the new politics movement in the democratic party adam hilton a dissertation submitted t

421 Pages·2016·2.37 MB·English

PARTY REFORM AND POLITICAL REALIGNMENT:
THE NEW POLITICS MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

ADAM HILTON

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
YORK UNIVERSITY
TORONTO, ONTARIO

October 2016

© Adam Hilton 2016
ABSTRACT

This dissertation offers an analysis of the New Politics movement to reform and realign
the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The central problem is to develop
an understanding of the origins, nature, and limits of the reform movement. This study
also addresses questions regarding the interactive relationships between political parties
and social movements, the capacity of social movement actors to transform party
institutions to better influence American public policy, and the role of contingency and
agency in moments of political crisis.
Whereas many scholars have interpreted the New Politics movement as a conflict
between “amateurs” and “professionals” or “blue collar” workers and “white collar”
reformers, I offer an explanation that roots the New Politics reform project in the longer
historical struggle over Democratic Party structure and programmatic identity going back
to the early New Deal period. By placing the New Politics movement in its proper
historical and institutional context, this dissertation draws on extensive archival research
as well as participant interviews to reassess this episode of reform, not as an effort to
“dismantle the party” but to renew it by transforming it into a party of a different type.
This study finds that the New Politics movement, while scoring many important
victories, such as including more women, young people, and people of color in the party
hierarchy, failed in its ultimate ambition to build a national programmatic party due to the
staunch opposition of state party leaders, cold war intellectuals, and especially the
leadership of the trade union federation. This was due primarily to the labor movement’s
own institutional position in the party, which channeled its influence through the smoke-
ii
filled back rooms of elite brokerage – an arrangement which democratizing the party
threatened.
Rethinking the New Politics movement challenges the predominant narrative that
treats the post-1980 reorientation of the Democratic Party toward the political center as
the inevitable and “common sense” response to the “excesses” of the late 1960s. As I try
to show, rather than the inexorable result of liberalism’s failures, the making of the
modern Democratic Party was the result of a struggle between contending political
projects. While the New Politics did not succeed in winning that war, it did decisively
shape the contours of Democratic Party politics today.

iii
For Ashlee

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As the product of years of intensive work, I feel there is no better way than to begin this
dissertation with a note of thanks to all those on whom I have often relied for love,
encouragement, and support during the research and writing of this study. First and
foremost, I want to thank my excellent committee. Leo Panitch, my supervisor, mentor,
and friend, trained me to cross-examine the thinking of giants, taking no assumption or
conclusion for granted. Over the course of my graduate studies this often involved
loosening my grip on tightly held beliefs, some of which were drawn more from the
world of wishful thinking than from reality. He has taught me the invaluable lesson that
solidarity involves asking the hard questions, not turning a blind eye to shortcomings of
those with whom you sympathize. Stephen Hellman has been a constant source of
support for me, from his course on Comparative Politics to our frequently wide-ranging
discussions over coffee. His consistent encouragement to roll up my sleeves and “get my
hands in the pasta” motivated me to dig ever deeper, seek out more sources, and let the
research lead me to unexpected conclusions. Dennis Pilon brought onboard both a
contagious concern for historical-institutional methodology as well as an enthusiasm for
the study of the complexity of democratization, which brought out similar themes in my
own thinking. Guys, I could not have done it with you.
Also, there are probably few other universities where I could have produced such
a dissertation. York University’s graduate program in political science has provided me
with the resources and intellectual stimuli to undertake a project of this scope. My sincere
thanks to all the department faculty and staff who have made York political science a
welcoming and productive environment for a student to pursue a PhD. My special thanks
v
to Judy Hellman, Elizabeth Dauphinee, George Comninel, Greg Albo, David McNally,
Stephen Newman, and Sabah Alnasseri, as well as Marleen Quesenberry, Carolyn Cross,
Judy Matadial, and Angie Schwartz. My fellow graduate students and Toronto friends,
especially Paul Gray, Sara Bernardo, Bob Froese, Janaya Letkeman, Tom Cheney, Riiko
Bedford, Jordan House, Sarah Ovens, Nicole Bernardt, and Kim Carty, have all been
unconditional sources of support and comradery for me.
I would have never made it to York, however, had it not been for the
undergraduate experience I enjoyed at the Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Washington. There I was fortunate enough to learn political economy from teachers who
taught me how to think rather than what to think. I especially want to extend my gratitude
to my professor and friend Alan Nasser, whose generosity and intellect over the years
have continued to be a source of inspiration and motivation. I also owe a debt of gratitude
to Jeanne Hahn, who convinced me that history “from the bottom up” was incomplete
insofar as it could not be connected with history “from the top down,” and Tom
Womeldorff, who provided me with my first opportunity to teach at the college level. My
fellow Greeners, including Thomas Herdon, Ellis Scharfenaker, James Parisot, and Jenine
Adam, have all continued to be sources of inspiration to me, even as we have pursued
different paths since our time in Oly.
I also want to thank Vivek Chibber at New York University for the urging me to
clarify the party dynamics attending the decline and fall of the New Deal order from the
Democratic side of the story. His encouragement of my progress at various stages of the
process was invaluable. My thanks also to David Plotke at the New School for Social
vi
Research for corresponding with me at the very first stage of the project and generously
sharing some of his unpublished manuscript with me.
The enjoyment I have had digging through the archives of manuscript libraries
around the United States has been made possible by the patience and expertise of their
staffs. While there have been too many to name here, I am indebted to them all. Special
thanks, however, are due to the Democratic National Committee, the American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations Committee on Political
Education, as well as the National Women’s Political Caucus for granting me permission
to access their records and unprocessed materials. Some of that research was made
possible by a generous dissertation grant from the Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger
Library at Harvard University, as well as various funds made available by York
University’s Faculty of Graduate Studies and Canadian Union of Public Employees Local
3903.
I owe so much to my family. Sadly, my stepmother, a constant source of loving
support in my educational pursuits, is not able to see those pursuits come to fruition.
However, this dissertation bears the mark of the positive influence she left behind. The
members of both my immediate and wider family have been there for me throughout,
providing encouragement and temporary respite from the project when necessary. I am
lucky to have such a large family tree. I hope they excuse me for not namely them all
individually.
I owe the most to my partner Ashlee Wactor. Ashlee has been on the frontlines of
my graduate career, joining me to celebrate my triumphs and consoling me during the
inevitable frustrations. She has borne the brunt of the burdens of having a graduate
vii
student for a partner and I will spend the rest of my life repaying her. As a first act of
gratitude, I dedicate this dissertation to her.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………... ii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………... ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………….xii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………................................xiv
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xv
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1

