Political Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 273–287 | Cite as

Ideology and campaign activity at three levels of government

  • James M. Carlson
  • Barbara Burrell
  • Kathleen Dolan


This article examines the relationship between self-designated political ideology, opinions on twenty-one issues, and campaign activity at local, state, and national levels. The samples examined include delegates to the 1984 Party Conventions in eleven states. Generally, the findings indicate that ideology and issue position are most strongly associated with activity in national campaigns. Among Democrats liberalism is associated with national activity, whereas among Republicans those who are conservative are most active in national campaigns. Some important intraparty differences are found between local campaign activists and national activists. For example, among Democrats local campaign activists are much more conservative than national activists on several issues.


National Level Political Ideology National Activist Campaign Activist Eleven State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck, Paul A., and Jennings, M. Kent (1979). Political periods and political participation.American Political Science Review 73: 737–750.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Paul A., and Jennings, M. Kent (1984). Updating political periods and political participation.American Political Science Review 78: 198–201.Google Scholar
  3. Burrell, Barbara, and Carlson, James M. (1987). Issue Coalitions and Cleavages Among Party Activists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, James, and Burrell, Barbara (1987). A new cleavage in the Democratic Party?: A comparison of Mondale and Hart supporters at the Connecticut State Democratic Convention.Polity 20 (Fall): 101–113.Google Scholar
  5. Crotty, William (1977).Political Reform and the American Experiment. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  6. Crotty, William, and Jackson, John S., III (1985).Presidential Primaries and Nominations. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  7. Finkel, Steven E., and Trevor, Gregory (1986). Reassessing ideological bias in campaign participation.Political Behavior 8: 374–390.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, John S., III, Brown, Barbara Leavitt, and Bositis, David, (1982). Herbert McCloskey and friends revisited: 1980 Democratic and Republican Party elites compared to the mass public.American Politics Quarterly 10: 158–180.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, John S., III (1985). Political Party Leaders and the Mass Public: 1980–1984. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 19, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. Montjoy, Robert S., Shaffer, William R., and Weber, Ronald (1980). Mass and political elite beliefs and the policies of the regime.American Politics Quarterly 8 (July): 319–343.Google Scholar
  11. Nexon, D. (1971). Asymmetry in the political system: Occasional activists in the Republican and Democratic Parties, 1956–1964.American Political Science Review 65: 716–730.Google Scholar
  12. Nie, Norman, Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John (1979).The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ranney, Austin (1975).Curing the Mischiefs of Faction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Shafer, S. D. (1980). The policy bias of political activists.American Politics Quarterly 8 (January): 15–33.Google Scholar
  15. Verba, S., and Nie, N. (1972).Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • James M. Carlson
    • 1
  • Barbara Burrell
    • 2
  • Kathleen Dolan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceProvidence CollegeProvidence
  2. 2.Boston UniversityUSA
  3. 3.University of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations