Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:49:57.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Publicity Division of the Democratic Party, 1929–30

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Thomas S. Barclay
Thomas S. Barclay*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Observers of the American political system have long recognized the difficult position of the opposition party as an effective critic of the legislative and executive policies of the party in power, especially in the interval between campaigns. Our constitutional practices result in the nomination of “available” men for the presidency, and in the rather complete elimination of the defeated candidate from a position of acknowledged party leadership. The methods and traditions which govern and control the procedure of Congress are hardly adapted to produce party leaders who can speak authoritatively for the minority. It is rare that the party out of power is cohesive, united, and ready to present and support an alternative program. It is decidedly difficult, under normal conditions, to arouse public interest in the minority's position, save in the period which precedes an election. On the other hand, because of the great prestige attaching to the presidential office, and because of the elaborate methods of favorable publicity so highly developed by recent chief executives, the party in power is able to direct continuous attention to its policies and program.

The question of effective minority opposition concerns chiefly the Democratic party, since it seems probable that it will remain, for the most part, in the position of an opposition party. The lack of funds adequately to finance campaigns and the relatively insignificant press support given to the Democracy are factors which accentuate the difficulty.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 1931 , pp. 68 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There is a concise summary of the present party situation, especially the lack of party responsibility and the reasons therefor, by Rogers, Lindsay, in “Problems of Party Responsibility,” in The Future of Party Government (1929), pp. 79–84Google Scholar.

2 His statement is in the New York Times, November 14, 1928. In a subsequent radio address he declared that “it has been the habit of the Democratic party to function only six months in every four years.” Ibid., January 17, 1929.

3 The Executive Committee announced by Mr. Raskob on May 1, 1929, should not be confused with a committee of similar name which functioned in the campaign of 1928.

4 On June 10, 1929, he said to the Jefferson Association of Washington that “what we propose to set up here is a business-like national headquarters that will function continuously … for the education of the people as to what is taking place in the conduct of their government by the party now in power ….”

5 From July, 1929, to January, 1930, 196 statements were made public; from January to September, 1930, 210. No statements issued after the latter date were considered, it being assumed that the campaign of 1930 had then commenced.

6 Kent, Frank R., long an admirer of Mr.Hoover, , has discussed the question in “Charley Michelson,” in Scribner's Mag., September, 1930, pp. 290–296Google Scholar. The article was reprinted as a Republican campaign document for the 1930 elections. See also McKee, Oliver Jr., “Publicity Chiefs,” North American Review, October, 1930, pp. 411–418Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.