i suggested in post that i sent yesterday that such comparisons aren't much use, in any event...
liberal house dems created democratic study group (dsg) following '58 congressional elections that ushered threescore first-term dems into office, dsg types were mid-century/post ww2 'new-style' pols: self-chosen, little party background/experience, disapproving of old-style bossism/leaders/traditions/rules...
rationale for dsg was to mobilize liberal dem reps for internal/ structural house reform, in '65, there were about 160 members identified with dsg, thus, there were about 160 *liberals* in house...
dems had almost 300 house members at the time, party had approximately 2-1 margin over reps following '64 election, so if 160 were *liberal* (and some of that number would be better characterized as moderate), about 100 dem house members were dixiecrats with seniority and consequent influence/power, about forty were moderates...
prior to '64 election, 150 or so house dems who voted for civil rights act were largely dsg members, almost as many rep party house members voted for bill (rep moderate was not unusual at the time, even - *lions, and tigers and bears, oh my!* - liberal rep could be found from time to time),
dsg is good example of modern liberal dilemma: dsg members hated seniority rule (for self-interest reasons, if nothing else), but system was taken for granted, good number of house members assumed it was part of house rules rather than convention, one study found that some congressional members even thought seniority was constitutionally mandated, so dsg tried tip-toeing around seniority even as collision with dixiecrats was unavoidable (dsg did do some pretty nifty research in late 60s/early 70s showing that dixiecrat committee chairs voted with rep party more than they did with dems), now folks can argue pro-con re. seniority as a principle, but, fact of matter is that house rep members eventually took lead in ending absolutism of its practice...
post-watergate 'class' of '75 included about 50 first-term house dems, while this new group of dems was considered *liberal* (once again, moderate is probably more accurate for many), their principle focus was, as it had been for immediate predecessors, internal reform, if anything, there were even more 'new-style' politicos of kind noted above...
at this point - mid '70s - vast majority of house dems actually identified with dsg, however, *liberal* dem members who felt little compulsion to vote with leadership per se were same dem members who criticized leaders for allowing party disunity...
dem party was in dissarray without full-frontal institutional assault on dixiecrats ever occurring because of realigning electoral base and changing demographic, today, party polarization/'party line' votes is higher than it has been in decades, a product, largely, of changes in southern states and growing economic inequality...
doesn't take poli sci person to have sense that liberal voting today is more likely by congressional members from urban, lower-income, largely non-white districts, conservative voting is more likely by members from higher-income, largely white districts (interested listers can, however, check out mainstream poli sci guys jeff stonecash, mark brewer, and mack mariani, _diverging parties: social change, realignment, and party polarization_ for confirmation of this circumstance), therefore, realignment has dems representing urban, lower-income, heavily non-white districts, republicans are more likely to come from suburban-rural, more affluent, white districts...
as for prez elections, about 80% of top third income earners vote, about 60% of middle income earners do, but only about 40% of bottom third income earners, advantage to party willing to play class politics... michael hoover
-------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.