Family Policy Past As Prologue: Jimmy Carter,the White House Conference on Families,and the Mobilization of the New Christian Right1

The White House Conference on Families both exemplified the contested nature of “family policy” since the late nineteenth century and inaugurated the latest phase in the venerable invocation of “family values” as a tactic for political mobilization. In 1976 presidential candidate Jimmy Carter proposed a White House Conference on the American Family in order to shore up support among cultural conservatives, especially Roman Catholics. Four years later, after much debate within the Carter administration as well as in the country at large about what constituted a legitimate family, three sessions of a White House Conference on Families were held. Cultural moderates, feminists, gays rights activists, devout Catholics, and evangelical Protestants disagreed vehemently about policies ranging from legalized abortion to family leave. Following a long though little known tradition, women were especially active among grassroots conservatives. Ultimately conservatives mobilized much more effectively than their liberal and moderate opponents, and they quickly made restoration of family values an effective wedge issue for the new Christian right and the Republican party. In many ways, the debate over family policy in the early 21st century still echoes that of the 1970s—or the 1930s or the 1910s.     

Beyond Welfare: Framing and the Racialization of White Opinion on Social Security

In this article I argue that the framing of Social Security in political discourse has associated it symbolically with race. The linkages are subtle and symbolic, and they serve to associate Social Security with whiteness in a mirror image of the association of welfare with blackness. In turn, these associations have racialized white opinion on the program. After discussing the theoretical mechanism by which issue frames can unconsciously associate policies with citizens' racial predispositions, I review the frames surrounding Social Security. Then, drawing on two decades of nationally representative survey data, I demonstrate the racialization of opinion among whites. Using a variety of measures of racial predispositions, I find that racially conservative whites feel more positively about Social Security than do racial liberals. I conclude by considering the implications of these findings for our understanding of racialized politics and for the connections between race, whiteness, and contemporary American politics.     

Manufactured Responsiveness: The Impact of State Electoral Laws on Unified Party Control of the Presidency and House of Representatives, 1840–1940

The modern history of divided government in America suggests that the framers succeeded in creating a government unresponsive to popular passions. Yet in the nineteenth century the party winning the presidency almost always captured control of the House of Representatives. Why and how could nineteenth century national elections be so responsive that they resemble parliamentary outcomes? We identify electoral institutions present in the states that directly linked congressional elections to presidential coattails. Specifically, we estimate the impact of state ballot laws and the strategic design of congressional districts on presidential coattail voting from 1840 to 1940. We find that presidential elections, as mediated by state electoral laws, strongly account for unified party control of the House and the presidency throughout the nineteenth century.     

The White House as a Black Box: Oral History and the Problem of Evidence in Presidential Studies

Scholars who study the American presidency usually have to rely on indirect evidence for understanding the internal operations of the 'black box' that is a contemporaneous White House. Most of the direct evidence about White House behavior becomes available only after a president has left office, when confidential communications are opened to the public by the presidential libraries. In recent years, however, such direct evidence has become increasingly inaccessible, because of changes in the record-keeping habits of senior executive branch officials and because of the politics of archival release. This article explores the nature and extent of these problems, and how elite oral history interviewing can compensate for them. It further examines the strengths and weaknesses of oral history as a means of learning about the usually hidden workings of the American presidency.