The major purpose of this study is to analyze and assess the validity of those charges which have alleged: (1) that political parties impede voters' efforts to make rational choices between issue alternatives and between candidates by failing to take clear cut positions on the issues which confront them; and (2) that the parties frustrate the efforts of the voters to appraise legislative performance because that performance bears little resemblance to the program which the parties presented to the electorate. A second purpose of the study is historical: to investigate, and present an account of political and legislative developments in the nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties regarding four relatively broad issues. Each of these issues--foreign aid, civil rights, labor-management relations, and farm policy-received major national attention during the decades of the fifties and sixties and each continues to be significant as the nation enters the decade of the seventies.The study began by tracing the main elements in the historic background of the above issues. This background served as the springboard from which the investigations into the role of the political parties in formulating and implementing public policies were launched. The positions which the Democratic and Republican Parties developed on the issues were examined and contrasted for 1952 and 1960. In addition, the elaboration of these positions by the respective Presidential candidates was examined. The four issues were then studied as they were formulated into legislative proposals, and party legislative performance with respect to them was described and analyzed for the 83rd and 87th Congresses. These two Congresses were selected because in each one the party which had been out of power was reassuming control of both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency.The investigation of the four issues and the analysis of party performance with respect to them yielded only qualified answers to the two questions which guided the investigation. These two questions were: (1) Did the parties take clear-cut positions on the issues?; and (2) Did the party which controlled the Government follow through on the positions it had taken? With respect to party positions the study revealed that on two of the issues the parties did offer diametrically opposed alternatives. These two issues were labor-management relations and farm policy. Moreover, distinguishable alternatives were offered on the other two issues, foreign aid and civil rights.In the implementation of party programs the study revealed that on two of the issues, labor-management relations and civil rights, the Republicans in the 83rd and the Democrats in the 87th Congress honored their pledges more in the breach than in the observance. On the other hand, both parties did implement programs in foreign aid and in farm policy which corresponded with the programs they had sented during the respective campaigns.The data indicate then, that there were distinguishable differences between the positions taken by the parties on those issues which the study covered. In addition, the process by which these positions were reached as well as the legislative debates on the proposals stemming from them, should have enhanced, rather than inhibited the citizen's understanding of the important issues. Finally, the legislative debates and the voting records of the party members provided a basis for evaluating party performance. The results of this study strongly suggest that the interested citizen who takes the time to do so can use the machinery of the American party system to make intelligent choices at election time, and to evaluate the performance of the individuals and the party for whom he has voted.3
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/175376 |
| Date | January 1971 |
| Creators | Byers, Thomas Howard |
| Contributors | Ferrill, Everett W. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | vi, 259 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us--- |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds