mobilized voters on behalf of national elections and national party objectives, they also produced a more "hollow" party structure, top-heavy and ill-connected to the daily lives and concerns of their voters (Schlozman and Rosenfeld 2024). These effects had, to some degree, been foreshadowed by the call for a "more responsible two-party system" led by the American Political Science Association in the 1940s (Committee on Political Parties 1950). ...
March 2024
... These results suggest a "plutopopulism" model, one that integrates the discontent of broad swaths of the mass public with the power of the wealthy few (Baker 2004;Pierson 2017;Schlozman and Rosenfeld 2024). Trump was financed by both the top and the middle of American society, complicating theories of wealthy dominance and studies of working class populism alike. ...
May 2024
... The UCLA school of parties (especially Bawn et al., 2012) highlights the importance of "policy demanders"-including donors, activists, interest groups, and even friendly partisan media-in determining candidate selection outcomes. In part because US nominations are comparatively inclusive and decentralized (Hazan and Rahat, 2010;Cowburn and Kerr, 2023), formal party organizations have been "hollowed out" (Schlozman and Rosenfeld, 2019), transferring power from electability-focused formal structures toward comparatively non-centrist and policy-oriented "informal party organizations" (Masket, 2009). Alignment with these groups can help candidates secure the nomination in several ways. ...
May 2019
... Combining these arguments with an analysis of social interactions and the geographic distribution of opinions leads to the conclusion that greater national (as opposed to local) salience leads to increased po-larization and instability in larger-scale elections. These results parallel the situation in the United States, in which "hollowed-out," "top-heavy" parties that used to be largely local have led to increasingly unstable national elections and non-competitive local offices [16]. ...
June 2019
... Given the radical nature of libertarian ideology, pragmatic party elites within mainstream right-wing parties should have an incentive in resisting libertarian policy demands so as not to antagonise voters, as shown with the party-political repudiation of other radical movements that have risked alienating mainstream parties from centrist voters, such as the anti-war or Occupy movements (Schlozman, 2015). But there have been times when the libertarian movement's influence has helped to significantly change mainstream party policy, such as with the UK Conservative Party in 1975 (e.g. ...
January 2015