1. THE NEW POLITICS AND ITS CRITICS…………………………………………. 13
What Was the New Politics Movement? ………………………………………. 17
The Critique of the New Politics……………………………………………….. 20
Party Organization………………………………………………………22
Electoral Performance………………………………………………….. 25
Public Policy Influence…………………………………………………..26
Reformers’ Class Character……………………………………………..27
Assessing the Critique………………………………………………………….. 30
Explaining the Critique…………………………………………………………. 44
Reassessing the New Politics…………………………………………………….49

2. IN THE SHADOW OF STATES’ RIGHTS: DEMOCRATIC PARTY STRUCTURE
AND THE NEW DEAL COALITION……………………………………………… 53
States’ Rights, Class Politics, and National Party Structure……………………. 55
The New Deal Coalition…………………………………………………………64
The Labor-Liberal Alliance…………………………………...…………66
Northern Political Machines……………………………………………. 71
Southern Democratic Party-States……………………………………....76
The Contradictions of the New Deal Coalition…………………………………..83
Civil Rights, Party Federalism, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism………..89
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….99

3. TOWARDS A MORE RESPONSIBLE PARTY? DEMOCRATIC PARTY
FEDERALISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE 1950s AND 1960s…………...........102
The Democratic Advisory Council and the “New Politics” of Principle……….104
Civil Rights or States’ Rights? Mississippi Freedom in Atlantic City………....112
Conclusion: Party Incapacity and the Deferral of Reform…………………...…130
ix
4. THE UNDEMOCRATIC PARTY: ANTIWAR INSURGENCY, PRESIDENTIAL
NOMINATION, AND THE PARTY CRISIS OF 1968………………………….....135
“Dump Johnson”: The Fracturing of Labor-Liberalism…………………..........137
Party Insurgency and the Politics of Presidential Nomination………………....147
Robert Kennedy and the Making of the New Democratic Coalition…...149
Labor, Vietnam, and the Democratic Party……………………….........150
“The Pressure of Legitimacy”……………………………………….....154
The Miscounted McCarthy Campaign: Frustrating the “Democratic
Choice” …………………………………………………………...........156
The Party in Crisis: Chicago………………………………………………........165
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...176

5. “THE CURE FOR THE ILLS OF DEMOCRACY”: OPENNESS,
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE CONTOURS OF PARTY REFORM………….177
No More Chicagos: Diagnosing the Crisis, Defining Reform………………….179
The Party Leadership: “Unity Through Reform”……………………...180
The New Politics Coalition: “Transform the Party”…………………...186
Labor’s Visions of Party Reform……………………………………….190
The New Politics Project: Opening the Party, Strengthening the Party………. 196
Surveying the Grassroots……………………………………………….197
Restricting the “Mandate for Reform”: Prioritizing Delegate
Selection………………………………………........................................205
The Movement-Party Dynamic: Implementing the Mandate from Above
and Below……………………………………………………………......211
Conclusion: The Belated Return to the Problem of Party Structure……………220

6. A “NEW CLASS” STRUGGLE? THE STOP McGOVERN MOVEMENT AND THE
BACKLASH AGAINST REFORM………………………………………………...226
“Come Home, America”: McGovern for President……………………………227
The Old Politics in the New Party……………………………………………..233
The Labor-Left and the New Politics………………………………………….237
The Convention Turned Upside Down……………………………………….. 240
The New Politics of National Party Governance………………………………244
The Credentials Committee and the Stop McGovern Coalition………..245
The Platform Committee and the New Politics’ Social Democratic
Vision………………………...................................................................249
The Rules Committee and the Question of the Party Charter………….256
Stop McGovern versus Labor for McGovern…………………………………264
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….274

x