Finding the Third Way

Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992

Bibliographic Data

ID12178232
AuthorsStephen A Borrelli (University of Alabama, corresponding author)
Year2001
Volume13
Issue4
Pages429-462
Publication date2001-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Policy History (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0898-0306 • E-ISSN: 1528-4190
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1353/jph.2001.0013
OpenAlexW2036950803
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited11

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

Democracy · Divided government · Economics · Government (linguistics · Law and economics · Mandate · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub