Showing papers on "Nomination published in 1974"
TL;DR: Oligarchy may be defined as the possession and exercise of power by a few individuals either directly, as a consequence of holding the important political offices, or indirectly, through controlling recruitment of officeholders and influencing their decisions.
Abstract: The resurgence of oligarchies in England's provincial towns during the fifteenth century and their firm control over almost all aspects of civic life during the sixteenth century has received considerable attention and is apparently beyond dispute. The characteristic feature of this oligarchical control was the domination of the important civic offices by urban dynasties whose members practiced the most influential and lucrative trades, were the most affluent citizens, and were linked by close family ties. Comparatively few studies have been made of officeholders of the seventeenth century, especially for the period after 1660, yet the evidence so far accumulated suggests that officeholding remained the exclusive privilege of a closed social elite. Nevertheless, Norwich may provide an instructive exception. An examination of the pool of men eligible for political office in Norwich, the largest provincial capital, indicates that the door to political office was open to men of diverse social backgrounds and occupations to a greater extent than during the sixteenth century and apparently much more so than in the other large provincial capitals.Oligarchy may be defined as the possession and exercise of power by a few individuals either directly, as a consequence of holding the important political offices, or indirectly, as a consequence of controlling recruitment of officeholders and influencing their decisions. In the former case, which was the general pattern establishsed in those fifteenth and sixteenth-century towns which remained free from the intervention of territorial magnates, oligarchy implies further that the magistrates have either the exclusive privilege of appointing their own replacements or the ability to manipulate the mechanism of political recruitment involving a wider electorate through control of the processes of nomination and election of officeholders.
26 citations
TL;DR: The authors conducted an historical review of the period involved and a content analysis of the speeches, identifying some of the principal rhetorical traditions surrounding such speeches, and identified the most important rhetorical traditions associated with acceptance speeches.
Abstract: Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speeches have become part of American tradition. Beginning as relatively unimportant supplements to letters of acceptance, the speeches have evolved into major political addresses. After conducting both an historical review of the period involved—1832‐1972—and a content analysis of the speeches, the author identifies some of the principal rhetorical traditions surrounding such speeches.
11 citations
Book•
1 Jan 1974
7 citations
TL;DR: Gelb as discussed by the authors provides a case study of Basil Paterson's success in winning the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of New York in 1970 and his failure to gain election (over a ticket headed by Governor Rockefeller).
Abstract: How do blacks win state and local nominations and elections? Professor Gelb provides a case study of Basil Paterson's success in winning the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of New York in 1970 and his failure to gain election (over a ticket headed by Governor Rockefeller). She also analyzes other recent black candidacies. The conclusions do not write off black candidacies as hopeless victims of white racism, but suggest the need for hard political work of the traditional sort. In sum, this paper contributes to our understanding of the bases for black electoral success.
1 citations
TL;DR: Wallace and Williams as discussed by the authors were nominated to head the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Senate rejected the Wallace and Williams Nominations by a decisive margin of fifty-two to thirty-six, the worst defeat since FDR took office on March 4, 1933.
Abstract: IN January 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt provoked two of the toughest battles of his presidency when he nominated Henry A. Wallace to be secretary of commerce and Aubrey W. Williams to head the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). The Wallace fight he eventually won, but only after the office had been shorn of a good deal of the power which the former incumbent, Jesse Jones, had held.' The Williams struggle, however, was lost. On March 23, 1945, the Senate rejected the nomination by the decisive margin of fifty-two to thirty-six, "the worst defeat," said the New York Herald Tribune, tMr. Roosevelt has experienced on a nomination since he took office on March 4, 1933."2 Barely two weeks later the President was dead, and the implications of this battle soon became lost in the wake of the far wider tragedy. They deserve to be looked at now, however. The Williams fight throws light on important aspects of domestic politics during World War II. Some insights can be gained from it, too, as to Roosevelt's postwar intentions. Moreover, it reveals the continuing strength in the Senate of the conservative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans-a coalition that slowed the pace of the New Deal in the 1930s, dominated the political spectrum during the war, and reacted fiercely in 1945 to any hint of a liberal revival. Indeed, the future of the New Deal was the central issue in
1 citations
TL;DR: For example, this paper conducted an extensive analysis of how Democratic and Republican delegates differed in their perceptions concerning the party as a political institution, based on demographic social and political data which were available for the 1972 delegations.
Abstract: JN 1965, Aaron Wildavsky examined what he termed ;. .. the great mystery of American politics. . ." the nomination of Senator Barry Goldwater as the Republican presidential candidate, with the accompanying disastrous consequences for the party.' He concluded that ".. . the Goldwater phenomenon, which once seemed so strange, may become a persistent feature of the American political scene, nonetheless disturbing because it reappears under different ideological guises."2 Spared such an occurrence in 1968, it may be that the American political system was merely given a respite until 1972. The temptation to draw parallels between the 1964 and 1972 elections (and the accompanying agony of the Republican and Democratic parties in those years) is great; and, it may well be that there is a common basis for the Goldwater and McGovern phenomena. On both occasions, the electorally suffering party experienced an influx to its national convention of delegates who were political novices, "amateurs," ideological "purists."3 In the larger study from which data for this research note are drawn,4 attention is directed to identifying relevant dimensions of what is termed a "perception of party" along which party activists fall. As a preliminary to an extensive analysis of how Democratic and Republican delegates differed in their perceptions concerning the party as a political institution, an analysis was conducted of certain demographic social and political data which were available for the 1972 delegations. The purpose of this analysis was to develop a descriptive chapter on the characteristics of the delegates who responded to a survey. In addition to supplying useful background data for the larger study, however, these demographic social and political data also provide a rare opportunity to examine differences in the characteristics of delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.5 While such differences are widely assumed to
1 citations
TL;DR: Lionel as discussed by the authors used arrangement, argument, and style to associate self and party with the founding fathers and to dissociate self-and party from his chief rivals, and after an extensive attack upon Douglas created a mock debate with the South and appeals for Republican unity.
Abstract: Seeking the presidential nomination, Lincoln attempts to ingratiate himself with a Republican audience, and after an extensive attack upon Douglas, he creates a mock debate with the South and appeals for Republican unity. Each section features controlled argument, builds in intensity, and rests upon an association between Republican and the founding fathers, Lincoln using arrangement, argument, and style to associate self and party with the fathers and to dissociate self and party from his chief rivals.